Anyone who lives near or has ever driven past a cattle ranch knows this much: No amount of perfume can mask the smell of bullshit. If you want proof, and you don’t have a car, just ask the editors of Frontiers in Public Health.
In 2014, the journal published a paper by a researcher in Texas, Patricia Goodson, who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS. In response to the predictable outcry, the journal blinked, sort of.
But rather than retract the article, as we reported back then, it decided to reclassify the work as “opinion” — an odd decision for a periodical whose mission is “to advance the scientific basis of knowledge and action for current and future public health professionals.” (Both top editors at the journal, Marcia Ory and Matthew Smith, are at Texas A&M University, where Goodson holds a faculty position as professor of health and kinesiology.) It also published commentaries critical of the Goodson’s article, in the hopes that readers would … ignore what she was saying.
More than four years later, the journal is retracting Goodson’s “opinion” piece with an admission that its strategy didn’t work — spectacularly.
According to the retraction notice:
In 2014, Frontiers in Public Health published an article by Dr Patricia Goodson, Texas A&M University: “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent”.
The article was submitted under our “Hypothesis and Theory” article-type and purported to review ‘the most salient questions raised, alongside theories proposing non-viral causes for AIDS.’ The utility of the article as a historical summary of dissenting theories of AIDS was recognised by the reviewers and editors, who accepted the article for publication. Within days, several formal complaints were received by our office, and, in accordance with our complaints protocol, we submitted these to a group of Editors-in-Chief for their expert opinion. Based on their advice, Frontiers took three actions:
1. The article-type was changed to “Opinion” to better reflect the subjectivity of the subject matter and to clarify to the scientific community and broader readership that the work was not one of empirical basis.
2. Most importantly, several invited critical commentaries were published and linked directly to the published opinion article. These commentaries situated the original paper within the context of unsupported, fringe theories on HIV-AIDS. They were intended to ensure that all readers understand that the causal link between HIV and AIDS cannot be called into question.
3. Frontiers published a statement to clarify our decision concerning the above two points.At the time, Frontiers intended that classifying the publication as an “Opinion” with the critical commentaries would offset the potential risk that AIDS denialists would misrepresent the publication as scientific evidence to support their discredited claims. These efforts proved to be both misguided and ineffectual. The critical commentaries went largely unheeded while the original paper continued to attract attention. Since publication in September 2014, the paper has generated more than 91,800 views and continues to be shared on social media. By contrast, the two critical commentaries have generated less than 19,000 views between them.
In September 2018, Frontiers appointed a new Field Chief Editor to Frontiers in Public Health, Dr. Paolo Vineis of Imperial College, London. Since then, we have received new complaints, and we reopened the evaluation of the publication of Dr. Goodson’s article. Our conclusion today is that the continued attention that this article garners -of which almost none takes into account the necessary context provided in the critical commentaries -itself presents a potential public health risk by lending credibility to refuted claims that place doubt on the HIV causation of AIDS. For these reasons, the editorial office of Frontiers and Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health retract this article. The author disagrees with the retraction.
Goodson did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
There is no indication on the article’s journal page that it has been retracted.
“In accordance with our complaints protocol, we submitted these to a group of Editors-in-Chief for their expert opinion.”
Does the mentioned protocol apply to the case of the Patrick Frank’s article, which accumulates 86,766 views over 7 weeks and 215 comments on PubPeer?
See: https://pubpeer.com/publications/391B1C150212A84C6051D7A2A7F119
Frontiers should do a better job in marking a retraction. On the article page, there is nothing indicating retraction, except for the editorial office comment in the side bar. Would you download the pdf, there is no indication in there that the article has been retracted.
“…..They were intended to ensure that all readers understand that the causal link between HIV and AIDS cannot be called into question…..”
This is odd. Surely the scientific method works by requiring that ANY hypothesis may be called into question if appropriate evidence exists?
I would have no complaint about a statement that the causal link between HIV and AIDS has been well established, and that in the view of the editors the evidence adduced in this paper is insufficient for them to reverse that opinion. But to say that it ‘cannot be called into question’ elevates the hypothesis to a level above a proven theory – it states that it is an immutable article of faith which cannot be denied under any circumstances.
This is not the kind of science that I follow….
We are in no relation to Dr. Goodson, except that we find this forced retraction very alarming. The question could be, what’s next?
After Gottlieb published the first 5 cases of the AID Syndrome in 1981, the virus hypothesis was promulgated in 1984 by Heckler and Gallo, i.e. 3 years later. However today, again 35 years later, we are still looking for a vaccine. That alone should be reason enough to check the basic assumptions.
There are other issues, above all concerning the antiretroviral therapy (ART) and here on the one hand its efficacy, and on the other hand the severe adverse effects of ART. Both points are intimately linked to the virus hypothesis of the AID Syndrome. We are of the opinion that the severe side effects of ART are one of the reasons why it is forbidden now to question the viral hypothesis of the AID Syndrome.
From our point of view this forced retraction is unjustified and it should be declared void immediately. This demand was formulated in an Open Letter to the editors of Frontiers in Public Health, https://www.docdroid.net/ZieDrF9/open-letter-to-the-editors-of-frontiers-in-public-health.pdf
Many viral diseases lack a vaccine. It does not mean there is no virus.
Many antiviral therapies can have significant adverse effects. It does not mean these therapies are ineffective or fundamentally mis-targeted.
Thank you for making your “demand” letter open so we can all have some laughs, though. I wonder if Geology journals get letters from flat-Earthers similar to this?
No other viral disease becomes chronic in 100% of the cases under treatment. And there are many non-pathogenic viruses.
There are millions of people treated with mitochondrially toxic substances. That is undisputed. And you talk about the form of the earth. What could be the reason for that?
The published side effects of ART match 1:1 the so-called HIV-related diseases, in contrast to opportunistic infections that are supposed to appear 10 – 15 years after the infection (slow virus) as AID Syndrome. Once you are finished with Geology, how do you explain that?
And since you name yourself Dr. – how do you explain the bystander cell enigma or the issue why antibodies define the disease but are otherwise useless?
Thank you for reminding us on what level these questions have been treated in the past.
My doctor understands I have no desire to know my “numbers” or “Detectable Status.” Because of COVID, we did a telephone appointment instead of my regular 3-month check. He let slip that I’m “STILL Undetectable.”
I NEVER KNEW I WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE. What is interesting is that I am constantly forgetting to take doses of ART (Truvada/Raltegravir once every 24 hours & Raltegravir single dose once every 12 hours) and have amassed over the years an uncountable (at this point because I send them back now and then to be repackaged for my consumption in my weekly pack rather. than waste fresh medication).
The most important prevention of immune deficiency (for me) is maintaining a life free from career pressure and other stressors such as earning an income. I am fortunate in this being possible.
I follow the path of least resistance which, in this case, dictates I say nothing to my family (sister) or doctor about missed doses because my nature is to please others at the expense of my own inner knowing & peace of mind. Having said that, my doctor noticed a spike in lab results a couple of years ago, which, it turned out, was due to something unrelated to missed doses of medication and was corrected.
Backstory:
I had a complete immune collapse in 2010. Presenting at the time was disseminated MAC, CMV and two undiagnosable parasites (one blood, one in the gut). The prognosis for survival was one to two weeks. After 6 months in palliative care & 4 years home recovery from the treatments, I am writing this age 60 and am in better condition than I was in my 20’s.
XoXo