MySpace a place for friends

Book indexer (yes, the Laura in that essay is me), musician (synth and theremin, most recently of the alas-imploded Novellas), born synesthete, perennial dabbler, premature/late bloomer, inveterate lie-abed, lifelong secret science geek*. I was born on Friday the 13th, 1957, the same day as Steve Buscemi. I invented a language when I was about ten but it didn't catch on and I threw away the dictionary for it. I work freelance at home, reading books, being a recluse and taking an afternoon nap with my three cats. I have more teacups, teapots, and vintage aprons than one girl needs to have. I've appeared in National Geographic without having to take part in any tedious polar expeditions. I have the world's worst sense of direction. I can't drive a car and don't want to. The only Beatle I like is Stuart Sutcliffe. My Inner European is Russian, my Rock Star Name is Lux Velveteen, my Star Trek Personality is Seven of Nine, and my Edward Gorey Death is

* "Things of Science" were the coolest!

AIDS: An Open Letter to Annie Lennox

Dear Ms. Lennox:

I have always been a huge fan of yours. And I have long admired your commitment to social issues and organisations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International. You are obviously a thoughtful, caring, and passionate woman. But I now find myself differing with you on the AIDS issue, and I really need to, well, "let my voice be heard". I hope you will not dismiss my letter out of hand, or be offended. I hope you will take the time to hear what I have to say, and read the articles in my blog posts. I do think that if one is going to campaign for the implementation of AIDS drug programs in Africa one should have an intimate understanding of not only the positive claims made for such programs, but also the reasoning and evidence behind the views of those who have serious doubts and concerns about them, and I'm just wondering how much you've read on that side of things, and if you've engaged in discussion with anyone who holds an alternative viewpoint.

President Mbeki has been represented in the press as having been rather inexplicably and foolishly swayed by a supposedly small group of "AIDS denialists" into holding their "unorthodox" views. As I see it he is a highly intelligent man who prudently chose to investigate the claims made by governmental agencies and pharmaceutical companies before subjecting his people to drugs whose efficacy many consider unproven, and whose toxicity is a major concern. Pregnant women are warned about the dangers of having an alcoholic drink, or even coffee, yet toxic drugs are being pressed upon pregnant women and their infants. In the U.S. and Canada, women are forced to choose between administering these drugs to their children or losing their children to state custody. I believe that people have a right to question whether these drugs are necessary and whether their supposed benefits outweigh their considerable risks.

A popular misconception about so-called denialists is that raising such questions is an insult to people who have died and an affront to all of those who, like yourself, care passionately and work very hard to make a difference in the world. Please believe me, this is not the case.

The term "denialist" is itself incredibly pejorative, with its immediate and obvious correlation with Holocaust denialists. In contrast, the HIV/AIDS establishment is referred to in the press as "the scientific community", as if those scientists and medical doctors who have come over the years to question the HIV hypothesis are somehow no longer qualified to be scientists or to take part in such a community.

And, contrary to the picture painted by the mainstream media, AIDS dissidents, or rethinkers, are not some sort of fringe group but number in the thousands of individuals. They do not deny that people are suffering from compromised immune systems and serious health problems. But they do consider the research claiming HIV as the culprit seriously flawed, and ask that the HIV/AIDS community address the gaps and contradictions in this research, as well as the massive conflicts of interest involved. The orthodoxy typically responds to such questions with hostility, arrogance, and censorship, none of which have any place in science.

Sounding more like Nikita Khrushchev than a rational scientist, AIDS researcher John P. Moore (who receives grants from pharmaceutical companies) wrote in an email to Michael Geiger of HEAL San Diego (a nonprofit organisation which educates the public about alternative and holistic approaches to defining and treating AIDS): "This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly."

And here is AIDS researcher Mark Wainberg as recorded in the film The Other Side of AIDS:

"MARK WAINBERG: As far as I'm concerned … those who attempt to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS are perpetrators of death. And I would very much for one like to see the Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like Peter Duesberg belong in jail. Someone who would perpetrate the notion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is perhaps motivated by sentiments of pure evil, that such a person may perhaps really want millions of people in Africa and elsewhere to become infected by this virus and go on to die of it. And, who knows, maybe there's a hidden agenda behind the thoughts of a madman. Maybe all psychopaths everywhere have ways of getting their views across that are sometimes camouflaged in subterfuge. But I suggest to you that Peter Duesberg is probably the closest thing we have in this world to a scientific psychopath.

