Raindance Film Festival Endorse AIDS Denialism Part II
Posted by gimpy on October 7, 2009
I chose and agreed to play House of Numbers for three reasons, all of which fit the Raindance Film Festival criteria:
- debut filmmaker
- quality filmmaking
- an extreme message which I decided after hours of research and debate with my team, deserved to be seen and heard.I grew up in Somalia and have first hand knowledge of the destruction wrought on that continent by ‘aid’. I also live in the UK and witnessed the hysteria and misinformation wrought by the so-called swine flu epidemic
MAny of my closest friends are AIDS/HIV positive, and several have died as a result of AZT or other AIDS related illnesses.
I do not, not have ever denied AIDS/HIV. I feel that the arguments surrounding the AIDS issue amy not be exactly as I have been told, as indeed the real cause of the 9/112 tragedy might not be what they seem, as Charlie Sheen is saying.
I am glad we showed the film. I wish we had worked harder to reach more people with it. As a filmmaker, like the director Brent Leung, it is difficult to balance the financial aspects of distribution with the economic realities of film production.
I think the postiive actions of showing House of Numbers, and the debate it has caused will help anyone concerned with issues of health and hopefully will enable anyone living under the curse of HIV/AIDS hope for a better life.
Elliot Grove
Founder
Raindance Film Festival
British Independent Film Awards
As well as the three reasons for showing the film that Mr Grove presents above I would suggest a fourth, money. The following communication is from an independent film makers forum, and it clearly shows that there were concerns from some parties prior to Raindance of the wisdom of showing it but the financial benefits of doing so were the most immediate concern of Mr Grove.
Re: Is House of Numbers an AIDS denialist film?
I haven’t actually seen House of Numbers so I’m not commenting directly on it but it has certainly been causing a fair amount of concern, as in this article from Ben Goldacre in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/26/ben-goldacre-bad-s (…)
Worth a read. If he’s right about the distortion of facts, cherry picking of quotes and murky funding behind this film, then I’m not sure it isn’t a little irresponsible to be showing it, to be honest, given what’s at stake with this subject.
Mr Grove’s response:
We are getting legal letters, telephone calls, threatening emails claiming about the screening of House Of Numbers this Thursday at 2:30pm. Ive never never seen anything like it.
Legal letters delivered by courier from America – the whole 9 yards
They claim it’s about AIDS denialism – which anyone seeing the movie would realise it isnt. Or is it?
Question is, are we going to be able to sell anymore tickets?
A few still available, and the director has flown in from Canada.Watch the film and see for yourself.
The power of cinema. Check it out: http://bit.ly/vTm98
And let me know
Elliot Grove Diretor 9and founder, goldarnit) of Raindance Film Festival
It is clear from the statement and the communication that Mr Grove is ignorant of the consequences of AIDS denialism, wilfully ignores the problems with ‘House of Numbers’ and is incapable of judging scientific evidence. I also suspect that Mr Grove is enjoying the experience of being controversial, something his festival seems to deliberately set out to achieve – they seem very proud of an advert that was banned because of its treatment of suicide. As the ruling on the advert shows film, as a medium, is capable of sending out very powerful emotional messages. There is a danger, in particular with documentaries, that emotion can be used to gloss over or ignore awkward facts. Emotion can also be used to incite anger and stir up settled and forgotten controversies. This appears to be the case with ‘House of Numbers’, its supporters are extremely passionate and increasingly vocal and the film is sufficiently well made to fool otherwise sceptical thinkers. However, the questions raised by ‘House of Numbers’ have already been answered by science, the tactics of denialists explored and the deaths from AIDS denialism established. The only purposes the film serves is to suggest scientific controversy where there is none and to encourage support of discredited ideas, that is a poor contribution to public debate.
When contacted about this film a Terrence Higgins Trust spokesperson said:
“Worldwide more than 33 million people are living with HIV, the virus that – untreated – leads to AIDS. 88,000 of them are in the UK and every year about 7,500 more people are newly diagnosed here. Each of them, over their lifetime, will cost around a quarter of a million pounds to treat. In other countries, without modern antiretroviral treatments, people are still dying in droves.
“It’s a huge waste of life. But although the methods we currently have won’t stop AIDS completely, we can reduce transmission by condom use and by other means. Our main focus now and for the years ahead needs to be preventing the spread of HIV and supporting people already living with the virus.”
The methods of achieving this are what the public debate needs to be on, not to become distracted by settled controversies. It is unfortunate that both Raindance and Mr Grove seem uncaring or ignorant of this, they clearly believe ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’ when it comes to film promotion.
