HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Posts Tagged ‘gene therapy’

Scientists as idiots savants (Science Studies 200)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/02/28

What do scientists actually do? What do they produce?

Consider, for example, the titles of the articles in volume 53, issue #2, February 2010, of JAIDS (Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes). How relevant are they to the question of interest to AIDS Rethinkers and the public at large, which is whether HIV causes AIDS?

— Urgent need for coordination in adopting standardized antiretroviral adherence performance indicators
— Pairwise comparison of isogenic HIV-1 viruses: R5 phenotype replicates more efficiently than X4 phenotype in primary CD4+ T cells expressing physiological levels of CXCR4
— Prediction of HIV Type 1 Subtype C tropism by genotypic algorithms built from Subtype B viruses
— Maternal antiretroviral use during pregnancy and infant congenital anomalies: The NISDI Perinatal Study
— Insulin sensitivity in multiple pathways is differently affected during Zidovudine/Lamivudine-containing compared with NRTI-sparing combination antiretroviral therapy
— Pooled nucleic acid testing to identify antiretroviral treatment failure during HIV infection
— Short-term bone loss in HIV-infected premenopausal women
— Pharmacokinetic interaction of Ritonavir-boosted Elvitegravir and Maraviroc
— Durability of initial antiretroviral therapy in a resource-constrained setting and the potential need for Zidovudine weight-based dosing
— Hepatitis C and the risk of kidney disease and mortality in veterans with HIV
— Bisexuality, sexual risk taking, and HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men accessing voluntary counseling and testing services in Mumbai, India
— Trends in HIV prevalence, estimated HIV incidence, and risk behavior among men who have sex with men in Bangkok, Thailand, 2003-2007
— Indian men’s use of commercial sex workers: Prevalence, condom use, and related gender attitudes
— The association between alcohol consumption and prevalent cardiovascular diseases among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected men
— Sustainability of first-line antiretroviral regimens: Findings from a large HIV treatment program in Western Kenya
— Comparison of early CD4 T-Cell count in HIV-1 seroconverters in Cote d’Ivoire and France: The ANRS PRIMO-CI and SEROCO cohorts
— Incident depression symptoms are associated with poorer HAART adherence: A longitudinal analysis from the nutrition for healthy living study
— Prevalence and correlates of HIV infection among male injection drug users in detention in Tehran, Iran
— HIV infection: An independent risk factor of peripheral arterial disease
— Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in HIV-infected persons: Epidemiology and the role of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors
— Reply to “Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease among HIV-Infected persons”

This little exercise is intended to illustrate what should be perhaps the first axiom of scientific literacy: Nowadays scientists qua scientists are idiots savants. They are focused professionally on just one very specific and highly technical matter that is almost immeasurably distant from the wider context that matters to everyone else. Popular coverage of science, TV documentaries, magazine and newspaper pieces make it appear as though scientists were grappling continually and always with LARGE questions: the overall story of human evolution, perhaps, or how species become extinct, or how vaccines were invented, and so on and so forth. But the overwhelming proportion of scientists spend their time on esoteric little aspects of obscure little details, and they step into quite other shoes and perform in quite other roles if they are ever brought to speak to the public at large.

Specialization nowadays has reached the degree that the old saw* becomes almost literally true — scientists get to know more and more about less and less, until they know almost everything about almost nothing while knowing essentially nothing about everything else. A minor but instructive example: Medical professionals engaged for several decades in attempts at gene therapy did not keep up with the progressive understanding of genetics and development which has revealed that the initial basis for attempting gene therapy is not valid, because the Central Dogma of “one gene, one protein” was wrong — see for example the review by Ast, “The alternative genome”, Scientific American, April 2005, pp. 58-65. “Genes” are not permanent units of heredity, they are functional assemblages of sub-units that get activated and deactivated by signals from elsewhere, and those signals must be timed and coordinated with exquisite precision.

The very success of science has entailed that achieving ever deeper understanding means that research has to focus on increasingly infinitesimal detail. Scientific research means looking intensely at properties of the markings on individual leaves; which may eventually lead to a better understanding of the leaves; which might eventually contribute to a better understanding of tree growth; which is still a very long distance from knowing much about the forest, let alone the landscape.

In doing research, scientists simply accept as unquestioned the theoretical framework of the prevailing mainstream consensus. HIV/AIDS researchers have no time, no incentive, no reason to wonder whether HIV really causes AIDS — that’s simply a given for them. If it weren’t, then they wouldn’t be HIV/AIDS researchers: they might be scholars of “science and technology studies” (historians, sociologists, philosophers of science, political scientists, and so on), or they might be “HIV-positive” people whose health and lives depend on how the big question is answered.

Suggest to an HIV/AIDS researcher that HIV might not be the cause of AIDS, and you are questioning the very basis of his professional life and implying that he might not be able to trust his colleagues, his guild, his “science”. That’s why those Rethinkers and Skeptics who have approached even friends of theirs who happen to be HIV/AIDS researchers have received very cold, unfriendly, dismissive responses. It is quite literally UNTHINKABLE for an HIV/AIDS researcher that HIV might not be the cause of AIDS.
It’s also unthinkable for the great majority of biologists who are not HIV/AIDS researchers themselves, for they automatically trust their colleagues in other specialties of biology or medicine to be right about their particular specialty, just as they themselves expect to be trusted about their own specialty.
And it’s unthinkable for most scientists that any area of science or medicine could be so visibly and drastically wrong on so major an issue as HIV/AIDS.

Science is a vast mosaic of overlapping specialties glued together by mutual trust. Centuries of modern science appear to the conventional wisdom as a triumphant progress to better understanding of more and more about the natural world. That the progress has actually come by many trials and much error is known only to specialist historians and others. Even for them, this awareness of continual correction of errors, and of the occasional startling “scientific revolutions”, is no preparation for the possibility that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, for history offers no instance of a mistake comparable in its huge, widespread human and financial cost. Lives lost to “AIDS” in one way or another, and resources expended on “HIV/AIDS”, are of a magnitude usually associated with wars, not with a medical-scientific blunder (of which there have been many of lesser magnitude).

*********************

This underscores what Clark Baker, among others, has been saying to Rethinkers for some time: Overturning HIV/AIDS theory will not result from scientific discussions, it can come only through political and social activism. The wider society must decide to force HIV/AIDS theorists to defend their faith under public cross-examination. HIV/AIDS researchers will reconsider the fundamental basis of their work only if forced to do so by irresistible outside pressure.

I’m not saying that the scientific issues are unimportant. They are nowadays of little concern only because all the necessary evidence is already at hand, in the mainstream literature, to demonstrate that “HIV” tests do not detect infection by an HIV retrovirus, that testing “HIV-positive” is not an inevitable prelude to illness, that “HIV-positive” is not in general a sexually transmitted condition; and so on. I am saying that the necessary task is to find some way of presenting that scientific evidence to the media and to the public and to socially and politically influential people in sufficiently concise yet convincing manner that they are forced to think the unthinkable, namely, to question the official mainstream consensus even when there is no precedent for such questioning.

One barrier to such a scenario is scientific illiteracy. Scientists as well as non-scientists are functionally illiterate when it comes to understanding the proper role of science in public affairs and how science should be organized to serve the wider society. That’s how scientific literacy and illiteracy should be defined, in terms of the place of science in human affairs. It’s quite unnecessary for everyone to know what molecules are, or enzymes, but it’s essential in a democratic society that everyone have an understanding of the degree to which experts, including scientists, can be taken at their professional word.

