Thursday, November 6, 2008

Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?

Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or
Scientifically Warranted?
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 4
Winter 2007

Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D.

"...As already
noted, from the very beginning defenders of the mainstream
consensus have steadily declined, indeed specifically refused to
engage in substantive discussion.
We will not:
Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS
denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly supportAIDS denialist causes. The reasons are:
1. The debate has been settled: HIVcausesAIDS….
2. The information proving the above is already in the
peer-reviewed science literature….
3. Our time is better spent conducting research into
HIV/AIDS and/or educating the general public…."

"...The HIV =AIDS believers insist that the mainstream consensus
is so overwhelming that dissentersmust bewrong. History of science
is not kind to this argument. As scientific understanding has
advanced, sooner or later the most firmly held mainstream views
have been modified, indeed often overturned completely. Near the
end of the 19 century it was the consensus that all the major
discoveries had already been made—just before the Second
Scientific Revolution turned on their heads the firmly held beliefs
about atoms and much else. Medical science firmly believed that
schizophrenia could be cured by infecting the sufferer with malaria
(Nobel Prize, 1927) or by cutting out bits of brain (Nobel Prize, 1949)
before settling—for themoment?—on drugs.Diseases like mad cow
disease were firmly believed to be caused by lentiviruses (Nobel
Prize, 1976) until the firm belief became that they are caused not by
viruses but by prions (Nobel Prize, 1997). The proper, historically
informed questions to ask are:How likely is it that HIV/AIDS theory
will be significantly modified at some future time? What is likely to
stimulate modification?When is that likely to happen?..."

No comments: