Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 1

Untitled
I have tried to give as neutral a point of view (NPOV) as possible. This was very difficult for me, given my strong views on the subject. I hope that others will take this into consideration when offering suggestions on this article, and I hope any ensuing discussions will be carried on in a dignified, respectful manner. Revolver

I have formatted your article. It's nice work (but I think I can see which side of the argument you're on, so it's not perfectly NPOV yet). I'm not sure the term "apologist" is NPOV, but I haven't yet come up with anything shorter than "proponents of the generally accepted theory"... Let the editing for NPOV begin. -- The Anome


 * I would be very surprised if I DIDN'T come across with some POV. It would be impossible for me.  I will leave it to others to "prune" and offer their viewpoints. Revolver

Wow, fantastic start! I agree with Anome, I am not sure that "apologist" is the most NPOV term. I don't think anyone is "apologizing" for HIV :-) A slightly-longer but better (to me) term is "Advocate of viral hypothesis" or more specifically "advocate of HIV hypothesis". -- Wapcaplet 12:05 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"HIV hypothesis advocates"? -- The Anome

"Apologists" sucks big-time. Tannin

I started rewriting some stuff. I'm not sure that a prose-style is best for the argument/counterargument sections, but to me it's easier to read (and tends to avoid the "apologist" terminology issue better). Provided all claims are prefaced with a "so-and-so claims..." of some sort, and any statements regarding "fact" are checked with some authoritative source (or if both camps agree on it, such as the fact that AIDS has not reached epidemic proportions (whatever that means) in the general population), I think it'll work pretty well this way. -- Wapcaplet 13:44 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I like your style better, the 1., rebut, 2., rebut... gets a little stale after a while. Keep it up.  I prefer "orthodox" if "apologist" is not a good term.  This is the common term used in comparing e.g. alternative and orthodox medical procedures or practices.  As for "facts", well, that's the rub, isn't it?  Part of the debate is over what counts as "facts", what facts are reliable, the definition of terms, and so on.  For example, the claim "AIDS has not reached epidemic proportions" depends heavily on your meaning of the terms "AIDS", and "epidemic".  The mainstream AIDS article here at the wiki states as an unsupported "fact" that "AIDS is a global pandemic", without any evidence.  Dissidents consider "AIDS" a shaky concept, and they generally only count those who have DIED or have AIDS illnesses among AIDS cases.  The orthodox is fond of counting all HIV-positives as having "HIV disease".  Obviously, this epistemological difference between the interpretation of what is an "AIDS" case can lead to wildly different statistics and conclusions.  Also, "epidemic" and "pandemic" are somewhat vague terms.  Dissidents would say that the actual "epidemic" is overstated and appears more than it is due to political and social reasons, a bloated bureaucracy, and hyperbole in the lay press, out of proportion to actual CDC and WHO numbers.  The orthodox will, of course, construe statistics in the light which will make AIDS out to be as big as it can be.  So, although it may be a good idea to ask for references to statistics and the literature at various points, keep in mind that (1) the mainstream AIDS article often doesn't do this itself, and makes many claims without support that dissidents believe are false, and (2) even a reference to numbers and data may not make people happy, because their differences are epistemological and based on INTERPRETATIONS of data, not just data themeselves. Revolver

Very good point. The article epidemic even mentions AIDS as an epidemic, so it could be tricky to make claims regarding AIDS as an epidemic. The dictionary definitions of epidemic seem to be pretty vague; anything which "spreads rapidly and extensively to many individuals at the same time" could be said to be epidemic. Depends on what is meant by "rapidly and extensively", I suppose. Some numbers might be good to have here.

As for statistics, I think all claims regarding statistics, rate of growth, risk groups, and so on should be directly qualified with at least one source. The CDC and WHO are probably the best authorities to use. I haven't been adding these yet, since I'm mostly focusing on generalized rephrasing, but for example:


 * one example that has been cited is that in Africa AIDS affects roughly equal numbers of men and women, while in North America and Western Europe it affects more men than women

Should probably read something like:


 * one example that has been cited by JOE_DISSIDENT is that in Africa AIDS affects roughly equal numbers of men and women (X% men and Y% women, according to XYZ), while in North America and Western Europe AIDS afflicts men Z times more than women, according to ZYX.

Obviously it could get messy having all those "according to"s, but they could be tactfully worked in. Footnotes may be better.