Incidentally, the full version of this paraphrased quote is ‘”There’s no bad publicity except an obituary.“‘. Here are the obituaries of some of those who have died through AIDS denialism.
I hope there are no more.
Tristan said
“Question is, are we going to be able to sell anymore tickets?”
What an arsehole!
John King said
Grove believe that AZT is a cause of death rather than a drug and that 9/11 involves a sinister cover-up. Wonder what he thinks about the moon landings and Area 51…
NM said
Appalling. Not just idiotic, but cynically idiotic.
The first ten seconds of the House of Numbers trailer is taken up by someone called Mark Gabrish Conlan saying: “because it has been surrounded, since day 1, with so much emotion, very few people are capable of looking at AIDS logically.”
Most viewers won’t even know who Conlan is. So who is he? He is board chair of an AIDS denialist organization called HEAL San Diego: http://healsd.bravehost.com/newhome.htm (watch out for all the pop-ups).
He is a longtime AIDS denialist, the first article of his listed on the “virusmyth” website is entitled “American Medical Association Endorses Genocide”
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/mgconlan.htm
As for whether the views of Conlan and HEAL San Diego can provide “hope for a better life,” as Grove says, I’m afraid I have to dash your hopes regarding additional obituaries. These are links to memorials for two HEAL San Diego members who died this year. I warn you that reading the comments of Sandi Lenfestey’s son and daughter is deeply upsetting and enraging.
Jerry Colinard
http://jerrycolinard.org/
Sandi Lenfestey
http://www.theeternalportal.com/tributes/sandi-lenfestey/
Lenfestey still has an online profile that lists Peter Duesberg’s colleague and former Matthias Rath employee David Rasnick as a “friend” http://www.mylife.com/lenfesteys
And here is a photo of Rasnick working on the filming of House of Numbers in South Africa – he is not mentioned in the credits.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1540222&id=40491054861
Elliot Grove said
It saddens me that in a democracy, many are unwilling to be open to debate, especially in this case where protestors have no inkling of that which they protest, except of fear.
I do not regret my decision to agree to show this film, and open up a debate about something so important – a debate that will save millions of lives.
Arthur said
I tried to have an open debate on YouTube, by adding corrective comments to the “House of numbers” channel taken from Ben Goldacre’s review of the film.
My comments were deleted and my account was banned, alongside other people who made similar corrections, leaving only positive comments about the film.
That’s what these people are like. They’re not interested in “open debate”. You’ve been duped.
Arthur said
Here is the comment I left on YouTube under the video where Xavier Rashid boasts of showing the movie:
“18 doctors and scientists interviewed for the film have issued a statement saying that the director was deceptive in his interactions with them, that it perpetuates pseudoscience and myths.”
These were removed by the channel owner “House by numbers”, and I was banned from the channel. Other similar comments from other people were removed so I posted them on a well viewed pro-science/anti-censorship channel.
You’ve got a nerve talking about “censorship” and “open debate”, Eliot Grove.
fictionalvicky said
Democracy is a political concept, totally unfit to settle a scientific debate, but I guess you knew that already. No one here is “afraid” of discussion (except for you, perhaps), but you have to show real evidence, that’s how science works.
Simon said
Are there any studies on how sections of the general public believe rhetoric more than evidence?
There do seem to be some individuals that can’t be dissuaded from an opinion no matter what the evidence. They seem to value rhetoric and the persuasive skills prominent in religions, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience over any kind of evidence based discussion.
Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to help those of us pushing the cause of evidence based policy making. Pleas for democracy, popularity and debate to decide science based policy is one of the more dangerous aspects of this.
I can’t see anyway around this but it does indicate we may need a different strategy to deal with this.
Snout said
Simon, start with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
“Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Wiki also gives a reasonable overview of the phenomenon, with some other useful references at the end:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
BSE said
“It saddens me that in a democracy, many are unwilling to be open to debate,”
Indeed Elliot some debate you engaged in when I wrote to you asking if you felt it was acceptable to promote a film which is clearly pro HIV denial. You clearly did not read my emails otherwise you would have referred to me by the name with which I signed them.
“Dear BSE
Your emails would have more credibility if:
- you supplied a real name and contact details
- you referred to specific timecode or moments in the film that reflect your concern and substantiate your arguments
Elliot Grove”
With all due respect, my credibility was never in question and the damage to your festivals credibility is immense.
“especially in this case where protestors have no inkling of that which they protest, except of fear.”
Actually Elliot having watched a very good friend die because he subscribed to HIV denialist lies gives me firsthand experience of the subject and the devastating effects that it has on the denialist and their family and friends. You are right about fear though… I fear for anyone who is duped by lies that have a needlessly detrimental effect on their health.
