![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
RFK Jr., Duesberg, AIDS
March 24th, 2025 18:01(This is a slight edit of some posts I wrote on Bluesky four months ago, before the confirmation of RFK Jr. It's still relevant so I figured I might as well put it together in one place.)
I'm glad to see Robert Kennedy's bullshit about HIV get some notice; still, when the HIV denialism is brought up, many comments are of the blank stare/"wtf, how is that even a thing" kind. I get it too; vaccines and transgender healthcare are more on people's radar.* But let me tell you about the horrible legacy of the man that Kennedy has called a "heroic healer": Peter Duesberg.
Duesberg, unlike Kennedy, had actual scientific knowledge in one field. And early on in the history of AIDS, scientists pursued all kinds of wild-ass guesses about what might be going on; Duesberg wasn't the only one who thought certain drugs, like poppers, might have a role. But he latched onto that idea early on—with some hedging about how maybe other recreational drugs and other STDs could be involved, all stuff he could ascribe to people's behavior, anything except a new viral pandemic—and did no research, and paid no attention to any progress after that.
Duesberg was immediately, and obviously, a crank and an egomaniac. No legitimate scientist ever behaves the way he did. A non-crank would ask themselves questions like "Does my work on retroviruses related to cancer really make me an expert on immunology?", or "Is it risky for me to tell everyone to ignore HIV?", or "Do I know enough about the people who are dying of AIDS for me to portray them as all wildly promiscuous drug abusers?", or "If my insight is so valuable, maybe I should do some research?" Instead he just kept doing interviews. And even though he did get public pushback, the press was still way too generous in describing him as a contrarian, a rebel, etc.—because that's a cool story. Also, some people latched onto the few sane things he said, like "the world isn't doing enough against malnutrition in Africa," and shut their ears to the rest, not unlike willfully ignorant fans of RFK Jr. now who focus on stuff like "well he's in favor of healthy food and doesn't like Big Pharma" as if those are bold new stances.
Of course, Duesberg himself did nothing to help people in Africa. Really less than nothing—since, like Kennedy, he gained influence over the highest elected official in a country: Thabo Mbeki, whose implementation of his advice in South Africa killed hundreds of thousands of people. Effective anti-HIV drugs were already available by then, far better than before; Duesberg didn't care. He also sadly convinced an actual AIDS activist who had HIV, Christine Maggiore, to forego treatment for herself and her child. Maggiore spent the next 14 years spreading the same gospel, even after her child died of AIDS; she only stopped when she herself died of AIDS, in 2008. Duesberg didn't care. His focus was entirely 1. I am right, 2. everyone is against me. And why was everyone against him? Because, in his view, The Establishment was too deferential to activists and minorities—who were the real causes of their own problems; the right-wing aspect of his views was never far under the surface.
The first time I heard Duesberg actually speak was in 1993 or '94, when, for my job, I had to listen to and transcribe an interview with him. He sounded exactly like what he was; he was even less charismatic than Robert Kennedy, but he knew the right phrases to use to appeal to people who fall for cranks. About seven years after that, I entered into the field of HIV care as a nurse (I'm not one now). Most of my co-workers had been in the field since the early years of total horror, and they could've retired, but they were so happy to be there now at a time when treatment generally worked. And that's why HIV denialism is much less of a thing people are aware of these days: people talk and think a lot less about AIDS in general, because it's not as huge a problem as it was (though, to be clear, it's still a bad problem, not over by any means).
But the cranks don't go away. There's no reason for people like Duesberg or Kennedy, or people who give them credence, to change their views just because they're overwhelmingly discredited. The evidence doesn't matter to them, it never did. It's about the personal legend of the contrarian. Kennedy calls Duesberg a healer not because his work ever had any positive effect on anyone's health, but because he wants to see himself that way, and because there's a great appeal in thinking you can be a hero in a way that involves never having to learn anything ever again. Crankism is incoherent in terms of ideas, but consistent in its ability to bring together people with the same personality flaws, imperviousness to evidence, and ability to dismiss the harm they do. There are many, they haven't gone away in 40 years, and giving Kennedy any governmental authority will bring them all in.
