Tag Archives: Luc Montagnier

HIV-AIDS and the deadly denialists at WDDTY

Deadly denialists
We take a trip back in time to vol. 5 no. 4 (July 1994) for a look at the article titled “HIV infection: tested to death”, a veritable cornucopia of denialist dross published around ten years after AIDS was properly identified, seven years after AZT was approved, two years after combination therapies were approved – in other words, at a time when “skepticism” about the HIV-AIDS link had already crossed the line from the normal process of questioning emerging science, and into denialism.

Several well-known AIDS denialists are given a platform in this article, at least one of whom was repeatedly rejected as an expert witness in courts due to having absolutely no professional expertise in the subject.

It’s worth remembering that there is no record of WDDTY ever publishing an apology or correction for this offensive bullshit. In fact, there is reasonable evidence that they still harbour at least vestigial AIDS denialism. Indeed, the response “We covered the ‘does HIV cause AIDS’ controversy years ago, but it’s probably time for an update” is pure denialism: the HIV-AIDS link has not been remotely controversial for decades.

HIV-AIDS and the deadly denialists at WDDTY

Reblogged from Plague of Mice by the author, who has generously granted himself permission to do so

People living with AIDS, 2008
People living with AIDS, 2008

A friend sent me a copy of the latest issue of that collection of outrageous and mercenary lies legally registered under the title of What Doctors Don’t Tell You. It looks like we can expect some especially deadly fuckwittery in the near future. This somewhat transparently fake “letter” (read: an obvious plant) appears in the “Have Your Say” letters page.

Keep up the fight—and now onto AIDS


After reading your excellent November 2013 issue, I felt I must write to you all to congratulate you on your achievements. It’s fabulous that this type of information is available in supermarkets, and essential that such a sphere of influence is maintained. Following your brave articles on assessing true causes of cancer, which often go unreported, as well as treatments which can heal, I was wondering whether you had ever considered similar investigation into what I consider the biggest medical fraud of recent history— that of HIV/AIDS.
A dedicated reader

WDDTY replies: We covered the ‘does HIV cause AIDS’ controversy years ago, but it’s probably time for an update. Thanks for the suggestion. Continue reading HIV-AIDS and the deadly denialists at WDDTY

How might homeopathy work?

New research suggests that water may be an information ‘superhighway’ and a tape recorder of molecular signalling, WDDTY November 2013
McTaggart’s article contains only one reference within the last three years,  a conference presentation by Luc Montagnier that is not peer-reviewed. A quick review of the papers referencing this work includes: Beyond the fringe: when science moves from innovative to nonsense, Simon Silver FEMS Microbiology Letters 2013 (DOI: 10.1111/1574-6968.12289). The balance of it amounts to a statement that because Lynne McTaggart believes in Benveniste, so the refutation of his work (and Ennis’ refuted claimed replication) should be ignored and thus the debunked claims reinstated.

The sources are mainly conference abstracts and other low-grade material. None of the sources amounts to a good quality peer-reviewed paper in a top-tier journal, and none of the sources comes close to addressing the spectacular refutation and withdrawal of Benveniste’s headline paper in Nature.

The “new” claims date back to 2009 and, whether or not they are valid (and it is unlikely), it is clear that they do not validate homeopathy. The effects observed by Montagnier are most likely to be experimental error, but in any case there is no evidence of persistence; measurements on durations of ordered structure in water show they have a lifetime measured in femtosecond|femtosecondsW.

This is an intellectually dishonest article which presents only the minority side of a story where the majority side has received substantial coverage, and has survived the test of scientific debate. The claim that this represents “new research” is mendacious. None of the research is new, and the claims themselves have been known to be false for some years.

Continue reading How might homeopathy work?