Life's Persistent Questions

Anti-science extremist...

You think I am referring to the religious fanatics, who do not believe in evolution? No. I am talking about some people at the BBC. The controversy over the HIV drug trials involving New York City children, most of them in foster care, in the last one and half decade has been simmering. New York Times finally did a story about it. Thus this pits two of the biggest liberal news organizations in the world against each other, since much of the story was stoked by BBC and a documentary it did.

Upon reading the relevant news stories, I have a few thoughts. One, it is the importance of informed consent, and how difficult it is to obtain especially in the cases of children who had been abandoned by their families and were left to die of HIV and AIDS. I do not pretend to know whether NYC officials did their best in book keeping. But I would make it clear that I do not think this made the whole project racist or unethical. I also do not blame the advocacy groups that seek to protect the rights of children, who are so vulnerable. However, I place the blame mainly on the BBC. Why?

First of all, the story had started by a freelance journalist, Liam Scheff. He does not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Well, for most of us in the reality-based community that would put him in the same league as Falwell and Co. But did this deter the BBC from following his footsteps? Coincidentally, in the two stories on the BBC website, there is no mention of Scheff's involvement at all.

Second, the one scientist they interviewed that were unequivocally critical on the trial was David Rasnick,, a chemistist who also does not believe in HIV as the cause of AIDS according to a website that call the HIV a myth. The reports often refer to him as from UC Berekley, but he is actually a "visiting scientist" which in the absence of any other academic appointments elsewhere means he's 53 year old POST-DOC. Other than that, he has worked on protease inhibitors in CANCER BIOLOGY. I know people hear about protease inhibitor and think AIDS drugs, but the field is actually much wider. But for the BBC this qualified him, a non-physician, to speak about side-effects on patients. we all know by now not to trust someone on TV with a white coat and a "Dr." in front of his name as a real patient treating physician. For that same reason, just because someone has a Ph.D. that does not making him an expert in all thing science. Apparently, that is good enough for the BBC.

With such inflammitory titles like "Guinea Pig Kids," the BBC is making itself the laughin-stock of serious news. By employing rogue pseudo-scientists/conspiracy peddlers such as David Rasnick as their experts, it degrades the BBC's reputation as a unbiased source of objective news. I can overlook the BBC's reluctance to use the word "terrorist" to describe suicide bombers, but I cannot stomach the irresponsible dissemination of the destructive non-sense that HIV does not cause AIDS.

posted by hedgehog @ 3:37 PM