HINDRANCES TO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS and the FAILINGS OF

HINDRANCES TO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS and the FAILINGS OF HIV/AIDS THEORY Rethinking AIDS Conference Vienna, July 2010 Henry Bauer hhbauer@vt. edu www. henryhbauer. homestead. com

A SCIENTIFIC AGE POPULAR BELIEF This is “a scientific age” --- “Science” is authoritative “The scientific method” produces objective facts “scientific tests have shown. . . ”, not just ordinary tests ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES “The scientific method” is a myth, or ideal, not actual practice “Scientific” tests must be interpreted by human beings Philosophy: “facts are theory-laden” Interpretations are always biased by the Zeitgeist the contemporary mainstream Weltanschauung:

THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS Advances in science are modifications of earlier views OR COMPLETE REJECTION of earlier views in so-called “scientific revolutions”

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE POPULAR BELIEF Science progresses steadily by breakthroughs, “scientific revolutions”: atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, relativity ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES Major advances are always resisted “Revolutions” may be milestones of progress but they are also GRAVESTONES OF PREVIOUS THEORIES Research tries to build further on what’s known taking contemporary paradigm for granted in practice, taking it on faith, as dogma So questioning fundamental beliefs is heresy

RESISTANCE TO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE “Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery” (Barber, Science, 1961) Ampère; Arrhenius; Einstein; Faraday; Heaviside; Karl Pearson. . . Helmholtz; Lister; Planck: “a new idea does not win out by convincing its opponents but rather survives as the opponents die off” Peer review is conservative, to preserve current “consensus” Phenomenon recognized by those who are resisted Yet they do it to others

PREMATURITY and HYPOTHESES Gunther Stent, “Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery”, Scientific American, December 1972, 84 -93 Gregor Mendel: quantitative laws of heredity Alfred Wegener: continents were once joined together “premature hypotheses” are valuable stimuli of thought: The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas (ed. I. J. Good, 1963): “The intention. . . is to raise more questions than it answers” Medical Hypotheses, 1975, David Horrobin --> Elsevier Speculations in Science and Technology, 1977 -98 (Springer) Commercial publishers should not control scientific publications

SUPPRESSION and CONSEQUENCES SUPPRESSION Conservative peer-review guards banal science against silly errors Conservative peer-review controlling research funding, publications, official policies suppression and stagnation even within democratic societies Soviet Union: Lysenkoism; chemical-bonding theory banned Nazi Germany: Aryan science; Deutsche Physik CONSEQUENCES IF a mainstream consensus is wrong on a major issue, the consequences of suppressing other ideas could be very damaging

MAINSTREAM CONSENSUS CAN BE WRONG In the long run, the mainstream consensus always changes Modern and recent medical science has been badly wrong: ulcers and Helicobacter pylori kuru, mad-cow disease, caused by a “slow virus” PSA tests and prostate cancer malaria infection, shock treatment, lobotomy

HIV/AIDS THEORY and PRACTICE Designation as “HIV-positive” is intensely stressful, bringing individual psychological harm and social harm Marriages and partnerships are broken Asymptomatic “HIV-positive” people are medicated with highly toxic drugs “HIV-positive” people are jailed for having sex, or even for biting or spitting at people Billions of dollars are spent -- research, social programs IF HIV/AIDS theory were to be wrong, those events represent terrible tragedies

COULD HIV/AIDS THEORY BE WRONG? Weighing the evidence pro and con Evidence FOR HIV/AIDS theory “Everyone agrees. . . ” Thousands of researchers, hundreds of thousands of articles Denial, pseudo-science definition? evidence? HIV-negative AIDS = idiopathic CD 4 T-cell lymphopenia Healthy “HIV-positive” people: rare, mysterious HIV mutates at unprecedented speed etc. , etc.

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIV/AIDS THEORY: 1 What remains to be established Isolation of pure HIV from in vivo source? Proof that HIV tests detect infection? Proof that HIV causes AIDS? Proof published where and when? HIV destroys immune system how?

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIV/AIDS THEORY: 2 HIV and AIDS are not correlated! Changed differently over time Not correlated geographically M/F ratios: for HIV unchanging, dramatically changed for AIDS B/W ratios: for HIV unchanged, dramatically changed for AIDS HIV-negative AIDS cases Long-term healthy untreated HIV-positive people

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIV/AIDS THEORY: 3 “HIV” is not an infection! Constant geographic distribution Constant trends by age, sex, race, population density No actually observed sexual transmission Apparent rate of transmission too low to produce epidemic (20 -40% of African adults have dozens of partners a year!? ) Not correlated with gonorrhea, syphilis, etc. Condoms make no difference Clean needles, more infection No authenticated accidental infections in health-care workers

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIV/AIDS THEORY: 4 CONUNDRUMS More breast-feeding, fewer “HIV-positive” babies? Pregnant women become “HIV-positive” more than others? ? Antiretroviral drugs in microbicides don’t kill “HIV” Impossible vaccine? Viral load doesn’t correlate with CD 4 counts Neither correlates with clinical prognosis Latent period but no latent period? ? The most dangerous years: 35 -50!

IN SUM: No good evidence FOR HIV/AIDS theory Much AGAINST HIV/AIDS theory both direct and indirect evidence Dogma persists through inertia and vested interests: Enormous expenditures: tens of billions of dollars annually Vested careers: researchers, social workers, activists Credibility of policy makers at stake Tragic suffering: “HIV-positive”: physical, psychological, social damage Gay men; Africans; pregnant women