I like the term "orthodox." Nice and neutral. -- Wapcaplet 22:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Dissident scientists" vs. "mainstream scientists"? "Orthodox" vs. "heterodox"/"dissenting" viewpoints? -- 217.158.229.219 13:53 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I will respond to some of the changes made by "Pointless Exercise". (I hope that is not an allusion to the HIV debate.) While I think many of the additions and changes suggested and made by PE are useful in clarifying stances and balancing to a NPOV, I think some of the comments made by PE are clearly not from a NPOV and should be raised in the "talk" forum of the article. Reading the article as it stands at the moment, it is clear exactly when and where the "author" shifts from a dissident contributor to an orthodox commentator. This shift should not be as easily detected. I think many of the good comments made by PE would be more helpful if they were kept in the "so-and-so counters that" or "so-and-so responds that", many of them are orthodox responses which are not prefixed as such, they are stated as neutral fact or conclusion, when it is the validity of these facts or conclusions which is the debate itself.Revolver

PE edits: The idea that a disease must reach "epidemic proportions" has little meaning: "epidemic" simply means that the disease is occurring more frequently at a given time than it usually does. The level at which a disease normally occurs is the "endemic" level, and an "epidemic" level is simply one which is higher than that.


 * But this is precisely the problem. "AIDS" is a syndrome of definition.  We have no way of knowing the prevalence of "AIDS" before the 1980s, for the simple reason that the definition did not exist.  What would it mean for "AIDS" to occur at a "normal" or "endemic" level?  I have yet to hear a good answer to this question.  This implies that AIDS is an old "disease" [sic] that has always been prevalent at a normal level, and since the 1980s, is present at newer, higher, epidemic levels.  While it may be possible to argue that there is a rise in immune deficiency which had not been seen before the 1980s, it does not make much sense to compare this to endemic and epidemic levels of disease.  For one thing, AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome.  The analogy with endemic and epidemic levels is misleading. Revolver

PE edits: Due to the imperfect sensitivity of currently available HIV testing, not all individuals diagnosed with AIDS have detectable amounts of HIV in their blood. The other points are subject to some debate; dissidents claim that these postulates are not adequately fulfilled. Respondents claim that HIV does fulfill these postulates, and that lab error does not constitute an exception to the postulates, which are meant to be statistical, not invariant.


 * The issue over "imperfect sensitivity" strikes at the heart of the HIV debate. Many dissidents are skeptical not just of the virus-AIDS hypothesis or the infectious theory of AIDS, they have deep and fundamental disagreements about the foundations and basic assumptions of orthodox virology, molecular biology, and biochemistry.  Many dissidents do not just hold that the tests are "inaccurate" or "insensitive"; they do not believe that HIV has been proved to exist, and so attempting to "find" HIV is itself a meaningless exercise.  Where the orthodox sees HIV, dissidents see particles of DNA and RNA, viral fragments, and other molecular debris.  The issue over "sensitivity of test" goes well beyond accuracy, it goes to the question of whether the purpose of the tests even makes sense.  For example, dissidents do not consider the inaccuracy of the tests to be "lab error", meaning error committed in the laboratory in the course of checking test results; they mean that the entire test itself in not justified, and this goes far beyond "lab error". Revolver

PE edits: This betrays a lack of understanding about how diseases are transmitted: diseases are not required to be "random": diseases exist which affect certain groups, even certain occupations, and many diseases are associated with poverty, and others with drug use. The particular risk group in which HIV enters the population of a given country necessarily affects how the disease is manifested in that country.


 * But AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome. The point here is that if HIV is really causing a condition of immune deficiency, and if it is this condition of immune deficiency that causes the onset of diseases, then there should not be such wildly different patterns in the onset of diseases among different groups.  The notion of "risk group" itself betrays the paradox.  If HIV is the cause of AIDS, then the only "risk" is HIV, and the only difference between risk groups should be the manner in which they contract the virus.  But why should people who contract the virus in different ways manifest the syndrome differently?  The fact that the syndrome looks different among different groups of people begs the question that there must be something other than HIV going on.


 * Naturally there should. An immunodeficiency disorder is not smallpox, which causes roughly the same symptoms in every patient. Its effect is to suppress the immune system, allowing opportunistic infections by pathogens which the patient otherwise would be protected against by a properly functioning immune system.


 * The pathogens available in Africa to cause such infections are not necessarily the same as those in America. Thus, although immunosuppression is the same in both the African patient and the American, the symptoms displayed (which are those of the opportunistic infection) are different.