NM said
What’s really depressing is that there is clearly no one affiliated with Raindance who is able to explain to Grove what this shit is, or where it’s coming from. I think of the people in South Africa who endured years of AIDS denial, both state sponsored and through the state turning a blind eye to people like Matthias Rath – since Grove asked for timecode, you can see then Rath employee David Rasnick on the top right of the frame at about 4-5 minutes in wearing a blue check shirt – his head has been cropped out though so you can’t recognize him. But you can download the same still from the film’s website and see the full shot.
Based on what they’ve experience delivering treatment to people with HIV in Khayelitsha in South Africa, I think it might be possible to get Medicins Sans Frontieres to write to Raindance and their sponsors and supporters, explaining what this is about.
phayes said
What an irony meter busting hypocrite! Yes – this is a democracy, Elliot Grove – and no-one is trying to deny you your right to your sickening “this debate will save millions” ironies, your obstinate intellectual cowardice, or your wilfully ignorant and stupid posturing. There is no need to feel sad mate but you should be ashamed of yourself, you ignorant twerp.
Danobolger said
Freedom. Of. Speech.
Clearly a large number of people realise that the film is crud, and are willing to make significant noise about it. The end result of this, as with Michael Moore-like documentaries, is that people will come to understand the deception that goes into making such films.
As for HIV/AIDS denialists, I find that those who fervently support the conventional line are just as ignorant in the end.
gimpy said
This is not a freedom of speech issue. No where on my blog have I advocated that the film be banned. I will delete attempts to turn this debate into a freedom of speech issue when it is not. It is a debate about the factual veracity of a documentary and the healthcare implications of showing it.
NM said
“a debate that will save millions of lives.”
You are now among the ranks of the delusional. If you were familiar with the scientific literature, you’d know that there’s nothing to debate. Duesberg has published endless review papers, books and is now being featured in House of Numbers but in the 22 years he has been peddling his garbage he has done no AIDS research. Worse, to get around the vast amount of data that contradicts his assertions, he just misrepresents or outright misquotes it.
Here is one example. Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein & David Rasnick (two of whom appear in House of Numbers and one of whom apparently worked on it uncredited) change a sentence from this paper :
Declining Morbidity and Mortality among Patients with Advanced Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/338/13/853
that reads: “Patients with a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus retinitis or M. avium complex disease before study entry or during the first 30 days of follow-up and patients with active P. carinii pneumonia at the beginning of follow-up were excluded from the analyses of the incidence of that opportunistic infection.”
To: “Patients with a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus retinitis or M. aviarum complex disease before study entry or during the first 30 days of follow-up and patients with active P. carinii pneumonia at the beginning of follow-up were excluded.”
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pddrchemical.pdf – page 399
In order to pretend that the people with AIDS described in the Palella paper weren’t sick before starting antiretroviral therapy, because Duesberg’s theory says antiretrovirals cause AIDS.
In a more recent paper that was so outrageously bad that the publisher withdrew it, Duesberg et al say:
“hundreds of American and British researchers jointly published a collaborative analysis in The Lancet in 2006 concluding that treatment of AIDS patients with anti-viral drugs has ‘not translated into a decrease in mortality’.”
This is blatant misrepresentation and a quote-mine, as is explained here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre?commentid=63866b4b-cab5-4464-9fc2-7724b2e26df8
Raindance gave a platform to a movement headed by crazy people that’s been peddling the same delusional shit for over two decades.
NM said
“protestors have no inkling of that which they protest, except of fear.”
I have two decades experience of AIDS denial, how about you?
Al said
Elliot Grove is using the same argument as some journalists that all debates have two sides whose opinions are equally valid and deserving of dissemination. So that if someone takes the time, money and effort to put forward an argument, they are making a valid argument.
He would appear to be not merely willing but wanting, for the sake of democracy and debate, therefore to show films on, well grief knows what, fake moon landings, jews and the protocols of zion, inferiority of non-white races, etc.
Cathy said
Oh dear Elliot, you seem to have missed the point. The debate regarding HIV and AIDS has already been settled. No-one is debating whether photons are waves or particles in our democracies (or, I imagine, in non-democracies) because the science behind it has already been settled too. What is the point in debating something about which there is no genuine doubt? Surely it would be better to look for ways of moving forward, of improving treatments, and promoting prevention, rather than going over some worn-out ground.
NM said
I guess Raindance would have shown a film about HIV being biological warfare, like the one Brent Leung was said to be working on ten years ago.
http://www.tetrahedron.org/news/press1.html
http://www.devvy.com/aids_20001206.html
When asked about this, though, Leung denied it.
http://www.nashvillescene.com/2009-05-07/news/aids-to-the-enemy/2
He said he found Boyd Graves to be “not a very credible person at all,” which makes you wonder what criteria led him to find people like Mark Gabrish Conlan and Peter Duesberg credible.