Here are some basics of scientific literacy:
There is no scientific method that guarantees objectivity (H. H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press, 1992).
Science is the search for consensual knowledge — consensual among fallible, non-objective human beings (John Ziman, Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science, Cambridge University Press, 1968; and others culminating in Real Science—What It Is, and What It Means, 2000).
Like other human beings, scientists don’t readily change their views in the face of contradictory evidence. Resistance to new discovery by scientists is endemic. Major advances that modify or overturn an established scientific consensus have always been strenuously resisted, even as afterwards the resistance is forgotten and the formerly resisted ones are pronounced heroes — sometimes posthumously (Bernard Barber, “Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery”, Science, 134 [1961] 596-602; Gunther Stent, “Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery”, Scientific American, December 1972, 84-93; Ernest B. Hook (ed)., Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and Neglect, University of California Press, 2002).
The overwhelming majority of scientists nowadays are craftsmen, tinkerers, journeymen. Many are mediocre even in terms of their professional talents. To think of Einstein, Darwin, Freud, and the like as exemplifying scientists is like thinking of Eisenhower, Macarthur, Marshall, and the like as exemplifying soldiers (H. H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, University of Illinois Press 1984, 1999, pp. 303-6).
The great achievers are typically idiots savants. Nobel-winning scientists usually make very poor administrators or advisers on anything outside their narrow specialty. Nobelist Varmus as head of the National Institutes of Health dropped conflict of interest regulations that led to scandalous behavior by senior scientists (David Willman, series in Los Angeles Times, December 2003). Nobelist Chu as Energy Secretary has already displayed qualities of dogmatic belief and single-mindedness that high-achieving scientists need but that are dysfunctional for administrators who need to be flexible, open-minded, pragmatic, willing to compromise. The enormously successful atom-bomb project had as its director Robert Oppenheimer, a highly knowledgeable physicist but not the highest achiever within physics. (I should enter the caveat that some Nobelists are quite sensible, even wise, for example economists Herbert Simon and James Buchanan.)
In research, one accepts the prevailing theoretical framework as the working hypothesis and tries to build on it. That becomes functionally equivalent to believing that theoretical framework to be true. Anomalous phenomena are shoved aside for later attention, or reasons are found for ignoring them as flawed, or ad hoc modifications are added to the basic theory to accommodate them, no matter how illogically or awkwardly — like Ptolemy’s “wheels within wheels within wheels” to preserve the Earth-centered view of the heavens. The accepted theory is abandoned only as a last resort under a tsunami of contradictions. (T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962/1970; Imre Lakatos, “History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction”, in Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences, ed. Colin Howson, 1-40, Cambridge University Press, 1976).

A couple of things about science are relatively new and have so far not become generally recognized even within the interdisciplinary field of science studies:
The normal resistance to counter-mainstream views has become actual suppression in an increasing array of fields (H. H. Bauer, “HIV/AIDS in historical context”; “Suppression of science within science”; “The new world order in science”; “21st century science: Knowledge monopolies and research cartels”).
Before HIV/AIDS, no scientific theory was so wrong as well as so influential in medical practice as to bring direct physical harm to hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people, also causing unknowable amounts of psychological, social, and fiscal damage. That this is unprecedented makes it all the more difficult for the media and the public and the policy makers, let alone HIV/AIDS researchers themselves, to see it. (Human-caused global-warming theory is just as ill-based scientifically, but it hasn’t caused the same human suffering.)

So, again, what’s needed is to find facts sufficiently obvious to non-specialists, sufficiently incontrovertible, and of sufficient human impact, “human interest”, that the media cannot avoid taking notice and the politicians cannot continue to remain in blissful ignorance. Somehow HIV/AIDS dogma must be forced publicly to reveal and defend its supposed evidentiary basis.

———————————————–
* I thought I’d read somewhere, perhaps in Gulliver’s Travels, the insight that specialization leads to knowing more and more about less and less; but a search through readily available reference-sources (Bartlett, Hoyt, Bergen Evans, GOOGLE) turned up only “An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until eventually he knows everything about nothing” in a Murphy’s Laws collection, though the first clause is attributed in several places to Nicholas Murray Butler; also “An old complaint about the narrowing of interest of the medical specialist defines him as a person who gradually comes to learn more and more about less and less” (editorial comment, Psychiatric Quarterly, 23 [1949] 567). But I’m still inclined to think that Jonathan Swift, or perhaps George Bernard Shaw, said something along those lines.

Posted in experts, Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV/AIDS numbers, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

Promises, promises…. “Possible cure for ‘HIV’”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/23

One of the worst aspects of the media coverage of “science” is the explicit aim of bringing the latest and most exciting “news” from the realms of science. To disseminate what has just been announced by some scientist or laboratory or institution of science or medicine is to collaborate in an exercise in self-serving spin which, all too often, arouses totally unwarranted hopes.