 * Formal, peer-reviewed science has been successful at isolating the viral strains behind AIDS, and at creating treatments which successfully reduce viral load in many patients. They are not perfect, no; but neither are they ineffectual. As in the case of evolution -- and the germ theory of disease itself -- science has reached working conclusions and moved on to create working technologies on the basis of those conclusions. Wikipedia has an obligation to note the beliefs of deniers, just as it must note the beliefs of intelligent design partisans and those who believe that diseases are caused by sin rather than by germs. However, it must not become a soapbox for them. --FOo 02:25 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is trying to turn this article into a soapbox. And I don't think the comparison to creatonists or germ denialists is apt; the dissenters of the HIV hypothesis are often (previously, at least) well-respected, intelligent and productive members of the scientific community, in some cases outstanding in their field (such as Duesberg and Kary Mullis). I think that Wikipedia is one of the most appropriate forums for an in-depth discussion of this issue, particularly because it is so difficult to find a neutral treatment of the subject elsewhere. -- Wapcaplet 02:37 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Suppose there are 5 disease outbreaks of diseases A, B, C, D, and E around the world. These are different diseases. I can go to each disease outbreak and find that certain properties are present in many of the carriers of each disease. I can then take the presence of this as evidence that the property is the cause of a new sydrome. Those who don't have the property will be excluded by definition from the syndrome, while those who have it, it will be blamed on that property. Now, the disease outbreaks still look different. No problem, of course the syndrome will manifest itself different in different groups, this does not mean its not the underlying cause. A more logical and sane explanation is that the original outbreaks are different diseases each with separate causes and etiologies. Revolver

PE edits: In addition to the claims regarding the variations in AIDS definition between North America, Western Europe, and Africa, another fact cited as supporting evidence that HIV is harmless is the fact that there are many people who are HIV-positive and remain healthy 15 or 20 years after testing positive for HIV. This proves that AIDS takes years to develop, but does not prove HIV is harmless.


 * This is true only if you already consider the HIV theory as proved. This is circular logic again.  Moreover, its an egregious example of "moving the goalposts".  When your predictions don't turn out to be correct, change the prediction.  This is the case with the latency period.  We were told AIDS took a couple years to progress.  When it seemed that was wrong, we said it was 5 or 7 years.  When that didn't pan out, we said 10 years.  Now people say 15, 20, or more years.  It's very similar to the epicycles once used to explain planetary motion centuries ago.  Our predictions aren't quite right, so we adjust them to fit.  Then, when they still aren't quite right, we adjust them again.  The problem with this is that the adjustments and changes in prediction come to reflect observation made after that fact, rather than being true predictions.  The only people who buy these adjustments are those who have already bought into them in the first place.  Also, when you're allowed to change your theory so that it will always fit the facts, there will be a strong sense that the theory is in close fit to reality and the facts, when this is an illusion because of the addition of so many ad hoc hypotheses.  In the language of Popper, much of the HIV theory fails the "falsification" test -- there is no data that would refute it, because any new data is constantly subsumed into the prevailing theory. Revolver

I agree; many of PE's edits were strongly POV, but this can easily be fixed. I think what I object to more, though, is the way in which they disrupt the flow of exposition I was trying to go for. For each point of contention, I have tried to present a summary of the dissident view, followed by a summary of the responses given to dissidents' claims. The material that was added strikes me as an orthodox perspective piping up at opportune moments to interject rebuttals to each claim. To me, it is a disruption of the narrative exposition (such as it is), and makes the article more confusing. -- Wapcaplet 02:09 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I want to defend my use of the talk forum briefly. I never intended for the talk forum to becoming a debating hall. The reason I responded in such a way was that I felt many of PE's edits violated NPOV. I think it's difficult for many people unfamiliar to the controversy to see how statements have a POV, without offering a counter POV to reveal this. This is why I responded this way -- I want to make it clear why I feel PE's edits violated NPOV. I do not wish to begin a "soapbox", if presenting the controversy and points raised by both sides is by itself a "soapbox", then I guess I misunderstand the purpose of the wiki. Should we not discuss the beliefs of Holocaust deniers because we disagree? I believe I gave a lot of room for orthodox responses and viewpoint originally. I do not believe that the best way to "neutralise" a controversy or an account of it is to not say anything beyond what most people believe. That is what a "controversy" is. Again, I'm sure my POV is biased and this needs to be addressed and edited by other people. However, I felt PE was using the article itself as a soapbox for orthodox retorts, and this is not in the spirit of things. Revolver

"Formal, peer-reviewed science has been successful at isolating the viral strains behind AIDS, and at creating treatments which successfully reduce viral load in many patients."


 * I'm not sure how things helps address the nature that this article should be handled on the wiki. This is like saying to Holocaust deniers, "the Holocaust happened".  Well, fine.  That issue is the heart of the Holocaust debate.  When you make this kind of statement "science has proved" you're violating the NPOV with regard to the controversy, because you're taking the orthodox stand.  This is no different than saying in a Holocaust revisionist article, "It has been proved the Holocaust occured."  The truth of this statement is the crux of the debate, so saying it without a proviso is taking a POV.  The fact is, as many of the quotations and weblinks show, not all scientists agree with the mainstream concensus.  When you say the concensus is proved beyond any reasonable doubts, you're taking a POV that goes against thousands of Ph.D., M.D.s, and other researchers around the world. Revolver

I've removed some lengthy material from the article, mainly because it interrupts the point-by-point analysis with a tangential (yet relevant) discussion. As I have mentioned on User talk:Pointless Exercise, I believe some of this material should be moved to a separate article, if it should be here at all; there is an enormous amount of information like this which supports one side or the other, and I do not think it is very encyclopedic to include all of it, especially not in the middle of this article. This article is already pushing 30K, and it would become unwieldy if such a detailed analysis were included for each point of dispute. Anyhow, here is the removed information:

Beginning of removed text

They also point out that the mode of spread of AIDS is very typical of an infectious agent: It is spread through contact with bodily fluids. It is transmitted from mother to child. It is spread through breast feeding. It is spread via lab accidents and needle sticks in which the virus in culture is accidentally injected into the blood. Dissident theories offer no explanation for these facts.


