I think that applying the term AIDS denialist to someone who irrationally denies the validity of the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS is entirely appropriate. It is certainly the standard term for the phenomenon.
As for moral revulsion, I would strongly suggest that you actually read some of the references regarding AIDS denialism that exist in that wikipedia article that you recommended. You will find that moral revulsion for your position is relatively common.
I would say that the purpose of using this terminology would be to signal to the person so labeled that he has stepped over an important line and that many people will disagree that that person deserves to be called a rationalist.
Rationality is a methodology, not a position, and name-calling goes against it’s core principles.
To quote Vlad M:
In many ideologically charged topics that are a matter of culture wars and political battles, a key strategy is to create an association in the public mind between one’s favored position and a vague and general feeling of righteousness and moral rectitude—so that in the future, ideological opponents can be defeated by attacking their moral character, regardless of the quality and accuracy of their arguments and position
I think that applying the term AIDS denialist to someone who irrationally denies the validity of the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS is entirely appropriate. It is certainly the standard term for the phenomenon.
I don’t think that’s right. “AIDS denialism” is usually used to mean this:
AIDS denialism is the view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
I’m not sure what your point is. Jacob_cannell has denied that HIV is the cause of AIDS. What is worse, to my mind, he has offered the opinion that many scientists who say that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS are doing so dishonestly—out of fear of retribution. Read the wikipedia article on denialism. He fits the pattern.
Cannell: Actually, I think most intelligent researchers, if they could afford to be honest, would admit that HIV is the major indirect causitive factor, but this is not the same as saying HIV == AIDS.
Nobody thinks that HIV == AIDS. HIV is a virus, and AIDS is a syndrome, that may—or may not—subsequently develop in individuals infected with HIV.
That HIV != AIDS is not even remotely controversial:
HIV progresses to AIDS at a variable rate affected by viral, host, and environmental factors; most will progress to AIDS within 10 years of HIV infection: some will have progressed much sooner, and some will take much longer.
I think you’re reading this in an excessively literalistic manner. “HIV==AIDS” as it’s being used here is just shorthand for “AIDS is caused exclusively and entirely by HIV infection”
The chance of developing AIDS is probably also associated with age of HIV infection, the use of antiretroviral drugs—and other genetic and environmental factors.
Does the non-mutated CCR5 gene do anything important that the mutation disrupts? (In the sort of way the mutation for malaria resistance causes sickle cell anemia if you have two of them.)
That is the way I understand it and the way I assume jacob_cannell is using it. I’m pretty sure all concerned know the difference between viruses and diseases.
The question is whether HIV-1 is the cause of AIDS. Sure, there may be other factors that contribute, but I am claiming “no AIDS without HIV” and “HIV infection if untreated by anti-virals, leads almost inevitably to the diagnosable disease AIDS”. Jacob_cannell is apparently disputing this.
“HIV infection if untreated by anti-virals, leads almost inevitably to the diagnosable disease AIDS”
I’m basically agnostic on the HIV/AIDS question, but my layman’s understanding is that even mainstream thought on AIDS would not support this second statement. I believe it’s well understood that there are nontrivial numbers of people who are HIV+ and do not develop AIDS, decades after infection. This may be the gene mutation(s) referred to by timtyler, or it may be something else (I’m not well-read on the specifics)
First I should point out that even the mainstream, as far as I understand, does not claim that HIV-1 is the sole cause of AIDS, unless one takes AIDS to be a very specific form of immune suppression only caused by HIV, but so far there is little scientific support for that—other causitive factors can mimic AIDS-like immune supression, and I believe this knowledge and view is mainstream.
As to your 2nd point, kodos96 addresses that, and again it’s not even the mainstream position.
So first off, I am not disputing what you are claiming—firstly because it’s not even the mainstream position, but secondly because what I am disputing is something of a meta nature. I am disputing the certainty in the mainstream position.
I hold a range of beliefs about HIV and AIDS, and distribute probabilities amongst them. I naturally tend to simultaneously consider multiple viewpoints. In this case they are:
(orthodox) HIV is the prime cause of a progressive immune deregulation, although riskgroup specific co-factors contribute
(moderate) HIV, like the other exogenous retroviruses, has health negative effects, but is hardly outright lethal. It exists in an evolutionary limbo—it was once more lethal, but is evolving into more of a harmless vertically transmitted symbiote. Other exogenous retroviruses have been implicated in cancers, but not strongly. They are somewhere between epidemic viruses and harmless exogenous retroviruses that long ago were neutered and intergrated into our DNA. Furthemore, there are several genetic variations, and they have differential individual effect—picking up novel retroviruses from someone else’s blood is not good for one’s health.
.. .
I assign highest creedence to 2 atm. Note that it is very difficult to distinguish between these 3 theories. About the only specific differentiator would be koch’s postulate—isolating the virus and then infecting it into new hosts, observing the symptoms, and then reisolating the virus from infected cells. HIV has not been shown to cause AIDS under that criteria—it fails in any animal models.
Yes, that’s the term. Idiopathic just means “crap we have no idea what causes this”, so basically low CD4 counts and weak immune function is usually associated with HIV antibodies, but not always. I’ve seen that term used elsewhere, I think it is mainstream. I don’t think mainstream researchers are claiming HIV is the only thing that can cause low CD4 counts and AIDS-like symptoms—AIDS is not a specific set of symptoms at all, so it’s bound to have many classification errors.
I think that applying the term AIDS denialist to someone who irrationally denies the validity of the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS is entirely appropriate. It is certainly the standard term for the phenomenon.
As for moral revulsion, I would strongly suggest that you actually read some of the references regarding AIDS denialism that exist in that wikipedia article that you recommended. You will find that moral revulsion for your position is relatively common.
I would say that the purpose of using this terminology would be to signal to the person so labeled that he has stepped over an important line and that many people will disagree that that person deserves to be called a rationalist.
Rationality is a methodology, not a position, and name-calling goes against it’s core principles.
To quote Vlad M:
I don’t think that’s right. “AIDS denialism” is usually used to mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism
I’m not sure what your point is. Jacob_cannell has denied that HIV is the cause of AIDS. What is worse, to my mind, he has offered the opinion that many scientists who say that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS are doing so dishonestly—out of fear of retribution. Read the wikipedia article on denialism. He fits the pattern.
Nobody thinks that HIV == AIDS. HIV is a virus, and AIDS is a syndrome, that may—or may not—subsequently develop in individuals infected with HIV.
That HIV != AIDS is not even remotely controversial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
I think you’re reading this in an excessively literalistic manner. “HIV==AIDS” as it’s being used here is just shorthand for “AIDS is caused exclusively and entirely by HIV infection”
That thesis shouldn’t be controversial either.
For instance, a person obtaining two mutated CCR5 genes will be virtually immune to the HIV virus.
The chance of developing AIDS is probably also associated with age of HIV infection, the use of antiretroviral drugs—and other genetic and environmental factors.
Does the non-mutated CCR5 gene do anything important that the mutation disrupts? (In the sort of way the mutation for malaria resistance causes sickle cell anemia if you have two of them.)
That is the way I understand it and the way I assume jacob_cannell is using it. I’m pretty sure all concerned know the difference between viruses and diseases.
The question is whether HIV-1 is the cause of AIDS. Sure, there may be other factors that contribute, but I am claiming “no AIDS without HIV” and “HIV infection if untreated by anti-virals, leads almost inevitably to the diagnosable disease AIDS”. Jacob_cannell is apparently disputing this.
I’m basically agnostic on the HIV/AIDS question, but my layman’s understanding is that even mainstream thought on AIDS would not support this second statement. I believe it’s well understood that there are nontrivial numbers of people who are HIV+ and do not develop AIDS, decades after infection. This may be the gene mutation(s) referred to by timtyler, or it may be something else (I’m not well-read on the specifics)
You may be right that some people infected with HIV will never develop AIDS. Thx for the correction.
First I should point out that even the mainstream, as far as I understand, does not claim that HIV-1 is the sole cause of AIDS, unless one takes AIDS to be a very specific form of immune suppression only caused by HIV, but so far there is little scientific support for that—other causitive factors can mimic AIDS-like immune supression, and I believe this knowledge and view is mainstream.
As to your 2nd point, kodos96 addresses that, and again it’s not even the mainstream position.
So first off, I am not disputing what you are claiming—firstly because it’s not even the mainstream position, but secondly because what I am disputing is something of a meta nature. I am disputing the certainty in the mainstream position.
I hold a range of beliefs about HIV and AIDS, and distribute probabilities amongst them. I naturally tend to simultaneously consider multiple viewpoints. In this case they are:
(orthodox) HIV is the prime cause of a progressive immune deregulation, although riskgroup specific co-factors contribute
(moderate) HIV, like the other exogenous retroviruses, has health negative effects, but is hardly outright lethal. It exists in an evolutionary limbo—it was once more lethal, but is evolving into more of a harmless vertically transmitted symbiote. Other exogenous retroviruses have been implicated in cancers, but not strongly. They are somewhere between epidemic viruses and harmless exogenous retroviruses that long ago were neutered and intergrated into our DNA. Furthemore, there are several genetic variations, and they have differential individual effect—picking up novel retroviruses from someone else’s blood is not good for one’s health. .. .
Deusberg’s fully harmless passenger retrovirus theory.
I assign highest creedence to 2 atm. Note that it is very difficult to distinguish between these 3 theories. About the only specific differentiator would be koch’s postulate—isolating the virus and then infecting it into new hosts, observing the symptoms, and then reisolating the virus from infected cells. HIV has not been shown to cause AIDS under that criteria—it fails in any animal models.
Went googling and found that “Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia” is thought to cause AIDS as well as HIV.
See a company here and a scientific paper
Hmm, the scientific paper has only been cited 8 times, so I’m not sure how mainstream the view is.
The author is published for other more highly cited work, including nature.
Yes, that’s the term. Idiopathic just means “crap we have no idea what causes this”, so basically low CD4 counts and weak immune function is usually associated with HIV antibodies, but not always. I’ve seen that term used elsewhere, I think it is mainstream. I don’t think mainstream researchers are claiming HIV is the only thing that can cause low CD4 counts and AIDS-like symptoms—AIDS is not a specific set of symptoms at all, so it’s bound to have many classification errors.