Arthur said
I got as far as this statement before I facepalmed: “as indeed the real cause of the 9/11 tragedy might not be what they seem, as Charlie Sheen is saying.”
Is this guy for real?
I’m really disturbed by the spread of this lunatic thinking. In the past it was the preserve of whacked-out Branch Davidian types and the likes of David Icke.
Now, reality seems to be drowning in a sea of “Truthers”, “Birthers”, Glenn Becks and now Eliot Groves.
Ach.
Simon said
I’m starting to lose the will to debate this with Elliot any longer. The tendency to see conspiracy rather than investigate the verifiable evidence is a common ailment amongst people supporting the more unusual and unconventional “conspiracy” theories.
This maybe another unfortunate case of somebody going so far with and committing to a theory with such serious consequences, that coming to realise that they have been wrong is literally unthinkable.
I think the debate breaks down to 4 basic questions, not new to any of you here but I think it’s important to identify and delineate between them.
- Is the film AIDs denialist?
Most likely yes, but until I’ve seen it I don’t personally have the evidence to verify that. I have a trusted reference in Mr Goldacre that says so, so that strongly suggests that it is. I’ve said before that a documentary, especially one shown in a theatre, is not a valid forum for these things as it is inherently one way and makes close scrutiny difficult (you can’t pause cinema). As such it can create the illusion of a fair questioning tone and decent research in a lay audience when it is just a propaganda piece.
- Does a debate about the cause of HIV/AIDs have any validity?
Not really. Details and discussion about mechanisms aside, the science is pretty rock solid. This is obviously with the caveat that good quality new and reproducible evidence may change that, but as far as I know there isn’t any. Nor does the documentary supply any.
- Is there a debate about the behavior of large pharmaceutical companies.
There probably is. The companies have in the past been strongly opposed to the deploying of much needed retrovirals in the form of unlicensed generics, and I’m sure there have been a couple of less than sterling clinical trials run by them. But I don’t think this is ground that the documentary in questions covers.
- Is raindance right to show a film that takes on such a serious public health topic?
The consequences of endorsing the film are huge and wide reaching, regardless of whether you believe in what it says or are vehemently opposed to it. From what I understand Elliot believes that he is doing the right thing and has said that he has done his research. I have asked numerous times to let me know what research and fact checking Raindance has made so there can be an understanding of how it could have gone so badly wrong.
Personally I don’t think we’re going to get very far with personal attacks. The public understanding of science and more importantly scientific methods is all our responsibility. And engaging maybe hard work
gimpy said
I agree Simon, but the trouble with films such as this is that those wanting to improve the public understanding of science end up fighting a rearguard action against the ideas in the film rather than concentrating on promoting sound evidence based theories.
Simon said
Reading it back, it seemed like I thought that Raindance had moral case for showing the film. Just to make it clear, I think it’s a dangerous and immoral thing to do. And the far reaching aspects of the screening preclude it being shown without getting a huge amount of expert opinion and masses of research. Even then I wouldn’t have enough “faith” that I’d made the correct decision to put at risk 1000s of peoples lives.
warhelmet said
Do they have Amish in Somalia?
NM said
There is absolutely no doubt that it is an AIDS denialist film. One of the Executive Producers lists himself as a fan of Peter Duesberg, was added to the “rethinkers” list in July 2007 and is also sponsoring the AIDS denialist conference in Oakland in November: http://ra2009.org/
Rethinking AIDS website: http://rethinkingaids.com/
There are photos of David Rasnick assisting with filming in South Africa, and the film presents a hospital technician who tests people for sensitivity to UV radiation as an expert on retrovirus isolation, along with a parade of other longtime denialists: Neville Hodgkinson, Mark Conlan, Peter Duesberg, etc.
I think they’re trying to revitalize their movement with this film as the promo, and with an infusion of new money. All this right after Christine Maggiore, one of the longest surviving denialists, dies of disseminated herpes, thrush and bilateral pneumonia at age 52. There is a tribute to her on the Rethinking AIDS page, which says she died “unexpectedly” like her daughter Eliza Jane, who died of PCP at age 3.
Mark Gabrish Conlan had this to say: http://zengersmag.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-friend-christine-by-mark-gabrish.html
“none of the deaths of prominent alternative AIDS activists (including H.E.A.L.-San Diego member Sandi Lenfestey, who passed away two weeks after Maggiore) change one whit the scientific logic that indicates that the HIV model of AIDS is not only wrong, but ridiculous.”
