It was retracted not because of the claims made. It was retracted because it challenges the widely accepted claim that HIV causes AIDS. It's pretty much the same when back in the days people were put to death to argue that the earth revolves around the sun because the bible said otherwise
It was retracted not because of the claims made. It was retracted because it challenges the widely accepted claim that HIV causes AIDS. It's pretty much the same when back in the days people were put to death to argue that the earth revolves around the sun because the bible said otherwise
At the time, Frontiers intended that by 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 consider 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.
The sum of it 4 out of 5 people only read half of the story - the nice conspiracy bits.
"Our conclusion today is that the continued attention that this article garners of which almost none consider 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. "
Refuted because it challenges a widely accepted claim. Not because of the data / analysis presented in the citations.
"Our conclusion today is that the continued attention that this article garners of which almost none consider 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. "
Refuted because it challenges a widely accepted claim. Not because of the data / analysis presented in the citations.
The artilce does not actually. That one reason it was removed. Peole are misreading the article. Its a history of alterante versions, which there are 4 - none of which are believed to be true by the author. He only only points out that before the answer is found there are many theories - in this case 5 theories.
Even if the author disagres with the main theory he does not believe in an alternative. He gives 4 versions and supports none of them.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