I'm glad to see Robert Kennedy's bullshit about HIV get some notice; still, when the HIV denialism is brought up, many comments are of the blank stare/"wtf, how is that even a thing" kind. I get it too; vaccines and transgender healthcare are more on people's radar.* But let me tell you about the horrible legacy of the man that Kennedy has called a "heroic healer": Peter Duesberg.
Duesberg, unlike Kennedy, had actual scientific knowledge in one field. And early on in the history of AIDS, scientists pursued all kinds of wild-ass guesses about what might be going on; Duesberg wasn't the only one who thought certain drugs, like poppers, might have a role. But he latched onto that idea early on—with some hedging about how maybe other recreational drugs and other STDs could be involved, all stuff he could ascribe to people's behavior, anything except a new viral pandemic—and did no research, and paid no attention to any progress after that.
Duesberg was immediately, and obviously, a crank and an egomaniac. No legitimate scientist ever behaves the way he did. A non-crank would ask themselves questions like "Does my work on retroviruses related to cancer really make me an expert on immunology?", or "Is it risky for me to tell everyone to ignore HIV?", or "Do I know enough about the people who are dying of AIDS for me to portray them as all wildly promiscuous drug abusers?", or "If my insight is so valuable, maybe I should do some research?" Instead he just kept doing interviews. And even though he did get public pushback, the press was still way too generous in describing him as a contrarian, a rebel, etc.—because that's a cool story. Also, some people latched onto the few sane things he said, like "the world isn't doing enough against malnutrition in Africa," and shut their ears to the rest, not unlike willfully ignorant fans of RFK Jr. now who focus on stuff like "well he's in favor of healthy food and doesn't like Big Pharma" as if those are bold new stances.
Of course, Duesberg himself did nothing to help people in Africa. Really less than nothing—since, like Kennedy, he gained influence over the highest elected official in a country: Thabo Mbeki, whose implementation of his advice in South Africa killed hundreds of thousands of people. Effective anti-HIV drugs were already available by then, far better than before; Duesberg didn't care. He also sadly convinced an actual AIDS activist who had HIV, Christine Maggiore, to forego treatment for herself and her child. Maggiore spent the next 14 years spreading the same gospel, even after her child died of AIDS; she only stopped when she herself died of AIDS, in 2008. Duesberg didn't care. His focus was entirely 1. I am right, 2. everyone is against me. And why was everyone against him? Because, in his view, The Establishment was too deferential to activists and minorities—who were the real causes of their own problems; the right-wing aspect of his views was never far under the surface.
The first time I heard Duesberg actually speak was in 1993 or '94, when, for my job, I had to listen to and transcribe an interview with him. He sounded exactly like what he was; he was even less charismatic than Robert Kennedy, but he knew the right phrases to use to appeal to people who fall for cranks. About seven years after that, I entered into the field of HIV care as a nurse (I'm not one now). Most of my co-workers had been in the field since the early years of total horror, and they could've retired, but they were so happy to be there now at a time when treatment generally worked. And that's why HIV denialism is much less of a thing people are aware of these days: people talk and think a lot less about AIDS in general, because it's not as huge a problem as it was (though, to be clear, it's still a bad problem, not over by any means).
But the cranks don't go away. There's no reason for people like Duesberg or Kennedy, or people who give them credence, to change their views just because they're overwhelmingly discredited. The evidence doesn't matter to them, it never did. It's about the personal legend of the contrarian. Kennedy calls Duesberg a healer not because his work ever had any positive effect on anyone's health, but because he wants to see himself that way, and because there's a great appeal in thinking you can be a hero in a way that involves never having to learn anything ever again. Crankism is incoherent in terms of ideas, but consistent in its ability to bring together people with the same personality flaws, imperviousness to evidence, and ability to dismiss the harm they do. There are many, they haven't gone away in 40 years, and giving Kennedy any governmental authority will bring them all in.