ROBIN SCOVILL: There are a lot of other scientists that raise the challenges that he raises.

MARK WAINBERG: And now the interview is finished."

You are of course familiar with Professor Duesberg, the pioneering retrovirologist and cancer researcher. Since voicing his uncomfortable theories about HIV the government has rejected all of his AIDS research grant applications and he has been effectively blacklisted. He still teaches at the University of California at Berkeley, but students are warned that studying under him will be hazardous to their careers. Meanwhile, Dr. Wainberg has been enjoying generous grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Roche, and Pfizer.

I wonder what the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman would make of this business of science were he still around. It would seem that "the pleasure of finding things out" (the title of one of his books) has been replaced by "the relief of having one's funding renewed."

I assume you have read Celia Farber's "Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science", which appeared in Harper's, and the rebuttal document (which was endorsed by the TAC) which circulated after its publication. Following this, the Rethinking AIDS organisation in turn issued its rebuttal, which you may not have read. The response to this document from AIDSTruth.org was, "We have looked over the AIDS denialists' response. It is characteristically superficial and silly, further exposing the Rethinking AIDS group's misunderstanding of the science of HIV/AIDS. We will not be responding further to it."

When a scientific theory is correct it has predictive value. None of the predictions based on the HIV/AIDS theory have come to pass, and in June of 2008 WHO admitted that there would be no heterosexual AIDS epidemic outside of Africa, despite the frequent redefinitions and additions to what constitutes “AIDS", now a motley collection of around 29 previously-known and unrelated conditions, as well as an arbitrarily-defined “low” T-cell count and a “positive” HIV test in individuals who present no illness.

And what of Africa? Here we have a completely different epidemiologic profile as well as a different standard for diagnosis: under the Bangui definition, AIDS in Africa can be diagnosed without an HIV test, on the basis of symptoms such as diarrhea, cough, fever, and itching – all indistinguishable from the poverty-caused conditions which have plagued that continent for decades. When HIV tests are administered, conclusions are compromised by the fact that diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis are known to cause positive reactions on these tests, as does pregnancy.

And I have to say that when I read news articles about HIV I am constantly struck by the frequency of phrases such as "scientists are puzzled"; "it is not known how"; "it is thought that", etc. The virus convicted of the crime of the century has been described as 'wily,' 'mysterious,' and 'uncanny,' capable of mutating constantly and hiding out for decades. And, despite Margaret Heckler's assurance back in 1984 that a vaccine was just around the corner, the recent HIV vaccine trials have been a stunning failure ("Perplexing Results of Failed HIV Vaccine Grow More Puzzling"). Something is clearly wrong here, whether it's the original hypothesis, or the methodology by which HIV is studied. But questioning any aspect of the monolithic AIDS industry is regarded as unspeakable heresy.

This is not a good thing. As Dr. Duesberg has said, "We need give and take of different opinions. Progress in science was never dictated from the top, it was generated by the exchange of different views, in fact by arguments. Arguments are necessary for science, necessary for progress."

I can't address the current state of affairs any more eloquently than has Christine Maggiore of Alive & Well:

"Questioning is healthy. Questioning is what leads to answers. Science, research, investigation of any kind begins with questions. And when we restrict where those questions can go, who can ask them and under what circumstances, we're restricting progress and knowledge. And when we're looking for answers to a problem that is unresolved, that has caused tremendous human suffering on many levels, lives being lost, lives being forever changed, you know, people commit suicide, have abortions, break up relationships, give up careers and all kinds of things based on the idea that HIV causes AIDS, we have the right to question this. Questioning is a good thing. And we should be joining hands. There shouldn't be this my side/your side. We should be joining hands, the, you know, so-called mainstream AIDS organizations with the so-called alternative AIDS organizations like ours, in an effort to explain the anomalies, to fill in the gaping holes in our knowledge, and to embrace what we don't understand in order to come to some answers and solutions that can truly be of help to people."

Ms. Lennox – it is my hope that it is someone like yourself who can foster this sort of bridge, this kind of understanding, this joining of hands.

My very best regards,

Laura Ogar