Had I then seen House of Numbers, I would ask the following questions (among others):

1) If HIV/AIDS is fully known, why do these world-renowned — a compound adjective nobody here claims for himself, though the knowledge is axiomatic apparently — scientists and administrators make statements casting shadows on these axioms?

2) Are these axioms — this established body of knowledge — without fault or vulnerability? After all, if it were fully established, these great heads of the subject would not only proffer the same info, they wouldn’t dare to undermine lay-accepted dogma. (pfft, laymen, what a bunch of morons!)

3) Did the interviewer drug them, hold a gun to their heads, or do anything otherwise that might cause these bastions of Truth to cause audiences — who actually saw the film, ahem — to laugh?

4) Could the interviewer possibly be adequately manipulative in his questioning to cause the cream of the HIV/AIDS scientific crop, including the man who claimed to discover it and the man who broke the news in the US as Gospel Truth, to so obviously contradict each other and bring doubt to what was previously thought to be incontrovertibly axiomatic?

5) Assuming these people were not so coerced, and doubting the interviewer’s ability to manipulate these geniuses of science into spouting laughable statements, well…

Why did they say what they said? Did they lie? If not, their statements, per se, cast doubt on the HIV/AIDS body of “knowledge”.

… which is fine for this retarded layman (having shed the Martian costume).

I grok the contradictory and hilarious statements of the Mount Olympus of AIDS — said by they themselves — and hope that this film will bring more money for research… unbiased research, research committed to curing It rather than maintaining an apparently — according to these experts — questionable body of well-broadcasted “facts”.

I grok your perpetual search for truth via the scientific method. I do not grok your smugness in thinking you’ve got it all figured out.

For instance, how did matter come into existence, and what made it move?

Category 1. Entertainment. Film wins.
Category 2. Transmitting information to a lay audience. Film wins.
Category 3. Telling a story (fact or fiction). Film wins.
Category 4. Propaganda. Film wins.
Category 5. Forming an objective basis for scientific knowledge and health policy. The 25 years of research data win.

How can you expect anyone to understand anything if they don’t understand statistics? And most people don’t.

I think that you might have missed out a few words from your statement “When we see evidence that means something, we say what that means.” I am sure you meant to say “When we see [published] evidence that [, after a peer review to ensure that the sample sets are not skewed and that the data is real, and once the data has undergone rigorous statistical analysis to establish any significance,] means something, we say what that means.

The debate you propose is a very good idea. It will, of course, be unbelievably dull, consisting as it must of hours of detailed analyses of data and method. The non-consensus viewpoint protagonists will, of course, bring their peer-reviewed data and work to the debate. Given that they are the challengers, as it were, they would presumably be required also to establish the precise flaws that led others to a different conclusion.

Anything else would just be pretending to be scientific, bordering on an attempt to lie. I am sure you would not want that.

It’s a fair cop – I haven’t seen the film – so for all I know it’s more balanced than those who have seen it suggest. But given the way that they have presented Chrstine Maggiore (see the other thread), I doubt it.

I have to say I find the whole Christine Maggiore situation utterly tragic – it says a lot about human ability to rationalise against the overwhelming weight of evidence. Perhaps if you have got something horribly, tragically wrong, it takes moral courage to accept this. It seems to me that too many people stubbornly stick to their arguments, and then twist the available evidence to provide a figleaf of justification for their previous position.

Facts have conclusions. When we see evidence that means something, we say what that means.

And we discuss it. We don’t shut down debate because somebody said somebody else was “outrageous” without giving reasons.

We call people accountable for the science they present — mine as well as yours. If there’s that much at stake, why don’t you have a stack of dissident books you’ve dissected, point-for-point? Perhaps it’s just easier to make generalizations on blogs about things you’ve never researched. Just go to www.virusmyth.com and tear the whole thing apart. Become an expert.

I usually relax, knowing that if I’m wrong about something, it’s OK. Someone can bring me the new evidence, and I’ll change my mind, and it’s painless.

These are not stupid people, but they simply don’t get it. They have no conception of what science is, or the power that scientific methods bring to getting reliable data or gaining insights on the organising principles involved.

The problem is not of stupidity but ignorance, and of the arrogance which allows them to dismiss what they don’t understand.

As skyesteve says, this isn’t harmless intellectual ping-pong – there are a lot of lives at stake. And in the light of that, what do we want policy to be based on? Evidence-based, peer-reviewed, open-to-scrutiny published science? Or the opionions of a few campaigners of questionable expertise talking at a film festival?

Personally I don’t agree with the non-engagement approach – it’s never a good idea to make martyrs out of morons. So at one level I think you’re right to complain about censorship. But equally several of the things you say suggests that you’ve swallowed the nonsense that these people are spouting. Do you know that the children you refer to “do better” without the drugs – or do they just appear to in the short term because they don’t suffer side-effects, until they die of AIDS? Well-intentioned parents can do ethically indefensible things because they don’t like to see their children suffer, and because they want certainty. But I find it deeply troubling that a parent might be influenced by half-baked theorising to make choices on behalf of their children that fly in the face of the weight of scientific evidence. If the science is wrong, then let science prove it wrong – a one-sided documentary film really isn’t going to help anyone.

Here is a template for a perfectly fair debate. Firstly, insist that any evidence brought to the discussion is properly scientific, documented, published, and backed up with all the necessary research. Secondly, appoint a neutral moderator / chair that understands what scientific evidence really is, and who will act to remove any and all spurious evidence from the debate as soon as it arises. Thirdly, invite onto the panel only people who you know have the required experience and expertise to contribute under these rules.

What she will end up with is a genuinely fair debate, a discussion on the level field that she says she wants. There will be no controversy for controversy’s sake. Just a proper analysis of facts, coupled with reasoned opinions about those facts.

What Elizabeth proposes is far from level. She would allow one side (the denialist side) the same platform but without any of the rigour. In effect, by placing them alongside the scientists, she would be artificially propping up their view. And she would be hiding the props, so that the audience cannot see them. This would be unfair, not fair. She would be surreptitiously assisting a very weak argument gain apparent strength. She would not be helping the audience come to a proper conclusion; she would be cheating them. I am not sure why she wants to do this.

Dear Ms. Vela,

I understand your frustration at trying to form a “balanced” panel to discuss the film “House of Numbers.” Please allow me to express my regrets after hearing from the venerable Dr. Gordon Stewart that you felt you had to cancel this discussion.

I feel a very important point has been missed here. This “balance” you speak of is not between two views of AIDS science, but between talking about these issues and not talking about them. Between speech and silence. This “other side” has made very clear — publicly — that any kind of talk about these issues is unacceptable and should be censored, because these matters are, they say, settled. In fact, they have arrogantly asserted on many occasions that laypersons cannot handle the kind of information presented in this film. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that they have refused to participate. They do this kind of thing often.

For example, the filmmaker negotiated in advance for a panel discussion at the Boston International Film Festival, but the parties were unable to come to an agreement because the faction identifying itself as “the community” (local pharmaceutical-company-funded AIDS organizations) insisted on a one-sided “panel” of their own people. When it was determined that there would be no panel discussion, they worked behind the scenes to obtain protection from the Boston Police to make their own presentation after the film. This consisted of simply reading a statement that would have taken up all of the allotted time, allowing for no questions.

In other words, they simply took over the event, with an armed show of force. Yes, right across the street from historic Boston Common.

When the audience there — of which I was a part — expressed its outrage at this turn of events, their “mediator” threatened to have us thrown out. Were we to be thrown out of an event we ourselves had promoted? It was preposterous.

This is about accountability. The AIDS establishment has operated for so long without accountability that it cannot even comprehend not being allowed to censor others, take over events, and cancel appearances. Let their absence speak for itself. Let them be accountable for that, as recipients of public funds. It is, indeed, the point they wish to make: that no discussion of these issues is legitimate, and that they will take no questions from the public that pays their salaries. Please let them make that point, without ratifying it yourself. Holding the discussion without them would make a statement that censorship is not acceptable.

No compromise is possible.

This film itself lets all parties speak, from all points of view.

Look at just one consequence of “no discussion.” Here in New York, the city authorities have taken children away from their families for lack of “adherence” to the drug treatments that this film questions — because “everybody knows” those drugs work. Because there is no accountability in this system, they have done with these children what they wish, including enrolling them in toxic, painful and debilitating experimental drug trials — when the very reason they were taken was that their families found they did better off the drugs. Today, one politician, city councilman Bill de Blasio, is running for Public Advocate based on his record of doing, effectively, nothing about these trials. He is possibly the next new mayor of New York. See www.askdeblasiowhy.com.

Again, I beg of you, do not yield. Discussion or no discussion? You are affiliated with a respected media institution. State your intention outright and courageously: Do you stand for censorship or discussion?

Yes, I completely accept that telling people to live by solar movements rather than digital watches is not going to fly. But that’s not what I was suggesting at all. What I was suggesting was that we stop pretending that by redefining 9AM every six months, we’re going to work at the same time all year round – why not be honest and say “we open at 9AM in winter, and 8AM in summer”?

If the benefits are really there, how about promoting flexible office hours, and encouraging people to travel during daylight hours? (And if not everyone picks the same rush hour, all the better!) Local councils could adjust the times of the school day for each term of the school year. Businesses operating 24 hours a day could ignore the issue completely.

