ニセ科学「AIDS再評価運動」について専門家向けに語るDr. Tara C Smith (2)


Smith TC, Novella SP (2007) HIV Denial in the Internet Era. PLoS Med 4(8): e256 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256 [Link] (2007/08/21)


Conspiracy Theories and Selective Distrust of Scientific Authority

That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what's right” [10]. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness” [17].

HIVがAIDSの主因であることは、20年以上の確固たる研究に基づいて、科学界で強いコンセンサスを得られている。従って、HIV否定論者は、一般に科学的権威の見解を中傷したり、HIV研究者たちの主流が知的に信頼できないと論じたりして、このコンセンサスを否定する。HIV否定論の新しい文献が、科学と医学の権威と学界への基本的不信を反映しているのも驚くことではない。Christine Maggioreは自著で父Robertに「権威を疑い、正しいことを支持することを教えてくれた」と感謝している[10]。同様に数学モデル研究者で、HIV否定論者Dr. Rebecca Culshawは「『みんなが真理だと認めている以外に理由がないなら、それを信じてはいけない』と、若いころから両親に教えられて育った私は、何もせずに狂気に手を貸すようなことはできない」と述べた[17]。

Distrusting mainstream medical practitioners, many HIV deniers turn to “alternative” medicine in search of treatment. One such practitioner, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, suggests that “toxins” and drug use, rather than HIV, cause AIDS [18]. Dr Al-Bayati personally profits from his HIV denialism: for $100 per hour, Al-Bayati will consult “on health issues related to AIDS, adverse reactions to vaccines and medications, exposure to chemicals in the home, environment or workplace” (http://www.toxi-health.com/). Similarly, German vitamin supplier and HIV denier Matthias Rath not only pushed his vitamins as a treatment for AIDS [19], but his spokesman refused to be interviewed by Nature Medicine about the case because he claimed the journal is “funded to the hilt with drug money” [20].

多くのHIV否定論者たちは、主流の医師たちを疑い、治療法を"代替医療"に求める。そのような実践者のひとりDr. Mohammed Al-Bayatiは、HIVではなく毒物と薬物の使用がAIDSを引き起こすと示唆する[18]。Dr. Al-BayatiはHIV否定論によって個人的利益を得ている。Al-Bayatiは「AIDSや、ワクチンと薬物に対する副反応、住宅や職場や環境中の化学物質に関する健康問題」について、100ドル/時間で相談に応じている。同様にドイツのビタミン剤業者でHIV否定論者Matthias Rathは、AIDS治療薬として自分のビタミン剤を推奨し[19]、"Nature Medicine"誌のインタビューを、その雑誌が薬物売買のお金で運営されていると主張して、拒否した[20]。

Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo [15]. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.


[10] Maggiore C (1997) What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? Studio City (CA): Health Education AIDS Liaison. 126 p.
[15] Farber C (2006) Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science. Harper's Magazine. Available: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[17] Culshaw R (2006) Why I quit HIV. Available: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[18] Al-Bayati M (1999) Get all the facts: HIV does not cause AIDS Dixon (CA): Toxi-Health International. 200 p.
[19] Dr. Rath Health Foundation (2005) The end of the AIDS epidemic is in sight!. Available: http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/press_release20050615.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[20] Watson J (2006) Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS ‘denialists’ Nat Med 12: 6. Find this article online



Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma

Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma [21]. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore's book [10] remarked,


Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion [22].

Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg's career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence [23]. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!” [1].

HIV否定論者は、自らを、誤って導かれてひどく根深い信念を分析するために働いている懐疑論者として表現する。彼らは、主流科学者が科学的「正説」に対して反対意見を述べると、しいたげられ、解雇されると主張する。たとえば、HIV否定論者は、Peter DuesbergがHIVがAIDSの原因だという説に反対意見を述べたことで、反体制であるが故に、無視され、信用を失って、そのキャリアを失った強調する[23]。南アフリカのMeki大統領はさらに進んで「人類の歴史の初期には、これら反体制派は、焼き殺すべき異教徒だった」とまで述べる[1]。

HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called “alternative” theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions - for example, creationist challenges to evolution. Further, as HIV denial can plausibly reduce compliance with safe sex practices and anti-HIV drugs, potentially costing lives, this motivates the scientific and health care communities to exclude HIV denial from any public forum. (As one editorial has bluntly phrased it, HIV denial is “deadly quackery”) [24]. Because HIV denial is not scientifically legitimate, such exclusion is justified, but it further fuels the deniers' claims of oppression.


