* * *
Campbell knows that the next two hours will probably be the most important in the entire trial. If the jury can understand the testimony of his next expert witness, they will undoubtedly find the defendant not guilty when it’s all said and done. He’s also aware that the entire AIDS industry is based on the statements he is about to challenge; and if he can do this right, he can bring down their whole house of cards.
Armand knows this too, and although he tried to engage Dr. Tanner with it this morning in his cross-examination, he knows he didn’t do a very good job.
Sarah is even aware that something big is about to happen. She can feel it – the make-or-break point, like that Ace of Spades that she thought Armand must have up his sleeve last week. Funny thing, though; it’s Campbell that’s going to pull it out.
“I’d like to call Dr. Judith Burgess.”
A young woman – looks like she’s in her late twenties – with short-cropped blonde hair and a stylish light-blue pants suit makes her way to the witness stand. When she’s settled in, Campbell begins his questions.
“Dr. Burgess, your doctorate is a Ph.D. and not an M.D.?”
“Correct. I received my Ph.D. through the Philosophy Department at Michigan State University.”
“And you are teaching at the moment?”
“Yes, I teach logic, ethics, and science and values at Clemson University, just down the road from here.”
Campbell grabs some papers from his table. “Dr. Burgess, I’d like to read you a couple statements being made by various people in the AIDS Industry, if I could, and then I want to ask you some questions about the logic behind those statements, more so than the science.”
“Go ahead, Mr. Campbell.”
He looks at his notes. “Here’s a quote from one of the leading AIDS doctors on the Internet, Dr. Becky Kuhn, that she emailed me one day. It says, ‘An error or false positive on one of the HIV tests will be corrected on one or more of the other tests, making the tests 99% accurate when combined together.’”
“Okay.”
Apparently that’s all Burgess is about to say at this point, so Campbell continues.
“The other comes from the CDC – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – who say, ‘...the use of repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay followed by confirmatory Western blot or immunofluorescent assay remains the standard method for diagnosing HIV-1 infection.’”
“Alright.”
Campbell had anticipated a little more of a response from this witness. Did I make a mistake choosing Burgess for this job? Too late now.
“Dr. Burgess, we’ve heard a lot of testimony over the past couple of weeks about a myriad of problems with the HIV ELISA test and the HIV Western Blot test, and there has been very little, if any, dispute about the the facts that have been presented. In fact, the only real response anyone in the AIDS Industry seems to have is what I just read you: that any problems that we have brought up are all solved when the ELISA and Western Blot tests are combined together – that a positive Western Blot after two positive ELISAs confirms that a person is HIV-Positive. In your expert opinion, would that be true?”
“That depends, Mr. Campbell. To put this into logical terms, their conclusion is that the Western Blot test is able to confirm the ELISA test. Have I got that right?”
“Yes, I would say so.”
“Then it depends on what comes before this statement, on which the premise relies. For example, has the ELISA test been proven to be accurate by some independent tests other than the Western Blot?”
“No, it hasn’t, according to our expert witnesses.”
“Well, has the Western Blot been proven to be accurate by some independent tests other than the ELISA?”
“No, it hasn’t, again according to our expert witnesses.”
“Are the two tests entirely different in what they are testing for?”
“No, they aren’t. The testimony has been that they’re virtually identical tests. Both are antibody tests looking for reactions to the same proteins.”
“Then it’s simple. They can’t make the statement that one test can confirm the other, Mr. Campbell. Or to put it another way, it they do make this statement, it violates all rules of logic and therefore is highly unlikely to be true – not impossible, but highly unlikely.”
Sarah could see the relief in Campbell’s face, and she was also impressed that the witness had refrained from giving her opinion until she had all the necessary facts – a point that was probably not lost on the jury, either.
“Exactly what rules of logic, Dr. Burgess?” Okay, let’s do this, Campbell thinks.
“It’s called ‘begging the question,’ but it’s sometimes referred to as ‘circular reasoning.’ Both are called fallacies of logic.”
Campbell hadn’t planned on going this deep, but Burgess had brought it up and now he had to make it clear to the jury. “Is there a difference between the two?”