An infamous and notorious instance was the “discovery” of “the” gene that “causes” breast cancer. Untold numbers of women will have expected genuine deliverance from having to worry about contracting breast cancer, only to be thoroughly disappointed; and some number of women continue to undergo “prophylactic” removal of the mammaries if they are told that they have that gene. The unwarranted hope and subsequent disappointment has been well described by Elisa Segrave (“Still living in hope”, Sunday Times [UK)], 9 July 1995, section 7, p. 5 — review of Kevin Davies & Michael White, Breakthrough: The Quest to Isolate the Gene for Hereditary Breast Cancer, Macmillan).

In general usage, “science” has the connotation of reliable. If you want to convince people, you don’t say, “It’s been proven”, you say, “It’s been scientifically proven”. If you want to demolish someone’s claim, you can’t be more emphatic than to say, “That’s not scientific”, or perhaps, “That’s not science, that’s pseudoscience”.

Nothing new in science is reliable. Nothing that’s “news” in science is reliable. Real science isn’t news.

The fact of the matter is that reliable “science” doesn’t emerge fully formed from some experiment or statistical survey. There’s all the difference in the world between science now being done, “frontier” science, and the stuff — “textbook science” —  that’s been winnowed away from much chaff through running long gauntlets of being tested and critiqued.

So it strikes me as criminally irresponsible when the media propagate wild and wishful speculation by researchers who are anxious for the spotlight in order to impress their sponsors and potential funders, as when it has to do with a “possible cure for HIV”:

Treatment of HIV ‘sanctuary’ cells creates path for possible cure: researchers (Amy Minsky, Canwest News Service 21 June 2009)
Scientists have found a new way to fight — and possibly eradicate — HIV, according to a study released Sunday by a team of Canadian and American researchers.”

No doubt in order to emphasize how truly scientific and reliable this news is, that “news” item includes an impressive photograph; whose content and credit line mark it as a “stock” photo having nothing to do specifically with the text of the article or the claim reported in it.

Promises

Treatment of HIV ‘sanctuary’ cells creates path for possible  cure: researchers
Photograph by: Guang Niu, Getty Images

“’For 15 years we haven’t had a clue,’ said Dr. Rafick-Pierre Sekaly. ‘But now, we do’.”
What could sound more worthy of trust? Or more likely to arouse hope among “HIV-positive” people who believe the HIV/AIDS story?

“The new ‘weapon’ will combine antiretroviral therapy, which is the current treatment for HIV/AIDS, with a new one the researchers are calling an intelligent targeted chemotherapy.”
Wow! “Intelligent” targeting, no less! At last the jackpot has been sprung!

“A study will begin in September to test the validity of these results. If targeted chemotherapy successfully eliminates HIV, researchers say the feasibility of the treatment will be determined over the next two to three years, with medication becoming available a few years after that.”
So it’s going to another half-a-dozen years? So what, a real cure is worth waiting for, and we can hang on until then with the drugs which, after all, so we’re told, are getting better all the time  and easier to tolerate.

Of course, there are some caveats that excited readers might miss or not fully appreciate:
“the new treatment’s success will be contingent on a patient’s positive response to antiretroviral therapy. . . . Some HIV-positive patients do not respond to antiretroviral therapy. For those patients, zapping the cell will not likely yield any significant results.”
And even when they do “respond” — i.e., when the meaningless viral-load test purports to show “control” of “the virus” — the side effects of the antiretroviral drugs hardly make this a promise of the sort of cure that ill people look for, namely, a return to genuinely trouble-free health.

********************

ScienceDaily, “Your source for the latest research news”, seemingly presents itself as the place to get reliable information. It covers the same story in the same way:
“Approach For Possibly Eradicating HIV Infection Discovered”
and makes it seem properly trustworthy by mentioning that the relevant “discovery” is appearing in Nature Medicine online and later in the print journal.
No doubt the researchers see nothing wrong in releasing this “news” because of their care to point out that “this is a preliminary finding”; but that caveat loses its import under the weight of the immediately following “we are hopeful that this research discovery will guide us in eradicating HIV infection in the body”.

