From: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno)
Subject: Re: Dealing with "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" people.
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Reply-To: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca
Archive-Number: 6105
Organization: unspecified
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:41:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.151222.6771@cs.ucla.edu> doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug  
Sewell) writes:
> I have several well-meaning acquaintances that are convinced that HIV
> doesn't cause AIDS.  And they're persistent as <insert favorite evan-
> gelistic cult here> about it, and somehow think that unless I buy into
> what they're offering, they've failed in life.
...
> What better can I do to deal with these people ?

Such people are not unique to the AIDS situation. This is about on line  
with the UFO cults, Shroud of Turin believers, and psychics. Some person  
with a Ph.D and an axe to grind grabs onto a dubious theory and uses  
his/her education and intelligence to support the unsupportable in a way  
that is all to convincing to most people. Usually, there is some  
compelling sociological force behind wanting to believe such theories. 

I would suggest:

1. Find similar examples of "offbeat" theories and compare how well they  
are supported with the support of the HIV/AIDS non-connection. Pick  
something blatantly false (or contradictory!) and compare the support for  
it with the support for the HIV/AIDS theories. You will find similar  
patterns; the criticism of theories without offering anything better,  
claims of "elitism" or conspiracy on "the establishment", etc. Such things  
are the mark of the quack. Real scientists don't need conspiracy theories.

2. Recognize that while education may be necessary to be an authority, it  
is not sufficient. There are lots and lots of crackpots with Ph.D's  
running around. Duseberg even has a respectable position at Berkeley, I  
believe. Don't let credentials sway you.

3. Understand that science is about making models, and models are rarely  
exact. There is much that we do not know about HIV, and we might be quite  
off base. However, we do know that there are strong relationships between  
HIV and AIDS. The model of HIV being the primary cause of AIDS is simply  
the best we have right now, and nobody has come up with a more coherent  
one that explains all of the phenomena that we observe in this epidemic. 

4. If a better model came up, it would be adapted relatively quickly.  
Contrary to popular belief, most scientists are not stick-in-the-muds that  
will hold onto a theory at any cost. Some extremely radical,  
career-destroying theories have been readily adapted in the past when it  
was recognized that they were superior; witness Planck's quanta, which  
nobody believed at first, Godel's theorem, which was immediately  
recognized as correct even though it turned much of mathematics upside  
down, etc. If Duseberg's model is correct, (actually he doesn't have one),  
why doesn't anyone in the scientific community take it seriously??

5. The HIV-AIDS connection may indeed be wrong, but its flaws are no  
greater than those in many other medical theories. It's the best bet we  
have right now.

Most significantly, Duseberg's theories are no reason to be complacent  
about AIDS and not use condoms. Even if AIDS might not be contagious - a  
long shot - it would be stupid to base your actions on an off-the-wall  
theory, no matter how much you want to believe it. This shouldn't need  
saying, but I think that many of the people that want to believe that HIV  
is not the cause of AIDS do so because they don't want to believe that  
they are at risk from their activity. I've actually been in situations  
where men have tried to use this as a justification for unsafe sex. Not a  
good idea!

Maybe your best bet is to ignore the whole thing. I've stopped reading the  
New York Native for exactly this reason. 

-Anthony

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids