Policymaking, Dissidents and Denialists

Abstract

HIV/AIDS ‘dissidents’ have been compared with Holocaust deniers, to the point where there have been calls for them to be prosecuted in the manner of David Irving, the British historian jailed in Austria in 2006 for maintaining, amongst other problematic points, that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz (Smyth 2006). The terms AIDS ‘dissident’ or ‘sceptic’ cover a broad spectrum of opinion. Dissidents are by no means unified. Different individuals and groups have made various claims about the nature of HIV, the link between HIV and AIDS, and the efficacy of antiretroviral treatments. Some have questioned whether AIDS as a disease exists at all. The majority of dissidents base their theories on what are perceived to be ‘holes’ in the science underpinning HIV/AIDS ‘orthodoxy’. For analysts and policymakers, the question at the heart of the debate is one of censorship. Should dissidents, in the interests of freedom of speech and scientific inquiry, be permitted a platform for their views? After all, in the best traditions of liberalism, and in the spirit of John Stuart Mill (1998), any theory, if ‘true’, should be able to withstand scrutiny.