Should ethical editors give pseudoscience space?
Does it make sense for mainstream media outlets to run articles claiming to overturn the overwhelming consensus of scientists and scientific institutions on a scientific issue? When the issue is a matter of life and death, such as whether HIV causes AIDS, or whether condoms reduce the risk of transmitting HIV, is it even ethical to do so?
Last year, The Citizen ran an op-ed piece by AIDS denialists Sam Mhlongo and David Rasnick claiming that HIV cannot be heterosexually transmitted. No need to wear condoms to prevent HIV they argued, though they conceded that condoms were useful for preventing gonorrhoea, syphilis and chlamydia –all curable diseases– as well as pregnancy. The article generated a flurry of responses and counter-responses. Most readers without expert knowledge of the subject would have been bewildered and could have believed that this was a real scientific controversy.
But there isn’t any. Rasnick and the late Mhlongo are both discredited scientists with no experience working with HIV. They argued that a study of sero-discordant heterosexual couples by top researcher Nancy Padian which resulted in no transmissions was proof that HIV could not be transmitted heterosexually. Padian herself wrote a rebuttal published in The Citizen explaining how Mhlongo and Rasnick misrepresented her research.
A recent court case in Australia had to determine whether HIV exists and causes AIDS. Justice Sulon, in his sensible judgment, dealt with the evidence of Elena Papadopulos-Eleopulos, an outspoken proponent of the view that HIV does not cause AIDS who uses the same arguments as Anthony Brink, South Africa’s loudest AIDS denialist. In cross-examination, she was often non-responsive to questions. She gave lengthy answers which did not address the questions. On the occasions when she did answer the question, it was often difficult to understand her responses. On some occasions, she simply responded by refusing to accept the validity of work published by reputable scientists, he wrote. Justice Sulon dealt at length with Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s misrepresentations of Nancy Padian’s work. It’s a shame that no South African media outlet has run a comprehensive report on this case, whose outcome is more relevant to us than it is to Australia.
The Citizen is not unique. SABC Africa ran Tine van der Maas’s documentary claiming garlic treats AIDS. Tim Modise devoted a whole show to van der Maas. Criselda Kananda disputed that HIV causes AIDS on Khaya FM. Martin Welz’s Noseweek ran Rian Malan’s error-laden conspiratorial rants about AIDS statistics. While most media outlets, to their credit, have condemned the President’s and Health Minister’s flirtations with AIDS denialism, some have sown confusion about this country’s biggest threat to public health.
For an article in TAC’s magazine Equal Treatment, we asked the editor of The Citizen, Martin Williams as well as Martin Welz and the station manager of Khaya FM to explain why they ran AIDS denialist articles. Only Williams engaged appropriately with us, sending us a respectful and considered response, which I will therefore reciprocally deal with respectfully.
Williams argued We do not campaign for or against anyone on this matter. However we do stand for free speech. There is a possibility that in your eagerness to do good you are inadvertently leaning towards the stifling of debate. To silence all voices but your own would be unfortunate.
Williams identifies the crux of the debate. Is freedom of expression a justification for running AIDS denialist articles, especially ones that are unanswered by orthodox scientists in the same publication? I think not. Newspapers certainly have the right to publish AIDS denialist or other pseudo-scientific articles without fear of repression from the state or anyone else. However, the right to publish should not be
confused with the idea that it is right to publish. Freedom of expression does not free publishers from responsible journalism. Editors who print pseudo-science should expect vehement criticism.
The New York Times did not face state repression for running Jayson Blair’s fictitious articles, nor the New Republic for Stephen Glass’s fabrications. Nevertheless, the editors took responsibility and heads rolled. From an ethical perspective there is little difference between pseudoscience and the fiction posed as fact by Blair and Glass. In both cases the facts are made up. At least it can be said for Blair and Glass that their articles were harmless fictions. Mhlongo, Rasnick and Kananda promoted falsehoods that could have confused people into taking life-destroying decisions.
