HIV and AIDS: Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility

HIV AND AIDS

Raising questions about the view that "HIV is the cause of AIDS",
and proposing alternative hypotheses (e.g. that drug use may be
causing certain diseases under certain circumstances) has sometimes
been interpreted as "doing a grave disservice to the American people"
or "having potentially serious adverse public health consequences".
The scientists who have proposed such alternatives have sometimes
been called "flat earthers". However, in light of the possibility that
the use of certain drugs and not HIV is causing certain diseases (e.g.
Kaposi's sarcoma), I conclude that not warning people about this
potential danger is doing them a grave disservice, and may be having
serious adverse public health consequences.
For a decade, billions of dollars have been spent investigating HIV as
a cause of diseases lumped together under the name "AIDS", without
success. At the same time, proposals for funding research on other
possible causes have been rejected. A conclusion summarizing objections
to the established view was expressed by a scientist at a conference of
the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science in San Francisco on 21 June 1994: "AIDS will never be cured
until we cure the research."
I shall also give examples of the way the scientific community and
the public at large are not properly informed. I shall give examples
how information has not come from the official scientific press, but from
other sources, e.g. SPIN, the London Sunday Times, the California
Monthly (UC Berkeley Alumni Magazine), and the electronic nets,
which sometimes constitute a contemporary form of samidzat. Thus the
scientific questions which have been raised about the established view
concerning HIV as "the cause of AIDS" set the stage to study how
misinformation is spread and accepted uncritically, which is a major
issue in its own right. The mainstream and official scientific press
have promoted the official view about AIDS, mostly uncritically.
When the official scientific press does not report correctly, or obstructs
views dissenting from those of the scientific establishment, it loses
credibility and leaves no alternative but to find information elsewhere.
Thus we find at least two consequences when the scientific
establishment strays from the strict, classical, scientific standards of
evidence, and obstructs dissent from an official line: some people may
not be warned of practices which may be dangerous to their health, and
the public loses trust in the scientific establishment.

1