[1] Sidley P (2000) Mbeki appoints team to look at cause of AIDS. BMJ 320: 1291. Find this article online
[10] Maggiore C (1997) What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? Studio City (CA): Health Education AIDS Liaison. 126 p.
[21] Wright M (2000) The contradictions and paradoxes of AIDS orthodoxy. Available: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mwparadox.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[22] Clerc O (2001) Modern medicine: A neo-Christian religion. The hidden influence of beliefs and fears. Continuum Magazine. Available: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/continuum/article3.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[23] Duesberg P (1995) Infectious AIDS: Have we been misled? Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
[24] Moore J, Nattrass N (2006) Deadly quackery. The New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/opinion/04moore.html. Accessed 17 July 2007.


Expert Opinion and the Promise of Forthcoming Scientific Acceptance

Although the HIV deniers condemn scientific authority and consensus, they have nevertheless worked to assemble their own lists of scientists and other professionals who support their ideas. As a result, the deniers claim that they are just on the cusp of broader acceptance in the scientific community and that they remain an underdog due to the “established orthodoxy” represented by scientists who believe that HIV causes AIDS.


In an effort to support its claim that an increasing number of scientists do not believe that HIV causes AIDS, Reappraising AIDS has published a list of signatories agreeing to the following statement:

数多くの科学者がHIVはAIDSの原因だとは思っていないという主張を裏付けるために、HIV否定論グループ"Reappraising AIDS"は、以下の声明に同意した署名者リストを公表している:

“It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group [of] diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken” [25].


These signatories do not, however, suggest who the “suitable independent” group should be, since, presumably, many scientists have already been “indoctrinated” into believing that HIV causes AIDS. (Indeed, many of the signatories to this statement lack any qualifications in virology, epidemiology, or even basic biology.) They also ignore thousands of epidemiological studies that have already been published in the scientific literature. And the signatories fail to provide a convincing case that there is widespread acceptance in the scientific community for their marginal position.


Nevertheless, Farber wrote in a 1992 article that “more and more scientists are beginning to question the hypothesis that HIV single-handedly creates the chaos in the immune system that leads to AIDS” [26]. Similarly, a March 2006 article appearing on the AIDS denial Web site “New AIDS Review” claims that, in reference to the theory that HIV causes AIDS: “…the fabric of this theoretical mantle is threadbare to the point of disintegration” [27]. Mainstream scientists, of course, do not believe in the imminent demise of the HIV theory; instead they continue to produce novel research on preventing and treating HIV and publish thousands of papers every year on the topic.

それでも、Farberは1992年に「ますます多くの科学者が、HIVが単独でAIDSにつながる免疫系の混乱を引き起こすという仮説を疑い始めている」と書いている[26]。同様に2006年3月にHIV否定論サイト"New AIDS Revire"に出現した記事で、HIVがAIDSの原因だという理論を指して「この理論の枠組みは崩壊寸前である」と書いている[27]。主流の科学者はもちろん、HIV理論の終焉が差し迫っているとは考えていない。主流の科学者たちは引き続き、HIVの抑止と治療のための新たな研究を続け、毎年幾千の論文を発表している。

Further, deniers exploit the sense of fair play present in most scientists, and also in the general public, especially in open and democratic societies. Calling for a fair discussion of dissenting views, independent analysis of evidence, and openness to alternatives is likely to garner support, regardless of the context. But it is misleading for the HIV denial movement to suggest that there is any real doubt about the cause of AIDS.


[25] [No authors listed] (1993) List of scientists skeptical of HIV causation of AIDS. Available: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[26] Farber C (1992) Fatal distraction. Spin Magazine. Available: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cffatal.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.
[27] [No authors listed] (2006) Harpers astonishes the world with the extent of AIDS skulduggery. Available: http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/harpers-astonishes-the-world-with-the-extent-of-aids-skulduggery.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.


The 2,483 doubters:
Additions from the last three months are shown in red, those who signed a petition questioning the hypothesis that Hiv causes Aids in blue and recent additions who are also petition signers in purple. Some of the people below question only key parts of the Hiv theory, not all of it. Limitations on their beliefs are shown in brackets.

また、このリストには、インテリジェントデザイン運動の父たるPhillip Johnsonや、進化論破壊を誓った統一教会信者Jonathan C. Wellsも含まれている。


  • A. Matsumoto. Professor of Management, Tokyo, Japan
  • Shinnichi Miyamoto. Chemist, Hyogo, Japan
  • Masahiko Satou. Medical Science Journalist, Sapporo, Japan


Pushing Back the Goalpost

Of all the characteristics of deniers, repeatedly nudging back the goalpost - or the threshold of evidence required for acceptance of a theory - is often the most telling. The strategy behind goalpost-moving is simple: always demand more evidence than can currently be provided. If the evidence is then provided at a later date, simply change the demand to require even more evidence, or refuse to accept the kind of evidence that is being offered.

