Why Frontiers Must Retract HIV/AIDS Denialist Paper

March 26, 2015

Kenneth Witwer, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Kenneth Witwer, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The scientific publisher Frontiers recently published a paper disputing the link between HIV and AIDS. Yet, the belief system known as HIV/AIDS denialism has no scientific basis. As demonstrated anew with every person who begins a successful therapeutic program, the causative link between HIV and AIDS is among the strongest and most investigated in modern medical science. The published manuscript was also weak -- a one-sided, poorly researched, inaccurate screed by a non-expert on HIV/AIDS with training in theology and education.

This resurgence of denialism in the scientific literature is deeply troubling, as denialism remains dangerous to the extent it is tolerated in credible forums. In response, conscientious scientists and activists should demand retraction of this piece and avoid the Frontiers brand unless and until retraction occurs.

What Do Denialists Believe, and Why?

HIV/AIDS denialists variously believe that HIV does not exist, or that it exists but is harmless. They assert that AIDS is caused by antiretroviral drugs or "lifestyle factors." A wide variety of motivations and convictions underlie these anti-scientific conclusions. Some deny communicable disease in general, suggesting that measles, for example, is the result of a bad attitude, not a virus. Others dispute the existence or disease-causing potential of HIV only. For many, HIV/AIDS denialism is just one beast in a weird menagerie of conspiracy theories. Some are bigots or misguided "wrath of god" zealots.

Sadly, there is one more category of denialists: the dead. All too often, HIV-positive denialists have practiced what they preached, and died because they refused treatment.

Does Denialism Still Matter?

The heyday of HIV/AIDS denialism may be past, but lives are still being lost. There was a time when entire countries were threatened. Fifteen years ago, the questionable "scholarship" of University of California, Berkeley, professor Peter Duesberg provided the rationale for the South African government to refuse distribution of desperately needed antiretroviral drugs. Duesberg, who dismissively referred to black Africans as "Schwartzes," said the life-saving anti-HIV drugs were the true cause of AIDS. The resulting tragedy stretched over many years, with hundreds of thousands of needless deaths and new infections.

The political climate has long since changed for the better. However, denialism still matters as long as its adherents remain a threat to themselves or to others who might understandably embrace a soothing message about a harmless virus and forego needed treatment.


Who Is Responsible?

Demonstrably, denialism kills. Duesberg and lesser leaders in the tiny denialist community certainly share some culpability for deaths in South Africa and elsewhere. But are their actions, however reprehensible, surprising? Crackpots will always be with us, and we expect them to behave as crackpots.

Much more disappointing and inexcusable is the behavior of those who know better: those with authority who do nothing. Where would Duesberg's arguments be without the name of his university behind him? Would former South African President Thabo Mbeki have been more influenced by the scribblings of a retired rabble-rouser or a full professor at Berkeley? Sadly, University of California administrators have refused to kick out or even censure their scientifically unproductive, morally loathsome resident HIV/AIDS denier in any way, valuing a twisted notion of "academic freedom" over human life.

Scientific Publishers Have a Tremendous Responsibility … to Discriminate!

Scientific publishing is not and should not be inclusive. In a way, it is the careful application of censorship: burning away mistakes, laxity and invalid postulates. Evidence must be revealed; disproven notions should be rejected and removed.

Biomedical publishers who allow nonsense to appear in their pages because of misguided ideas about freedom of speech compromise the scientific enterprise and public health. Like Duesberg's unprincipled academic protectors, the Frontiers editors failed in their capacity as gatekeepers.

Just as the fraud Andrew Wakefield and the anti-vaccine movement depended on a paper in The Lancet (since retracted), HIV/AIDS denialists draw strength from publication in the scientific literature. When this happens, drastic action is needed, as occurred several years ago in response to a denialist piece in the journal Medical Hypotheses. The publisher retracted the article, removed the editor responsible and instituted new guidelines.

Compounding Mistakes

In contrast, Frontiers failed on all fronts after an outcry from scientists led Frontiers to issue a Statement of Concern and begin an investigation.

(Please note that the links below work through an intermediary service and thus will not be credited to the journal for web rankings.)

