Re: A New Way of Referencing Might Help Reduce Complaints About the AIDS Denialists... 8 April 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Julian Turningheart,
Gainesville, Florida 32608

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: A New Way of Referencing Might Help Reduce Complaints About the AIDS Denialists...

Dear Editor,

Tony Floyd writes (A new way of referencing might help reduce complaints about the AIDS denialists 7 April 2004), “It is comforting that a recent Respondent has declared that his 'confidence is not shaken' by the fanatical few that feel compelled to throw dubious piffle at the realities of HIV/AIDS.” What I wrote (The rape of the null hypothesis 6 April, 2004) was, “My confidence is not shaken by the fact that “Hit hard, hit early” (17) has been replaced with “…um…er…let’s wait and see.” I agree with Mr. Floyd that “hit hard, hit early” was “piffle”; however, this “piffle” emanated from the HIV mainstream, not the Perth Group or any other so-called denialists.

I further agree with Mr. Floyd that it is bad form for one to cite articles one has not read. I must disagree, however, when he implies (“a reinterpretation of figures that have not been used that way in the publication, or in any publication by any of the authors since.”) that it is somehow inappropriate to interpret a paper’s figures or conclusions differently than the authors do. It’s my impression that such independent interpretation of data is the basis of the peer-review system, and is crucial for critical evaluation of any study. Mr. Floyd and I may disagree on the interpretation of, say, the Western blot in the Bess, et al. (1) paper, but that doesn’t make one of us a “conspirator” or “denialist”. It simply makes one –or both- of us wrong.

Finally, I’m glad that Mr. Floyd points out that Galileo’s experiments “…could be reproduced by his mathematical colleagues.” Accurate predictions are the hallmark of a successful scientific theory, and it is for this reason that I pointed out (The rape of the null hypothesis 6 April, 2004) several instances in which Perth Group hypotheses were subsequently vindicated (e.g. with respect to particle isolation, gp120 spikes, and KS). In contrast, predictions by the HIV mainstream regarding these issues, as well as spread of HIV outside of the original risk groups, apocalyptic levels of HIV-associated deaths, and development of a vaccine have turned out to be mindless bloviations from the highest levels of the world’s scientific and political establishments.


1) Bess, et al. (1997). Virology 230:134-144.

Competing interests: None declared