Most publishers follow some ethical standards. For example, they do not publish news articles which they know have factual errors in it. Articles on science should be subject to the same ethic. Unfortunately very few editors or journalists have the training to determine scientific accuracy. Reducing mundane errors in science reporting in the mainstream media is a difficult, perhaps impossible, challenge, but editors can ensure that they do not give space to pseudoscience, or at least not without a response in the same issue or programme from a genuine expert who can explain science accurately, coherently and simply. Scientists should also make themselves more available to assist and educate journalists so that the risk of pseudoscience being promoted is reduced and the accuracy of science reporting generally can improve.
The threat of AIDS denialism in South Africa is receding thankfully. But there are other scientific issues of public interest: stem cell research, circumcision for HIV prevention, evolution and global warming are some examples. Indeed, the vested interests denying the human causes of global warming are immense. The oil industry, after all, has far more power than the charlatans promoting their own home-made AIDS cures.
A good rule of thumb for editors to follow is to be extremely cautious before printing articles that contest scientific consensus. It is true that scientific consensus changes. What is accepted as scientific fact today might be found to be wrong tomorrow. But no mainstream media outlet has the expertise to overturn scientific consensus. This is the role of the peer-review system of scientific journals. Ethical editors should concentrate on the extremely difficult task of making science accessible to their audience, and not have the arrogance to believe they can effect a scientific revolution. Nathan Geffen is the Policy Co-ordinator of the Treatment Action Campaign.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:57 am
Nathan, who are you to decide what is pseudoscience and what science is accurate? You, as a treatment advocate, and as you work for the pharma sponsored TAC, and have not even any education in science, are a completely biased individual on this subject. Talk about arrogance? Why don’t you put a check on your own!
The peer reviewed science system that you proclaim is the way things scientific should be settled, is highly criticized by most scientists! Consensus or popular vote does not make something false into a truth.
Many times in science, the consensus has been found to be completely wrong. It certainly seems to many thousands of scientists and doctors that HIV science is most likely wrong. It is quite apparent that AIDS deaths did not come down until AZT monotherapy was no longer dispensed.
Who are you kidding Nathan? You don’t want the press to look into this because it will expose HIV science as the fraud that it is, and it will expose you as what you are! You are and always have been a scientifically illiterate and completely biased blowhard when it comes to issues of HIV and its causality to AIDS, as well as a well paid off blowhard about putting the entire world on dangerous and proven toxic AIDS drugs!
God bless the free press as it
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Lincoln, good grief! You do have a short memory, don’t you. On February 20th you promised us you would quit your denialist rantings:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/02/hivs_dover.php#comment-349590
if the Parenzee case went south on the Perthies.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Nathan,
I think I have reached a stage where I am tired of you rubbishing my name when you don’t even know me. Who gave you the right nor permission to speak on behalf of all infected with HIV. When I was diagnosed and told I would live for only two years and God willingly I am still alive almost 10yrs later symptom free and without your highly recomended toxic drugs. I HAVE NEVER SAID HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS, you must get your facts right. I keep saying this and will continue saying it that HIV infection alone cannot cause AIDS. Like many others, I am disappointed that our current approach excludes a number of co-factors known to increase biological susceptibility to infection by all disease agents, including HIV, among which are nutritional security, poverty, powerlessness, and the basic necessities for a healthy and a dignified life.
This is what I keep saying, now you and your followers tell me, which part do you not understand. You seem like and inteligent person, if only you could read and listen and ask questions and then only make silly comments.
CRISELDA’S TIPS ON HOW TO LIVE POSITIVELY WITH HIV
You must first want to live and be grateful that you are alive
Body
Prevent illnesses by practicing advanced hygiene, e.g washing hands, using clean utensils when cooking, bathing, and minimising germs into your body.
Stay warm-viruses don’t like a warm environment
Eat Good food and avoid over boiled vegetables, and fried and processed foods
Eat foods with some of the nutrients needed to strengthen your immune system like: Selenium, Aloe juice, Zinc, Vitamin A, Beta Carotene, Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, Iron.
Clean your Stomach with natural Anti-worming medicines and food
Clean your food, Drink clean water 8 to 10 glasses a day
Prevent and treat diarrhoea immediately
Maintain a healthy weight, Plough your own vegetables and fruit
Treat each minor illness seriously, go the your local clinic or hospital seek help. Get tested for diabetes because this complicates managing HIV
Work with your doctor to investigate the extent of the infection, just in case you have reached a stage of taking ARV’S.