  • The investigation ended with a decision to reaffirm the piece, simply reclassifying it as an opinion article.
  • Worse, the editors listed it in PubMed, the repository for biomedical literature. Inexplicably, the initial Statement of Concern was deleted and expunged from the record.
  • Frontiers even commissioned a debate-style response by an HIV/AIDS researcher, suggesting that the inaccuracies of HIV/AIDS denial deserve serious consideration.
Given an opportunity to correct its mistake, Frontiers deliberately compounded it instead.

What Must Be Done?

Frontiers must retract this piece. No matter how it is classified, this manuscript is a travesty of a scholarly work and has no place in the literature, not even as an occasion for a "teaching moment."

Second, Frontiers should dismiss or reassign the editors who were involved in the deliberate decision to retain the article. It is particularly astounding that anyone involved in HIV/AIDS research could sanction the promotion of this piece.

Finally, Frontiers must take steps to avoid irregularities like those that allowed the article to be published in the first place. Until these actions are taken, Frontiers cannot be taken seriously as a scientific publisher and should be boycotted.

Reflecting on this episode, I recall my first year as a graduate student, when my classmates were asked to invite a speaker to address the university. Our first choice was a somewhat slimy former scientist who was also an HIV/AIDS denialist. In our immaturity, we were amused by him. Our program director was not, and he wisely vetoed our first choice.

Exercising his role as gatekeeper, the director recognized something that the Frontiers editors would do well to consider: Not all viewpoints have equal value, and some viewpoints have no place in a reputable setting.

Kenneth Witwer, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. His research program examines the role of the body's innate and intrinsic defenses in protecting against HIV infection and disease. The opinions expressed are his own and not necessarily those of his employer or funding sources.

Copyright © 2015 Remedy Health Media, LLC. All rights reserved.

Get email notifications every time HIV Care Today is updated.

This article was provided by

Reader Comments:

Comment by: happynurse (Cleveland) Thu., Jul. 2, 2015 at 3:05 pm UTC
I do agree with your views, and yet, and yet...people still have the right to express what THEY hold to be true. This is such a knotty problem: if they truly hold these opinions, they, too, have a right to them. And even a journal of note can publish an article on it, and there can be debate on it. No one is forced to agree with them. However, those treating patients with HIV/AIDS MUST adhere to the scientific guidelines, in my opinion, otherwise they are in fact "doing harm" if they do not apply what beneficial measures we have at our disposal today.
Reply to this comment

Comment by: Dora (Milano, Italy) Sat., Mar. 28, 2015 at 4:36 am UTC
Thanks for this post, Dr Witwer.
On March 2, with a group of friends at the Italian HIVforum and with the support of four Italian scientists, I’ve sent a letter of complaint to Frontiers’ editors.

The Frontiers Editorial Office Manager replied acknowledging receipt and promising a more comprehensive response “in a few days”. It's now been three weeks and there’s no trace of that “more comprehensive response”.
I wonder if Frontiers’ editors think that ignoring the problem will make it magically disappear.
Reply to this comment

Comment by: Nicole (Orleans) Fri., Mar. 27, 2015 at 7:32 am UTC
Patient stimga sit in hospatial with doctors and eat with and have aids sign on still will not help with the diease
Reply to this comment

Comment by: David E Polando (Boston, MA) Thu., Mar. 26, 2015 at 10:19 pm UTC
Thank you for your valuable and incisive critique of Frontiers of Public Health editorial posturing.

Hopefully the power of reason - the first hand experience of every health care worker, HIV educator, biomedical and behavioral researcher, and every person living with HIV I know, will prevail.

I am reminded of an acquaintance, a perennial HIV denier, who witnessed grotesque abuses of power in his work and personal life and was deeply distrustful of authority. At age 46 he ended up in the ER, diagnosed with pulmonary KS. After diagnoses, aggressive HAART and recovery, he read Duesburgs' HIV thesis , stopped taking his meds as prescribed, (taking weekly holidays), and counsels young gay men about "the sham that is HIV science."

More tragedies await us if we are remiss in our responsibilities to speak up and out.

Reply to this comment

Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:

Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:


The content on this page is free of advertiser influence and was produced by our editorial team. See our content and advertising policies.