*******************

Voice of America did not hesitate to tell the world:
“HIV Hiding Places Found”, by Joe DeCapua —
“There’s been a breakthrough in AIDS research”.
Great! A breakthrough! That’s what we’ve all been waiting for, for about 3 decades now.

*******************

I commented in an earlier post on a similarly misguided arousing of hopes for an anti-“HIV” gene-therapy based on the claimed immunity conferred by the CCR5Δ32 gene, even though the actual geographic distributions of “HIV” and of CCR5Δ32 fail to support the notion that it confers immunity.  That trial is still going ahead, of course.

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments »

Dr. Frankenstein turns to CCR5

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/07/31

It was once imagined that Europeans are protected from “HIV” by the CCR5Δ32 gene (CCR5 with deletion 32). However, comparison of the geographic distributions of CCR5Δ32 and of “HIV” disproves that suggestion [Mainstream duffers clutch at Duffy straws: African ancestry and HIV, 26 July 2008]. No sooner had we posted that information than HIV/AIDS “researchers” publish a brilliant scheme for mimicking the  Δ32 deletion via genetic engineering, as “an attractive approach for the treatment of HIV-1 infection”:

“Homozygosity for the naturally occurring 32 deletion in the HIV co-receptor CCR5 confers resistance to HIV-1 infection. We generated an HIV-resistant genotype de novo using engineered zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) to disrupt endogenous CCR5. Transient expression of CCR5 ZFNs permanently and specifically disrupted 50% of CCR5 alleles in a pool of primary human CD4+ T cells. Genetic disruption of CCR5 provided robust, stable and heritable protection against HIV-1 infection in vitro and in vivo . . . . HIV-1-infected mice engrafted with ZFN-modified CD4+ T cells had lower viral loads and higher CD4+ T-cell counts than mice engrafted with wild-type CD4+ T cells, consistent with the potential to reconstitute immune function in individuals with HIV/AIDS by maintenance of an HIV-resistant CD4+ T-cell population. Thus adoptive transfer of ex vivo expanded CCR5 ZFN–modified autologous CD4+ T cells in HIV patients is an attractive approach for the treatment of HIV-1 infection” (Perez et al. [23 authors, correspondence to C. H. June], “Establishment of HIV-1 resistance in CD4+ T cells by genome editing using zinc-finger nucleases”, Nature Biotechnology 26 [2008] 808-16).

This brings out in force the Luddite that has been growing in me, fertilized by the copious manure that emanates non-stop from the drug industry and its academic henchpeople. (Luddites are named after the machine-destroying protesters in 19th-century Birmingham whose jobs were lost to mechanization during the Industrial Revolution. It’s come to be applied to antagonism against things that are widely applauded as scientific or technological “improvements” or “advances”.)

There are at least two immediately obvious things very wrong with this sort of anti-HIV approach, irrespective whether HIV has anything to do with AIDS. First, gene therapy remains an idea, not a reality—moreover, an idea whose time has passed because its basis has been found to be incorrect. Second, does not the CCR5 gene perform any functions apart from its possible connection to “HIV”? What are those functions? What happens to them if CCR5 is disrupted in a manner that natural selection (or the Creator, makes no difference) never invented or intended?

The idea of gene therapy stemmed from the initial interpretations of DNA as the carrier of hereditary information. It was thought at first that specific sequences of DNA form distinct and separate genes, individual units of hereditary information, each of them responsible only for the production of one particular protein. That has turned out to be not the case. Genomes are dynamic systems and not linear arrays of fixed genes. At various times, different sub-units of what are still called “genes” work together with sub-units of other “genes” to generate the proteins needed at any given time and place. The sophistication of these precisely scheduled interactions is such that genomes can produce many more proteins than they have “genes”: humans have fewer “genes” than corn and only 25% more than flatworms, even though humans are somewhat more complex creatures; see the fairly recent review by Ast, “The alternative genome”, Scientific American, April 2005, 58-65.