Mind
Deal with your fears
Get your feelings out
Get support if possible, find someone to talk to.
Love heals, love yourself as God loves you
Remember that laughter is the best medicine
Forgive yourself for whatever wrong you thing you have done and those you think wronged you.
Spirit
Most importantly as you pray, start believing that God is listening and it is done. And start thanking God for the Grace.
Now this is just to mention a few, the more reason we must stop the sexualizing of HIV. And there is no one size fits all, I could have never been this healthy if I was not financially independent.
This tiny minute virus blamed for all AIDS related deaths is also blamed for our attitudes.
This is what AIDS cannot do: AIDS is so limited that
It cannot cripple love, shatter hope, corrode faith, take away peace, kill friendship, shut out memories, silence courage, invade the soul, reduce eternal life, not even quench the spirit, Our greatest enemy is not the disease but the fear of speaking up and seeking help.
As we strive for an AIDS free World, let us restore the stolen dignity of African people and stop hiding behind their sexual preference. There can only be one winner in the AIDS PANDEMIC and that is all of mankind. By working together, we will solve the this challenge together, and together we will find health, peace and most importantly meaning to life. You must always remember that Science is not always accurate therefore allow yourself to be open minded and learn from other disciplines.
I think I must now find myself a good lawyer and stop you from dragging my name into your cheap political point scoring.
STOP THIS NONSENSE. You need to start listening to what I say and not make silly assumptions.
God Bless You
Criselda Kananda
Metrofm Talk Show Host
May 25th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Nathan, as always, you are blind to the truth. You will drown in your own arrogance. Tine
May 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
SPEAKING FOR THE DEAD.
Nathan Geffen’s post contains factual errors which have passed editorial checks at the blog. Among these are slurs on the honour and good name of the late Professor SWP Mhlongo MBBS LRCP MRCS MSc MED (London). Since the dead cannot speak I dare to speak for him.
Far from being a “descredited scientist with no experience working with HIV” at his death, he held the position of Chief Practitioner, Family Medicine and Primary Health Care. In performance of his duties he examined Family Med post-grads throughout the country. At his own university, MEDUNSA, now part of University of Limpopo, he lectured and was voted best lecturer on several occasions between 1998-2006. His role as head of department of both family medicine and primary health care, took him to wards and clinics under his own hospital, other universities and facilities throughout this country and in neighbouring countries where South Africa has set up partnerships at a diplomatic level.
In addition, he regarded it an honour to serve on South Africa’s Presidential Advisory Committee and his comments regarding it’s Interim Report (March 2001) are a matter of record. To say as Geffen does that this man would lie in order to promote his ideas, is the antithesis of the man and his ideas were most certainly not seen as falsehoods by the authors of the Interim Report.
It is true that many might have been confused by anyone who has addressed these issues publicly, Geffen included. But to state that the professor “promoted falsehoods that have confused people” implies consciously sinister intent. Such an allegation should never have been allowed in print about the late Professor Sam Mhlongo, because it is so patently incorrect, according to all available facts.
Whatever Geffen said about Prof Mhlongo’s scientific understanding and how this applied to pseudo-standards of practice, just do not tie up to the facts of his status in academia at the time of his death.
I have no idea how the Policy Co-Ordinator at Treatment Action Campaign, gets what appears to be unedited access to this website to say what? Tell editors how to do their job the TAC way? Meandering inconsequential, spiteful and factually inaccurate argument leading to the leap of faith that Geffen is the arbiter separating science from pseudo and therefore Setter of Rules. His “rule of thumb” is an epitaph: be extremely cautious, because today’s consensus can be tomorrow’s lie. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
May 27th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Well youre a little liar, arent you then, Michael aka lincoln.
So how are you reasoning going back on your vow?
Anita, if youre so concerned about qualifications, Im not even a grad student yet, and I regularly trounce Denier claims on my blog for my friends. Deniers with credentials, Creationists with credentials, same thing.
Regarding the post, if someone is addressed in an article by name, then they should be given space to defend their name. However, general Denier claims require no ‘equal space’. Let them do their own research and publish if they want space and a medium to spread their views. Thats how everyone else has to do it.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Lincoln is lying again when he states that TAC is “pharma sponsored”.