“Technically, yes, although both terms are used interchangeably these days. In this case, what the CDC and Dr. Kuhn are saying violates both.”
She’s obviously just out of school, well-educated, but as often in the case, armed with almost too much knowledge, Campbell realizes. I’ll have to be careful not to lose the jury. “Would you explain one of these fallacies, please, Dr. Burgess?”
“Surely. Let’s take circular reasoning. In circular reasoning, there is only one premise, and the conclusion is simply a restatement of that premise. It's like saying, ‘A is B, therefore A is B.’ Or ‘I like vanilla ice cream because it's my favorite kind.’ Or someone might ask, ‘What makes you think football is the most exciting sport in the world?’ and get the answer, ‘Because it is.’ In this particular case, they’re saying that the ELISA is correct because the Western Blot says it is, and that can’t be logical unless the two tests were independent and one or both had been proven to be accurate on its own.”
“And what about begging the question?”
“Begging the question is very similar. It just usually takes a more circuitous route to get there. In other words, it might have more than one premise that comes before the conclusion, but the conclusion is still simply a restatement of the premises themselves.”
She’s not doing badly at all. “Can you give us an example.”
“Of course. Imagine that Bill is being interviewed for a new job. The interviewer says, ‘Your resume looks impressive, Bill, but I need another reference.’ And Bill responds, ‘Jill can give me a good reference.’ So the interviewer asks, ‘But how do I know that I can believe what Jill says?’, and Bill answers, ‘I can vouch for her.’ In this case, Bill was offering himself proof of Jill’s reliability, but neither Bill’s credibility nor Jill’s had been proven independently. This is exactly what the CDC is doing by offering the Western Blot as proof of the ELISA’s reliability.”
“Is there some very simple definition you can give us for ‘begging the question,’ Dr. Burgess?” just to bring the point home.
“I can give you the definition I use in all my classes.”
“That would be fine.”
There was no need for Burgess to read it from a book; she had used it many times in her own studies as well as her short teaching career. “Fowler's Modern English Usage states that begging the question is ‘the fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself.”
“And have you seen this used in real life, this ‘begging the question’?”
Burgess smiles for the first time. “Actually, one of the classic examples I use in my classes involves a lawyer in a court case; and this is a true story. In his closing comments, the attorney made much of the fact that the defendants had shown ‘no remorse’, the implied argument being: If these people are guilty and have shown no remorse for their crime, this can only mean that they are bad people, and this strengthens our conviction that they are guilty. Fortunately, in this case the jury was not fooled and the def
endants were all acquitted.”
Campbell has to laugh, wondering whether he had used this in one or two of his own cases. “So that’s begging the question.”
“Right. If the lawyer had simply said, ‘These people have shown no remorse for their crime, therefore they must be guilty,’ that would have been circular reasoning, but just as illogical. So you can see how closely related they are, and why either term can be used.”
Time to get to the point. “Dr. Burgess, can you relate this more specifically to the issue at hand for the HIV tests?”
She pauses. “I thought about this a lot after you called me to testify, and the best I could do was come up with an analogy; but it’s a very long analogy, I’m afraid.”
“I’m sure that I, or Mr. Armand, or even the judge will cut you off if necessary. So go ahead and give it a try.”
“Okay. Let’s say that all the soft drink cans in the world have been painted over so you can’t read the brand name, but you want to find out which ones are Coca-Cola. So you hire me to design a test that would correctly identify Coca-Cola from all the rest.”
Campbell looks at the jury. “We’re with you so far.”
“First, I do some taste tests and end up with some cans I’m fairly sure are Coca-Cola. I run experiments on these cans and come up with a test that I call an ‘ELLIE.’ It uses ten chemicals I found in these cans, all mixed together, and all you have to do is put a drop of some unknown soda on my test kit and, if it reacts, I say it’s Coca-Cola.”
Campbell is checking the faces of each juror as Burgess talks, and no one appears lost. “Sounds easy.”
“The problem is that the ten chemicals I use in the test kit all belong to the carbonated water I found in my test cans, and not to Coca-Cola specifically. So when this test is actually run, it gets a lot of false positives. Unfortunately, my test kit is also reacting with Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, 7-Up and a whole host of other soft drinks – anything, in fact, that contains carbonated water, like sparkling water, lemonade, fruit juices, and champagne, to name just a few – and it’s resulting in false positives at about the same proportion as the market share for each drink.”
Campbell wants to stop Burgess every minute or so to break up her monologue, and he’s having to find different things to say each time. “That can’t be good” is what comes out now.
“No, it’s not good. The hang-up, of course, is that I never verified that my ten chemicals were specific or unique to Coca-Cola. I just told you they were.”
This is better than I expected. “I doubt I’d be very happy about that when I found out.”
“No, and you’re not very happy about all the false positives, so you demand another test that will ‘confirm’ the results to be Coca-Cola. My solution is to separate out the ten chemicals from the mixture I made and put them in separate bands so you can see which ones react. Same chemicals, but I give the test a different name. I call it a Western Blip.”
The jury chuckles. A good sign, Campbell thinks. Burgess continues.
“’Now,’ I say, ‘when you get a Positive ELLIE, run a Western Blip; and if the Western Blip is Positive, then you know for sure you have a Coca-Cola in your hand.’ And you believe me – which, by the way, I consider to be a very sad commentary on our educational system that no longer teaches people how to think these days.”
I hope none of the jury were offended by that last remark. Campbell decides to let Burgess continue so that no one can think about it for too long.
“But there is absolutely no way to say that if you run my Western Blip, it can confirm my ELLIE results. In fact, the opposite is true. All my Western Blip is confirming is that there is carbonated water in the can, exactly what the ELLIE said, since it tests for the same thing. Is that clear?”
Campbell thinks so, but does the jury? “Any chance you can make it any clearer?”
Burgess nods her head. She obviously expected this. “I believe one of your first witnesses, a Dr. Richardson, talked about three different kinds of tests to prove the existence of something: Direct Proof, Direct Evidence, and Indirect Evidence. Correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“And he used an analogy of finding a single wall of a house as an example of Indirect Evidence. Is that true?”
“Yes, it is.” Where’s she going with this?
“Well, then let me put it this way: You cannot use two tests, both of which are Indirect Evidence, to confirm each other, or to confirm the existence of the house. In other words, you can’t have someone else find the same wall you did and say that confirms that the entire house actually exists. It violates logic. If you say it out loud, you can hear how ridiculous it sounds: I found a wall, and you found the same wall, and that confirms that the whole house exists. Mr. Campbell, if you want to confirm a piece of Indirect Evidence, you at least have to have some Direct Evidence, but preferably, some Direct Proof, not just some more of the same Indirect Evidence. Is that any better?”
Perfect! “Yes, thank you.” Now it’s time for the kill. Campbell takes a deep breath. “So, back to your analogy, if you try to say that all the problems with your ELLIE and your Western Blip are solved if you run them in combination with each other?...”
“…it’s begging the question, Mr. Campbell – in this case, ‘B is the same as A, therefore B confirms A.’ Totally illogical and unscientific – just like saying that any problems with one of the HIV tests is going to be corrected by another very similar test and create a 99% accuracy, but none of the tests have been proven to be accurate on their own.”
“Dr. Burgess, in your expert opinion, if the defendant actually had a positive Western Blot test result after a positive ELISA test result, would that confirm that he was indeed HIV-Positive, or that HIV was present?”
“No, Mr. Campbell, it wouldn’t – at least not logically.”
Campbell just stands at the lectern, reviewing in his mind this all-important testimony and whether enough has been said and the point been made. He is trying to come up with another question or two to drive it home, but he can’t.
Finally the judge asks, “Mr. Campbell, do you have more questions for this witness?”
Campbell still doesn’t answer. He thinks he should have more questions; it’s hard for him to believe that the most basic premise for the AIDS Industry, this statement that the Western Blot can confirm an ELISA, could be destroyed so easily and quickly. Did the jury get it? Did they really get how absurd and illogical this whole thing is?
The judge is getting impatient. “Mr. Campbell?”
“No more questions, Your Honor.” Campbell sits down, hoping he has done the job he needed to do.
The judge wants to move on. “Mr. Armand, you may cross-examine.”
