My New Yorker mag arrived Monday with an article about a topic that’s all too familiar to us, here at Nature Medicine. Science reporter Michael Specter wrote about AIDS denialists — or dissenters as they like to call themselves — who say either that HIV does not cause AIDS or that antiretroviral drugs do more harm than good, and that most scientists are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. That last bit may be debatable, but to us and to everyone we consider credible, there’s no doubt that HIV causes AIDS or that antiretroviral drugs are safe.

I’m happy the New Yorker gave this urgent and deeply troubling issue some much-needed attention, but I’m a bit disappointed with its tepid tone. If you get through the whole article — and I suppose many of the magazine’s readers do — you come away with the feeling that the denialists are certainly wrong. But the first few pages give so much space to Peter Duesberg, the most famous denialist, and to the potential benefits of South Africa’s traditional medicines that you might almost be tempted to think these people have a fair point. After all, who among us hasn’t thought that scientists can be too harsh on those who don’t agree with the reigning hypothesis or that they don’t pay enough attention to traditional therapies?

But this is not your average scientific disagreement. There is NO question that HIV causes AIDS and to follow the “he said-she said” school of journalism in this case, strikes me as tame and… well, I’ll leave it there. I hope the New Yorker piece goes some way to repairing the damage caused last year by an article in Harper’s by dissenter Celia Farber.

For our part, we’ve covered the resurgence of denialists and the activities, in particular, of one Matthias Rath, who markets multivitamins as a cure for AIDS. Scientists and AIDS activists have sued the South African government and Rath for conducting trials of the so-called vitamin cures.

These denialists like to distort scientists’ own statements to support their theories and have even misappropriated sentences from one of our scientific reports, which we explicitly countered in an editorial last year after the Harper’s piece appeared. And we hope more of the mainstream press steps up to cover this issue.

Update: We have decided not to accept any more comments on this post, as the discussion between the two camps is not productive. We don’t want this blog to perpetuate a discussion that has already received too much attention