A full bench of the Cape High Court has found that there is no evidence
that the TAC receives pharmaceutical funding. Indeed, it found the claim
Read the full judgment at:
http://www.tac.org.za/documents/JudgmentTACvRath-200603.doc
In particular, the court stated “The respondents’ [Matthias Rath et al.]
allegations with regard to the pharmaceutical industry and the TAC are
premised upon conjecture and inferences and, it seems, are underpinned
by a conspiracy involving several players. It is an unlikely scenario
and no evidence has been disclosed which supports the respondents’
position on the TAC’s funding. The TAC, on the other hand, has made full
disclosure of its income and their source. Moreover, several local and
international deponents have confirmed the TAC’s policy and practices in
respect of its finances. The respondents’ allegations are not supported
on the available evidence and the contrary appears to be more likely.”
May 31st, 2007 at 2:26 am
Dr. Foley,
As your quotes demonstrate, either none of the supposed evidence for pharma funding of TAC was brought forward, or if it was the judge dismisses it without telling us what it is.
In either case, it is difficult to make up one’s mind independently on this basis.
Incidentally, in the other court case mentioned by Mr. Geffen, the judge’s approach was exactly the same. When the defence (The Perth Group) would say that Nancy Padian’s or Gallo’s research papers supported the defence arguments, the judge would ‘investigate’ by asking Gallo his opinion. Now guess if you can what Gallo’s or anybody else on the prosecution side’s opinions were.
Likewise, in South Africa, the judge begins and ends his ‘investigation’ by simply repeating TAC’s words:
“I refer briefly to some of the responses to the allegations made by the respondents.
Achmat states that since its inception the TAC has insisted on political and financial independence from the pharmaceutical industry. This policy was formally declared and adopted at its national congress in March 2001 and forms part of TAC’s constitution etc. etc. etc.”
Allow me to bring two points to attention that should be obvious (without saying that Lincoln has any foundation for his allegations)
1. It is a rare event indeed that any wrongdoing is found when an organization or institution investigates itself.
2. It is extremely difficult to prove that someone knowingly (a condition of proof further introduced by the judge) has accepted indirect funds from third party.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I can not let this go so I will state the following under oath so anybody can use this against me in a court of law if they want to:
1.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Sorry, somehow I was disconnected above. I contacted Zachie Achmet long before there was any ARV treatment in SA. He never returned my calls after one phone call speaking directly to him explaining the concept of our program or answered his calls when we phoned him around 1998/1999. It was a dead end!!! I also contacted Patricia de Lille of then PAC - no response! Same for the DA. I want to make it clear it was not just one calll or 2, but many phone callls - records wil bear this out. Dr Manto was the only one that did respond.
Again I contacted Mark Heywood just before Easter 2003 (veriviable records) to put patients on our program under doctors supervision with me supervising - (please remember that at this stage there were no ARVs roll out) -as we kew our program worked, guess what . Again no reply when he should have told me a yes or a no (again telephone records to prove it) I did contact him. At that time I had just been attacked somewhere in KZN, so I did not push it as with a broken shoulder and ligaments I had to find the confidence to drive a car again. (It was a favour to them as I was quite traumatised, but still wanted to spread the good message of health).
Next contact with TAC: After our documentary came out, Nathan Geffen got hold of a copy and obviously watched it as he asked me questions on this. He did not want to speak to me but did correspond with me by sms and email which I saved all the emails.
If you really think I am a killer as many on the nternet
zzzzzdo you not charge me with these homicides of Khabzela and Numphizo. The TAC has plenty of money to take me to court .
Ethical journalism should be very careful. Where are your ethics if you never have interviewed me and as I always have I been very clear about the issues.You wiill regret it if you ignore me. Please remember I do have the records I send you. Kid regards
Tine van der Maas
June 10th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Tine, Who is (or was) Numphizo? Is that an alternative spelling of Nozipho Benghu, who was the “scientific proof” that your treatment was the cure for AIDS?
It’s been 4 or 5 years now since the burglars peed on your records right? Do you have new records of the latest 20,000 or so you have cured?