Armand gets up quickly, slamming his chair back against the guard rail, startling the entire courtroom. Sarah can almost see the smoke coming out of his ears.
“Dr. Burgess, what do you know about science?” It was a rhetorical question, asked with anger and disdain.
Burgess, on the other hand, was keeping her cool. “I admit that I am not an expert in science, Mr. Armand. But I do know that science is supposed to be based on logic, which is my expertise. And it seems to me this issue of HIV and AIDS has become more of a religion than a science, requiring people to take things on faith rather than on scientific inquiry and logic, and making those who ask questions sound like heretics.”
That does it for Armand. He explodes and starts pointing at Burgess, moving closer to the witness box. “Just who the hell do you think you are?”
Campbell is on his feet immediately. “Objection, Your Honor.”
But Armand isn’t finished, and his anger is growing. “Who are you to argue with the best scientific minds this world has ever seen at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health – the people who protect us from dangerous diseases like AIDS?” He is almost yelling at this point, two feet from the witness.
“Your Honor!” Campbell tries to intervene again, a
nd the judge starts banging his gavel. Burgess just sits back in the chair, not even trying to answer.
But Armand won’t stop. “If they say that the ELISA and the Western Blot are accurate when used together, then that’s the truth; and I’m not going to let some young dyke in pants suggest otherwise, based on some so-called logical bullshit!”
“Mr. Armand!” The judge is trying his best, banging the gavel as fast as he can. Campbell just stands there in disbelief. Sarah is equally as stunned.
“Are you one of those crazy ‘denialists’ who doesn’t think HIV causes AIDS? You and that loon Duesberg? You all ought to be put in jail for endangering the public health and welfare!”
The gavel stops long enough for the judge to say, “Mr. Armand, I’m warning you.”
Armand finally turns toward the judge. “Judge, I’ve had enough of this tripe. This whole testimony is asinine.”
The judge looks at Armand sternly. “Then calm down and ask the witness questions to point out where and how it is… asinine, as you call it, Mr. Armand; but cease and desist immediately calling the witness names and casting aspersions on her character. You know better than that; one more outburst and I’ll find you in contempt.”
Armand seems to take heed of the judge’s warning. He starts to walk back to his table, but suddenly turns to the witness, shaking his finger in rage. “I’m going to make sure you don’t have a job tomorrow,” he rails.
The judge bangs his gavel so hard that it breaks. “That’s it, Mr. Armand. You’re in contempt of this court. Bailiff, escort Mr. Armand to my chambers.”
When the Bailiff grabs Armand’s arms, he tears himself away. “Get your hands off me, you….” But the Bailiff grabs both arms, slaps a pair of handcuffs on him, and drags him out the judge’s door.
The courtroom sits silently, everyone in shock. The judge looks at Armand’s assistant, sitting at the Solicitor’s table, and finally announces, “Mr. Wilson, you will take over for Mr. Armand, starting immediately and continuing for the remainder of this trial. Mr. Armand will not be coming back.”
Wilson is shaking his head as well, both at Armand’s behavior and at his newfound and unwanted responsibility. He has no idea what to do next.
“Mr. Wilson, you have the right to cross-examine this witness – properly – if you like,” the judge informs him.
Wilson rises slowly and timidly. After a few seconds, he asks, “Your Honor, in light of everything that has happened, may I request a recess until tomorrow morning before cross-examining this witness.”
But the judge is in no mood to grant any request from the Solicitor’s office. “Denied, Mr. Wilson. I will not have Mr. Armand’s inexcusable behavior interfere with the proceedings of this court. You have been sitting there at Mr. Armand’s side the entire time, so I have to assume you are prepared to take over for him. Cross-examine this witness right now, or not at all, Mr. Wilson. I will not ask Dr. Burgess to come back tomorrow.”
“Can I have a minute, Your Honor?”
“I’ll give you thirty seconds, Mr. Wilson.”
Wilson looks hurriedly at his notes, glances up at the witness, back to his notes again, and resigns himself to his fate. “Your Honor, I have no questions for this witness.”
The judge picks up his broken gavel and puts it back down again. “This court is in recess until ten a.m. tomorrow morning.” He slams his fist on the podium.
Are You Positive? Page 31