Sure, it would take a bit of getting used to, but the current system is not without drawbacks – apart from the logistical problems you mention, there are dangers in simultaneously disrupting the routine of everyone in the country. And in a sense, it’s actually more in keeping with “living by the clock” if we allow the things to run smoothly all year…

[And I would argue that BST is specifically "the name for GMT+1 when operated in the UK *in the summer*" - during winter, it would not be BST, any more than it is BST when we go to France in the winter. But "misnomer" probably covers it.]

Well, of course you are absolutely correct in the point, well known to pedants everywhere that daylight saving (not that I usoffice ed that term) is anything of the sort in terms of celestial mechanics. However, human beings are creatures of habit, and we are long past the time when our days were planned directly by the position of the Sun in the sky. We tend, at least since the introduction of the railways, modern factory, offices and efficient artificial illumination, to plan our activities by means of clocktime. We could, of course, achieve precisely the same objectives by whifting our daily schedule by one hour as measured by movement of the Sun, but our society finds it more convenient to adjust the clocks and keep nominal times of the day unchanged. It’s a decision of a little inconvenience to the IT industry, who have to cope with the ambiguity of one hour apparently being repeated. It’s of even more nuisance to those running timetables which span the affected twice-yearly events, not to mention even more confusion when different countries alter their clocks on different weekends.

So I would certainly vote for not fiddling with the clocks and bringing most people’s days forward by an hour. We are rather late starters – the Ethiopians, being much nearer the equator, have historically counted time from what amounts to the average time of sunrise (6:00AM on a 24 hour clock). Making best use of UK daylight, as our ancestors did, would involve us adjusting our daytime activites to best suit the available daylight (and it would be ecologically desirable too). But the clock rules, so modern society does the best it can be fiddling with its settings.

Note there is nothing illogical about BST being run through the winter, although it could be called a misnomer. It is, after all, just the name for GMT+1 when operated in the UK.

I know it’s not the topic primarily under discussion, but can I just point out that “extending British Summer Time into winter” is by definition a nonsense, as is the bizarre and rather pseudo-scientific term “Single/Double Summer Time” (meaning moving our clocks in line with Western Europe).

I think the whole concept of “Daylight Savings Time” is something of a con, and verging on Bad Science in its own right: the effects measured are actually not the result of changing the clocks, but of us *getting up at a different time* and *leaving work/school/etc at a different time*.

This is actually an important distinction: if experts want people to engage with the facts rather than the emotions, they should be very careful in how they “wrap up” those facts. If you can say that “BST saves lives” (because it tricks people into adjusting their routines), then it’s not a massive stretch to say that “homeopathy relieves sypmtoms” (because it may well have a measurable “placebo” effect).

Obviously, that’s a crude analogy, and I’m sure experts would be able to pick all sorts of holes in it, but it is another example of muddying the waters, and opening the way for “re-interpretation” by those who don’t subscribe to the scientific method.

The real problem is that there are simply too many people in the world and that’s the elephant in the room that no-one talks about and, as you say, the consequences of that silence are inescapable.

Nuff said but here are some quick stats from the Times Online anyhow:

Hits:
climate change: 6407
global warming: 4384

as opposed to

population explosion: 113
peak oil: 81

And, yes, when I hear the word Gore I reach for my sleeping tablets. His hysterical crap is enough to drive anyone (even a died-in-the-wool climate change believer like myself) into the opposite camp of denialist nutters.

I think you are pretty well right – emotion is appropriate when it is values that are under debate. If selling substances like tobacco, which undoubtedly cause premature deaths, offends your moral standards then emotion is appropriate – after all, this is life and death.

On that particular issue, I don’t get too concerned myself; at least with my generation. I go back far enough that I saw the first films in school of the consequences of smoking – a grieving child and that sort of grey look that middle aged people people exhibited in the mid-1960s in the sort of working class social background I came from. Being a grammar school kid, smoking wasn’t that prevelant, but I rather associated those that did with bullies and disruption. I didn’t much emphathise with smokers that I knew, and didn’t have too much sympathy with those of my generation that continued the habit (of course most of them gave it up).

However, I do wish that the anti-smoking brigade wouldn’t try and back their case by stating how much it would save the NHS if people didn’t smoke. When this has been looked at independently, the evidence is that there is a net saving to the states of people conveniently dying rather rapidly of an aggressive disease like lung cancer just after the peak of their financial contributions. Much more expensive is people living on to great old age through various chronic diseases (of course the pharmaceutical industry loves the latter). Note none of this destroys the moral case for anti-smoking; I just wish people wouldn’t misrepresent the statistics.

As Ben points out in his book, medicine has only really been a scientific discipline since the end of the second world war. Few doctors I know are in it because of an interest in the science itself – quite a few frustrated would-be doctors I know rather resented the emphasis on the scientific qualifications required to get into medical school. Who knows, they could be right. In any case, medicine is, I suspect, at least as much about dealing with people as the technical part. The whole CAM industry is based on the former with some form of illusion covering the second.