Rethinking AIDS President David Crowe:
“you can only learn so much from an unfortunate death.”
And now The Spectator is getting in on the act, hosting a screening of House of Numbers and having a “debate”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/5402473/spectator-debate-a-world-without-aids.thtml
lumpfoot said
I met Eliot Grove a couple of times, and dealt with him by email a couple more, through a job I had a while back. I have to say that he struck me as a slightly flaky opportunist and a keen but rather ramshackle self-publicist.
This is not at all unusual in his line of work – indie film is a pretty harsh business to work in, and keeping going for as long as Mr Grove has requires a big dose of passion and self-belief. It’s quite an achievement, in my opinion.
However, keeping a public profile is tough and stunts like this are great to stir up the wasps and keep the pennies trickling in. Indeed, what other way was there to approach this film? The state of the Raindance office with its piles of papers, obsolete computers and film cans teetering does not suggest a cool and rigorous fact-checking effort to seek out the truth in every line of the script.
Shouting at him probably won’t help – he’s got too much to lose to back down now. Instead, if he’s genuinely interested in science documentary, maybe he’d like to run an evening course on this topic through his Raindance film school thingy. Then you can all pop along and tell his students how to get it right when it’s their turn…
gimpy said
lumpfoot, you seem to come close to arguing that all the matters from the House of Numbers showing was the opportunity to bring in funding? I’ve nothing against the use of publicity to support struggling festivals when it doesn’t compromise public health, unfortunately House of Numbers does and it was an undeniable mistake to choose this documentary as an opportunity to stir up controversy. I doubt Elliot would have chosen a film that seeks to revise a historical understanding of the Holocaust, I doubt he would have chosen a film that undermines efforts to control carbon emissions, so why did he choose a film supporting theories that have caused deaths in excess of 300,000? I’m not sure you understand just how irresponsible this is.
lumpfoot said
Not at all – what I tried to say was a rather obvious point that in order to keep this shaky Raindance organisation going it has to have a public profile and controversies are good for the profile. With that in mind, as well as this lengthy argument between a group of people who are right, and a person who is wrong, but in which neither side can really agree or back down, there might be a positive outcome to be had to prevent future problems. And then I suggested one such possible outcome.
I didn’t comment on the public health ramifications at all – other posters have excelled at that – and I’m vaguely miffed that you read between the lines, got the wrong end of the stick, and decided to have a pop as if I had done. No matter – that’s email I suppose.
Anyway, for someone running a teeny film festival, living hand to mouth and with ambitions to be a bigshot producer, funding is pretty much the only thing that matters. Controversy creates buzz, therefore it’s good – within the uncomfortable limits of legality and decency. Witness the recent exhibition of a dodgy picture of Brooke Shields. Same thing. Obviously it’s going to get banned when plod shows up, everyone knows that, but it’s effective if distasteful PR. It’s not right, there’s something evil about it, we can both see that, but I’m not sure I’d want to see it banned for fear of what else such a law might prevent.
Everyone who mentions such a stunt to another person is implicated in it, by the way, even someone who bangs on for days about how terrible it is and those responsible should be punished. You know it yourself, you are part of Raindance’s PR stunt and if you tutted about Brooke Shields to your mate you’re implicated in that too. It’s a repulsive kind of genius, to be admired and detested.
Incidentally I’m not commenting on the “public health” ramifications of exhibiting the Shields picture, nor am I comparing the detail of the two events, but making a wider point about the thinking behind this sort of thing.
My point is that you are wrong to say it was a mistake to use this film to stir up controversy – that plan worked a treat; this is the perfect shit-stirring film. As has been pointed out by you and others, of course, it definitely *was* a mistake to show this film on many other far more important levels, but because of Mr Grove’s frame of reference sitting within the low-funding indie film business, and (I’m guessing) not being of a scientific bent, those relative levels of importance appear not to have been clear to him. Maybe they are now but I doubt it.
From what I know of the Grove kind of person (which is probably quite a lot having worked in the poxy meeja industry for 16 years), shouting at him that he’s a muppet who got the science wrong is not the best way to deal with him. He’s “created the debate” and you’re just “having the debate” like he wanted. Even if he knows he’s in the wrong he can’t really say so because it might crush his organisation and put him out of work. He’s shown the film now, he can’t un-show it, and he’s got ready access to the next generation of film-makers. And he owes you. Why not look to the future of the relationship between Raindance and the science community?
I would suggest the following:
1. get a respected film-maker with a body of work in science documentary to phone him up and politely point out where he cocked up. Attenborough has an agent and a postal address.
2. Find out who funds and supports Raindance, and get an illustrious member of the science establishment to write to them and point out the error.
3. Like I said originally, engage with him and offer to help him make money by teaching people how to make proper science docs, tell cool science stories, etc etc. Then you’ll be on hand ready to chip in when the next sciencey horror story plops into the Raindance in-tray.
2 and 3 are probably mutually exclusive by the way.
Cheers
When pseudo-debate is worse than no debate at all… « Don’t Get Fooled Again said
[...] Gimpy has been doing some excellent work on the Riverdance Film Festival’s endorsement of the AIDS denialist film “House of Numbers”. I really hope that the producers make it available for free on the internet soon so that I can watch it, as I’m keen to find out what the fuss is about. [...]
Madonna said
Eh – calling this “denialist” is, actually, wrong. There’s nothing “denialist” in presenting another side of the picture.
And has anyone, ever, confirmed Gallo’s original findings? Has HIV been isolated?
gimpy said
HIV was isolated over 25 years ago
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6189183
Simon said
The word denialist is entirely accurate here. In a normal scientific discourse you using experimentation and published papers to create a body of evidence. By definition a denialist ignores any evidence that contradict their theory and just states their point of view regardless.
If you want to challange a current way of thinking you have to show evidence that the current theory doesn’t fit. Or if you’re challenging the evidence, then you can look for flaws in the methodology.
Denialism just ignores the body of evidence, or just describes it as part of the conspiracy trying to hide their pet theory.
Interesting most denialist movements that shout about an open debate, tend to try and close it down if it’s not going their way.
Please take a look at The Baloney Detection Kit, a good introduction to critical thinking.
notspock said
A very interesting question that sums certain problems about anything to do with science.
For the last 25 years, all sorts of labs in all sorts of country have been working on the virus. Detecting it in all sorts of different way. Sequencing its genes. looking at its proteins, seeing its enzymes work, stopping those enzymes from working. And your question is worse than “have you taken a photograph of it”, as somebody asked the French discoverer guy.
I suppose many people would not know any of that.
But for those of us even vaguely aware of what science is- its wierd. Almost as wierd as if someone said about my 12 year old dog: “are you sure its a dog? Has anyone ever checked?”
I suppose that I should look at the opposite side of the question, but if someone told me it was a parrot, I would probably have a job explaining my points of view to such a person.
Seth Kalichman said
Duesberg whose harm to others has come through words, there are accusations that Rasnick crossed the line by doing harm through his pseudoscientific antics with Matthias Rath. He says that he worked with Rath in South Africa to study the effects of vitamins in caring for people with HIV/AIDS. According to Rasnick, the patients were under the care of their usual doctors who merely provided information for research. The Rath Foundation, however, presents the work as an unethical research trial in which people are know to have died. Rasnick is a conspiracy theorist, as nicely illustrated in the following quote,
The note from Mr. Grove speaks for itself. I appreciate his honesty regarding his own suspiciousness regarding HIV and HIV treatments. He is also inclined to believe the 9/11 terror attacks were part of a US government conspiracy to start the Iraq war. I bet he believes vaccines cause autism and I wonder if he thinks it possible that Auschwitz was a Nazi laundry cleaning facility.
Dissidence in science should be valued, and denialism should be exposed. House of Numbers is represents denialism, not dissidence.
There is no debate among scientists whether HIV causes AIDS. HIV tests are valid and treatments save lives. House of Numbers should be seen by anyone with money to waste who wants to see the worst of AIDS Denialism yet.
Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com
warhelmet said
Going back to my earlier post – whilst wikipedia is not to be trusted 100%, it says that Grove has an Amish background. And, I suspect, that given his ego, it would be difficult for him to walk past that. But he says that he grew up in Somalia. Are these two statements compatible? I don’t know, which is why I ask the question.
Things like this make me question the “honesty” of Grove. Is he funning with us? Playing some sort of PoMo game, winding up the publicity machine? Laughing at earnestness whilst he is comfortable in his nest of moral relativism. “It’s just a film, ha, ha, ha!”
lumpfoot said
I see. Well in that case I’m wrong and the Spectator should know better.
I hope the audience is packed with articulate people who will stand up and point out the madness. Still, I feel my point about considering the future and engaging with them still stands – offering the Spectator some top notch articles with a science flavour might be a way to help prevent such things in future.
Incidentally I have suggested in another forum (the Bad Science one in fact) that ASBO legislation might be useful against those who repeatedly broadcast dangerous nonsense in public. It’s a bit of a stretch because it’d require a chief constable to bring a case to court, and the legislation is framed around protecting communities and neighbourhoods, but I think there’s an argument to be made that there’s a public nuisance here that counts as anti-social behaviour.
I’m not a lawyer, but AFAIK the test is: has the dedendant committed acts “causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”? The case is brought by the geographically relevant chief constable or local authority and heard by a magistrate.
The ASBO orders typically restrict the human rights of those they affect: don’t go here, don’t meet so-and-so, don’t say this, don’t wear that etc etc. So the “I have freedom of speech” counter-argument already seems to have a hole in it.
Cheers
gimpy said
Ha, I said I wouldn’t tolerate discussions on free speech grounds and your ASBO argument, while interesting, might fit this. That said I would argue that freedom of speech is an argument of last resort when you have run out of all other justifications…
Simon said
Looks like Elliot has scheduled another screening for saturday afternoon.
http://www.raindance.co.uk/site/index.php?aid=4439
NM said
Might as well try and milk the “controversy” for all its worth, right? The entry on the Raindance site has been changed a little and says “a fascinating insight into the denialist movement.” Nice CYA maneuver. Only, the film doesn’t tell you who the denialists are on screen. Mark Gabrish Conlan is a “journalist,” not a longtime AIDS denialist who runs HEAL San Diego.
The film also does not tell you that the denialists onscreen are so dishonest that they’re willing to quote-mine in order to pretend that there is a study which shows HIV treatments have not reduced mortality. Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein, Celia Farber and Neville Hodgkinson have all done this.
Here’s an example of Farber quote-mining the study:
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2006_09_009885.php
“what I just told you about is a ten-year perspective study. And when they looked over those ten years the utopian dream did not pan out. Their HIV levels are going down, whoop-dee-doo, but they are not living longer. It’s a very strange position to be in. Those of us on the skeptical side have never been more right but we have never been more hated.”
And this is an explanation of what the study actually shows:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre?commentid=63866b4b-cab5-4464-9fc2-7724b2e26df8
HIV treatments have now reduced mortality by over 90% in many places, there are cohorts like the French hospital database of around 60,000 people which show this. Celia Farber recently declared AIDS is “vanishing” on her website by citing 73 deaths among registered AIDS cases in Germany in 2006. The same document that reports this figure notes:
“”30,000-35,000 people with HIV were seen regularly for medical care for their condition during 2006. The number of patients receiving HAART (antiretroviral therapy) increased from 18,000 in 2002 to 27,000 by December 2006.”
http://www.euro.who.int/aids/ctryinfo/overview/20060118_17
Brent Leung also quote-mines on screen, saying that a headline about some SIV studies in monkeys addressing “sudden loss of T cells” (from the gut) means that there “must” be cofactors required for HIV to cause AIDS or means that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Total bullshit. The loss of CD4 T cells from the blood has been consistently shown to predict illness and death in human beings with HIV in thousands of studies now. Leung does not mention this.
The one person whose death we’re told about during the movie is Ken Bundy, who had already partially lost his sight to CMV retinitis when combination treatment became available in the mid-90s. CMV retinitis causes blindness and risk if greatest when the CD4 count is less than 50, survival after CMV retinitis in the era before anti-HIV therapies was a matter of months. There had been a total of 22 cases of CMV retinitis documented in the entire scientific literature as of 1976, before HIV. According to Nashville Cares, when Bundy died in March of 2006 he had been unable to find a regimen to keep his HIV suppressed (almost certainly due to drug resistance and his long treatment history).
We are not told on screen during the film that Christine Maggiore has died. This information is provided at the end of the credits along with the denial that her death was due to HIV (Elliot Grove: “it’s obviously not an AIDS denialist film at all”). The Maggiore segment of the film also involves her traveling back in time to take a September HIV test “again” in August. I don’t think the death of her daughter from PCP is even mentioned.
Maybe this film could become a useful tool for showing how denialist propaganda is created, that’s the only upside I can see. The idea of debate is farcical, all the denialists in this film made up their minds that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS decades ago, the only thing they do when someone cites the evidence that they’re wrong is try and shout them down. This film offers them away around that problem, because it just edits out the information they don’t want to hear (listen to the way Michael Gottlieb is chopped off after he says “side effects” and take a guess as to what he was going to say next).
NM said
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2651096&id=40491054861
“Raindance will not bow to pressure from extremists from the Left or Right.”
So a virus that erodes people’s immune system, allowing opportunistic infections to manifest and kill them, is a political issue. Not medical. Not scientific. And “good filmmaking” includes quote-mining, misrepresentation and falsehoods (“we have tests that prove nothing,” says Leung – but he’s not a denialist) and calling people who run denialist organizations “journalists.”
It’s exactly the dilemma Ben Goldacre described when he wrote about the film in The Guardian, because people getting angry about it has clearly just entrenched Grove’s position. According to the film’s Facebook page, they’re now off to India to try and mislead some people there.
imafreethinker said
So instead we are to believe a man who (specifically in relation to the science behind the paper showing the discovery that HIV ’causes’ AIDS) was the subject of FIVE fraud investigations between 1990 and 1995?
The latter Secret Service investigation in fact found this man to have been fraudulent. Upon submitting the case further he only escaped sentencing due to five years having past since the fraud had taken place. Two of his colleagues were not so lucky and were correctly punished. This man even lied to us about the source of the isolate. Managing to alter the original draft of the paper in a vain attempt to hide for many years that it originated from French labs. Even providing false information whilst swearing under oath! Uniquely this paper has never been peer reviewed, meaning not one single other scientist has had the opportunity to repeat his tests to verify the results. Hundreds of scientists were put to task to scour his work as part of these investigations. Do their voices and that of the Secret Service and other investigation teams today also amount to nothing?
The man I speak of is Robert C. Gallo and my source is investigative journalist Janine Roberts book titled ‘Fear of the Invisible’.
Research these statements for yourself and beware of half truths.
gimpy said
Your source is an idiot.
wakeupplease said
Now now gimpy, surely your not creeping from under your rock to make an ad hominem attack???
Derrik said
But what do you do when an apparent ad hom is also a fair and balanced assessment?
Chris Noble said
You could rephrase this to say that Roberts’ arguments are naive, pseudoscientific and idiotic.
Roberts also denies that poliovirus causes polio!
I suspect that Peter Duesberg also thinks that Roberts is an idiot but you will never hear this amongst Denialists or in a Denialist film like HON because they huddle together under the big tent of HIV Denialism for purely political purposes. Duesberg argues forcefully that HIV exists and has been isolated according to the best scientific methods. The more scientifically challenged Denialists argue that it doesn’t exist (or in weasel words haas not been proven to exist). But you will not hear about this fundamental disagreement in HON.
This quote from Duesberg is illuminating:
notspock said
You don’t understand science.
People check facts themselves, they don’t take other people’s word for it.
Peer review is about reading and understanding the paper, certainly has nothing to do with whether other scientists re-do the experiments or do similar/related ones.
And do you think the French labs never bothered to carry on their own lines of enquiry?
Giftmacher said
“Janine Roberts book titled ‘Fear of the Invisible’”
Unfortunately a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Janine Roberts isn’t a scientist and it shows. If the excerpts I’ve read are anything to go by, and I suspect they are, her book is riddled with inaccuracies or else draws false conclusions because she doesn’t understand the data.
As for the alleged background of one person well there’s no shortage of virologists, who acknowledge the link between HIV and AIDS. The data is what’s important, why focus on one man?
Gift.
Neuroskeptic said
“Research these statements for yourself and beware of half truths.”
Here’s one: you’re a half-moron.
Gallo was embroiled in a controversy over scientific priority, American and French researchers both claimed to have discovered HIV first and it got rather heated, but even if Gallo was a scientific thief, no-one in this debate was questioning the idea that HIV causes AIDS.
And even if they had – Gallo could turn out to Satan himself and it would still be true. Indeed even if every single person involved in the early days of AIDS research turns out to have been lying about everything (except Duesberg, say), that wouldn’t change one thing. Because there are now tens of thousands of scientists who agree that HIV causes AIDS, because they’ve seen the evidence themselves.
Scientific theories don’t stand or fall with the reputation of the guy who originally proposed them.
gimpy said
Sorry lumpfoot.
I think you’re right that there is little point in further engagement with Grove on the subject of House of Numbers. It’s an interesting suggestion about science documentaries and while that is well outside my skill set I certainly know people who are interested in that kind of thing. I’ll suggest your ideas to them.
Specifcially regarding point 2. I am actually reluctant to contact sponsors, although I know others disagree, because the festival is about more than one anti-science film and it would be unfair to allow controversy over House of Numbers to overshadow this. Besides, Raindance are not the most prominent media outfit behaving stupidily over this. See here.
lumpfoot said
Weeeeell I’m sympathetic to your grumpiness about the Spectator – the science is clear, yet some numpty makes a film getting it (deliberately or stupidly) arse about face, and even worse thoughtful people start showing the film and taking it seriously enough to have a panel debate for goodness sake about something that is beyond debate, dammit.
But they could also be trying to stitch up the filmmakers: get them in front of an august panel, draw out their idiocy and rubbish them in public. That’s a much better story for the Spectator I’d have thought. Hope so. The more articulate people who go along to put the case against the film, the better it’ll work. So buy a ticket!
Cheers
gimpy said
lumpfoot, you might be interested in Richard Wilson’s take on the Spectator.