ゴールポストを後ろへ持っていくこと、あるいは理論を受け入れるために必要な証拠の基準を引き上げていくことは、あらゆる否定論者にしばしば見られる行為である。「ゴールポストを後ろへ持っていく」の背後にある戦略は単純だ。-- 現時点で提示されている証拠よりも、もっと億の証拠が必要だ。もし、将来にその証拠が提示されたら、さらに証拠の必要性を引き上げるか、提示された証拠を認めないか。

In the 1980s, HIV deniers argued that drug therapy for AIDS was ineffective, did not significantly prolong survival, and in fact was toxic and damaged the immune system [28]. However, after the introduction of a cocktail of newer and more effective agents in the 1990s, survival rates did impressively increase [29]. HIV deniers no longer accept this criterion as evidence for drug effectiveness, and therefore the HIV theory of AIDS. Even stacks of papers and books published on the subject are not enough. Christine Maggiore writes in her book, “Since 1984, more than 100,000 papers have been published on HIV. None of these papers, singly or collectively, has been able to reasonably demonstrate or effectively prove that HIV can cause AIDS” [10].

1980年代に、HIV否定論者は、AIDS治療薬に効果がなく、目だって生存率を高めることがなく、実際には毒物であって、免疫系に損傷を与えたと主張した[28]。しかし、1990年代には効果的な治療薬混合剤が導入され、生存率は劇的に向上した[29]。そうすると、HIV否定論者は、この生存率を治療薬の効果の基準、すなわちHIVはAIDSの原因だという理論を受け入れる基準としては認めなくなった。HIV問題についての論文や本の山も十分ではない。Christine Maggioreは「1984年以来、10万本の論文がHIVについて発表された。しかし、どの論文も単独もしくは複数組合せでも、合理的もしは効果的にHIVがAIDSの原因となりうることを証明できていない」と書いている[10]。

HIV deniers also arbitrarily reject categories of evidence, even though they are generally accepted across scientific disciplines. For example, they deny inferential evidence that HIV causes AIDS, including data examining the closely related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in genomic and animal studies [30]. Likewise they reject correlation as insufficient to establish causation [28]. However, multiple independent correlations pointing to the same causation - in this case that HIV causes AIDS - is a legitimate and generally accepted form of epidemiological evidence used to establish causation. The same type of evidence, for example, has been used to establish that smoking causes certain types of lung cancer.


[10] Maggiore C (1997) What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? Studio City (CA): Health Education AIDS Liaison. 126 p.
[28] Duesberg P (1989) Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86: 755?764. Find this article online
[29] Holtgrave D (2005) Causes of the decline in AIDS deaths, United States, 1995?2002: prevention, treatment or both? Int J STD AIDS 16: 777?781. Find this article online
[30] Harrison-Chirimuuta R (1997) Is AIDS African? Available: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rcdisson.htm. Accessed 17 July 2007.


What Are Their Alternatives?

After so much criticism levied upon the prevailing theories by deniers, one might think they would have something to offer to replace HIV as the cause of AIDS. However, the alternatives they offer are much more speculative than the mainstream theories they decry as lacking evidence. Further, their arguments amount to little more than another logical fallacy, the false dichotomy: they assume that overturning the prevailing theory will prove their theory correct, by default.


Interestingly, alternative hypotheses for AIDS causation depend on where the patient lives. In Africa, HIV deniers attribute AIDS to a combination of malnutrition and poor sanitation, i.e., they believe that AIDS is simply a relabeling of old diseases. In America and other wealthy countries, they claim AIDS is caused by drug use and promiscuity. Duesberg has long been an advocate of the idea that the use of “poppers,” or amyl nitrate, is a cause of AIDS in the gay community [31]. With the identification of AIDS in individuals who have never used poppers, this hypothesis has been widened by HIV deniers to implicate a number of recreational drugs (cocaine, crack, heroin, methamphetamines) as well as prescription drugs such as antibiotics and steroids in the etiology of AIDS. HIV deniers have criticized the idea that immunosuppression due to infection with HIV could result in all of the different infections that characterize AIDS, and yet they support the idea that poppers or other drugs - including many that have not been shown to cause severe immune deficiencies - could cause AIDS. In the past decade, the very drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS have come under fire by HIV deniers, who have suggested that the medicines themselves are a cause of AIDS (http://www.aliveandwell.org/) .


[31] Duesberg P (1992) AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors. Pharmacol Ther 55: 201?277. Find this article online
「誤った2分法(false dichotomy)」とは、

  • ある問題に対する解が、主流理論と自分たちの理論しかない
  • 主流理論は間違っている
  • 従って、自分たちの理論が正しい





タグ:HIV denialism
posted by Kumicit at 2007/09/01 01:23 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Others | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]