Given that current understanding, any notion of replacing a “defective gene” with a non-defective one presupposes that we know everything about which bits of which genes are needed for what, and at which times, in the development and life of the organism. Our knowledge is very far from that.

Official websites describe the problems quite well:

“Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently only being tested for the treatment of diseases that have no other cures” [published 18 July 2008]

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved any human gene therapy . . . . Current gene therapy is experimental and has not proven very successful in clinical trials. Little progress has been made since the first gene therapy clinical trial began in 1990. In 1999, gene therapy suffered a major setback with the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger. . . . [who] died from multiple organ failures 4 days after starting the treatment. . . .  Another major blow came in January 2003, when the FDA placed a temporary halt on all gene therapy trials using retroviral vectors in blood stem cells. . . .  after . . . a second child treated in a French gene therapy trial had developed a leukemia-like condition. . . . Before gene therapy can become a permanent cure for any condition, the therapeutic DNA introduced into target cells must remain functional and the cells containing the therapeutic DNA must be long-lived and stable. Problems with integrating therapeutic DNA into the genome and the rapidly dividing nature of many cells prevent gene therapy from achieving any long-term benefits. Patients will have to undergo multiple rounds of gene therapy. . . . Anytime a foreign object is introduced into human tissues, the immune system is designed to attack the invader. The risk of stimulating the immune system in a way that reduces gene therapy effectiveness is always a potential risk. Furthermore, the immune system’s enhanced response to invaders it has seen before makes it difficult for gene therapy to be repeated in patients. . . . Viruses, while the carrier of choice in most gene therapy studies, present a variety of potential problems to the patient—toxicity, immune and inflammatory responses, and gene control and targeting issues. In addition, there is always the fear that the viral vector, once inside the patient, may recover its ability to cause disease. . . . Conditions or disorders that arise from mutations in a single gene are the best candidates for gene therapy. Unfortunately, some the most commonly occurring disorders, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, and diabetes, are caused by the combined effects of variations in many genes. Multigene or multifactorial disorders such as these would be especially difficult to treat effectively using gene therapy. . . .” [last modified 13  May].

Perez et al. ingeniously avoided some of those problems, but the basic lack of knowledge remains. The disruption of CCR5 also disrupted the genome at other sites, chiefly at the neighboring CCR2: “Loss of CCR2 in CD4+ T cells is predicted to be well tolerated as CCR2-/- mice display phenotypes that are not disabling . . . . Mutant alleles of CCR2 have been correlated with delayed progression to AIDS in HIV-infected individuals, although no influence on the incidence of HIV-1 infection was observed . . . . Thus, parallel mutation of a small proportion of CCR2 in CD4+ T cells ex vivo is unlikely to be deleterious . . . . ”; and there was also disruption at “an intron of ABLIM2 on chromosome 4”. “Thus, except for CCR2 (5.39%), and rare (~1/20,000) events at ABLIM2, all the remaining sites showed no evidence of . . . [disruption], given a threshold level of detection of ~1 in 10,000 sequences”.

In other words, the engineering of the CCR5 gene is not 100% specific, other parts of the genome are affected. That no deleterious “side”-effects were observed in the experimental mice is hardly persuasive that the procedure could do in human beings only the one thing we want done and nothing else. Above all, Perez et al. say nothing about why CCR5 exists at all, what functions natural selection intended for it, and whether the CCR5Δ32 that supposedly protects against “HIV”—but doesn’t, according to epidemiological comparisons—is associated with any undesirable conditions.

So, I suggest, Perez et al. are tinkering with things they don’t understand and that are better left alone, hence my reference to Dr. Frankenstein. Incidentally: if you think “Frankenstein” was written by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, you should read John Lauritsen’s “The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein”, an illustration that it’s not only in medical science that the mainstream consensus can be wrong for long periods of time. The dogma that the Clovis people were the first Americans was maintained for more than half-a-century in the face of contradicting evidence as well as the implausibility of the idea that the earliest discovered habitation sites would correspond with the earliest actual sites. Back to literary scholarship: it is also not the case that William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon wrote Shakespeare’s works, see Diana Price, “Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem” ).

Posted in antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, HIV absurdities, HIV and race, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism, vaccines | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers