FAQ:Conspiracy theory

From AIDS Wiki

Contents 1 Promotion of "conspiracy theory" myth 2 What is a "conspiracy"? 2.1 "Breathing with" 3 Disintegration of scientific standards 3.1 Stupidity in high places 4 References

---

A major misconception is that AIDS dissenters include those who view AIDS as a government or military conspiracy. The truth is that dissidents are not conspiracy theorists.

Promotion of "conspiracy theory" myth

This particular misconception has been promoted by a number of orthodox researchers:

1. Steven O'Brien, co-author of an infamous paper in Current Opinion in Immunology (O'Brien & Goedert 1996) which was originally offered to Peter Duesberg to sign for publication in Nature (Bialy 2004), has stated, "Controversy and conspiracy theories sell better than sobersided factual analysis, especially in fringe publications, and Duesberg has provided those publications with more than his share of both." (O'Brien 1997)
   
   
2. In an editorial in the newsletter of the International AIDS Society, several AIDS researchers expressed, "Their [AIDS denialists'] activities are largely, but not exclusively, conducted over the internet on websites that thrive on medical conspiracy theories." (Moore 2007)
   
   
3. Celia Farber interviewed an unnamed UC Berkeley scientist who dismissed alleged claims of a "conspiracy": "Before I [Farber] left, she wanted to stress one more time that Peter Duesberg had brought all his miseries and punishments onto himself, that there was no 'conspiracy,' something I heard repeated by several others on the anti-Duesberg side of the fence." (Farber 2004)

What is a "conspiracy"?

To analyze the "conspiracy theory" allegation in more detail, first let's examine some definitions. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Merriam-Webster 2007) defines a "conspiracy" as "the act of conspiring together...an agreement among conspirators". However, it gives two very different definitions for the verb "to conspire":

1. a. to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government>; b. scheme
   
   
2. to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>

Dissidents do not claim any kind of conspiracy has taken place in the former sense – no "secret agreement" was ever discussed or reached by any group of researchers or officials. On the contrary, the HIV hypothesis was advanced quite publicly and boldly in the absence of any scientific evidence, leading to massive "educational campaigns", blood tests, and "antiretroviral" drug therapies. If HIV/AIDS has been a "conspiracy" in this sense, it has been a very poorly concealed conspiracy, indeed.

"Breathing with"

However, an argument can be made that the HIV paradigm is a conspiracy in the latter sense – that HIV researchers, government officials, the media, AIDS activists, and the world at large have all "acted in harmony toward a common end", in an unprecedented deviation from scientific standards (Caton 1995). In the words of Serge Lang,

"The main problems with the HIV/AIDS controversy have not been due to a 'conspiracy'...Rather, these problems have included:

• The inability by many people, and especially influential people, in the scientific establishment to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis and a hole in the ground.
• The refusal even to consider alternative hypotheses to the pathogenesis of HIV, notably drug use.
• Censorship and tendentious reporting in the scientific press, as well as in the press at large." (Lang 1995)

Ian Young poignantly and eloquently described this latter sense of AIDS as a "conspiracy":

"...A number of different beliefs, group interests, and social forces conspire to make us 'sick'. This is not a conspiracy in the sense of a conscious plot, but in the original, more profound, sense of a 'breathing with' – breathing the same mental atmosphere, sharing the same assumptions, mutually benefitting and so, collaborating, toward an unconsciously desired result." (Young 1997)

Disintegration of scientific standards

Others have joined Lang above in pointing to an erosion of scientific standards. This explanation situates the HIV hypothesis within much more fundamental problems apparent in modern science and biomedicine. For example, Rebecca Culshaw says:

"I am often asked, 'How could medicine have made such a big mistake? How could so many people be wrong?' I believe the answer lies in the disintegration of scientific standards that has resulted, in large part, from the changing expectations of academic scientists... It is clear to me that the pressure to obtain big government grants and to publish as many papers as possible is not necessarily helping the advancement of science. Rather, academics (and in particular, young ones) are pressured to choose projects that can be completed quickly and easily, so as to increase their publication list as fast as possible. As a result, quality suffers." (Culshaw 2006)

Christine Maggiore also addressed the "conspiracy theory" claim:

"I don't think there is a concerted effort on the part of most people involved in AIDS to keep the facts from being aired. But I do think a few leaders are reluctant to admit, as most human beings are, that many mistakes have been made. Additionally, people working under and looking up to the AIDS leaders don't have much reason or incentive to question the status quo, and unfortunately, there is not widespread awareness of alternative AIDS information due to the media's preoccupation with a single point of view. Further, there are few fiscal rewards for resolving the problems associated with AIDS through means other than pharmaceutical drugs." (Maggiore 2005)

Stupidity in high places

Syndicated journalist Charley Reese reminds us that garden-variety stupidity among people in power is not as unusual as many think:

"Most conspiracy buffs underestimate human stupidity. They see people they consider smart and powerful do stupid things, and they think the people must have some hidden ulterior motive. Surely people in such high positions, they think, couldn't do something that dumb." (Reese 2004)

Finally, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis offered a humorous take on the "conspiracy theory" allegation:

"I'd almost call it a conspiracy, except the people involved in it aren't smart enough to be conspirators." (Klipfel 1998)

References