 * The best that can be said is that HIV is spread through bodily fluids. You're conflating HIV with AIDS -- if HIV doesn't cause AIDS, then you only have evidence of HIV being infectious, not AIDS.  To look at individual cases and say, "look, A was positive, had sex with B, B tested positive, got sick" is not proof of AIDS being infectious.  This requires analysis of all the epidemiological and biological evidence, and this is just what dissidents and the orthdox disagree over.  REVOLVER (I'm getting tired of writing User:Revolver, etc. every time, a link to my page is above).

Their opponents respond that many known diseases have known causes that do not fulfil Koch's postulates, but claim AIDS is not one of them.

Obviously, it would be unethical to intentionally inject HIV into human subjects for this purpose, but observation can substitute for experimentation.


 * 1) The development of DNA PCR has enabled researchers to document the presence of cell-associated proviral HIV in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.


 * First, for those that don't know, PCR magnifies biological samples by a factor into the billions or trillions, if repeated sufficiently. HIV is only found after this incredible magnification.  The more important point is that many people do not believe that HIV has properly isolated, i.e. shown to scientifically exist.  This includes prominent virologists, biologists, and cell researchers.  So, to them, what is detected is not HIV at all. REV

RNA PCR has been used to detect cell-free and/or cell-associated viral RNA in patients at all stages of HIV disease
 * 1) Improvements in co-culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease
 * 2) Health care and laboratory workers accidentally infected with concentrated purified HIV have developed AIDS


 * This evidence isn't sufficient for a number of reasons, primarily that it's a biased (non-random) sample, but also many of the workers are exposed to all sorts of pathogens in their work, and many took antiviral meds after their diagnosis. To do this properly would require a random sample of individuals, followed for months or years, without taking drugs.  A few workers have tested positive, and some of these have become sick.  Given that there are good biochemical reasons for the correlation between immune suppresion and a positive test result registering (the test result more often occurs when the immune system is under assault), what happened isn't too surprising.  This is not proof that HIV is infectious. REV


 * 1) HIV has been isolated from many of these individuals

Mainstream researchers say all four postulates have been fulfilled in at least three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated HIV in the laboratory. Two were infected in 1985 and one in 1991. All three have shown marked CD4+ T cell depletion, and two have CD4+ T cell counts that have dropped below 200/mm3 of blood. One of these latter individuals developed PCP, an AIDS indicator disease, 68 months after showing evidence of infection and did not receive antiretroviral drugs until 83 months after the infection. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced, and shown to be the original infecting strain of virus.


 * Again, these are individual cases. In order for the cases to prove anything, they should be part of a random, unbiased group monitored for a length of time.  These cases are chosen because the individuals got sick, but we have no way of knowing from these cases how many others test positive and don't get sick, for example.  If there are even 2 or 3 cases of infected workers not getting sick, I can use the exact same reasoning as "proof" that AIDS is not infectious. REV

In addition, as of Dec. 31, 1994, CDC had received reports of 42 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 17 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors.


 * How do they know the infection is "occupationally acquired"? There are many ways to get a false positive (pregnancy, e.g.)  Also, I assume that taking HIV medications is considered a "risk factor".  I would not accept any of these cases if they had taken any ARV medications. REV

These individuals all had evidence of HIV seroconversion following a discrete percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood, body fluids or other clinical laboratory specimens containing HIV.


 * Again, what of those that didn't develop AIDS? That's right, it's latent, they're not sick YET.  In any case, as I said before, the test results could be due to any number of things (there are many ways to get a false positive) and it could be that the positive test results are the biochemical effect of an ill person to begin with.  Again, this doesn't prove causation. REV

The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, and in studies of hemophilia, injection drug use, and sexual transmission in which the time of seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples In many such cases, infection is followed by an acute retroviral syndrome, which further strengthens the chronological association between HIV and AIDS.


 * Simliar comments apply. The assumption is made that the test result was a result of HIV transmission, not as an _EPIPHENOMENAL_ effect of previously existing biochemical processes. REV

Further support for the fact that HIV causes AIDS is provided by the following facts:
 * HIV has always preceded AIDS in a population.


 * Well sure, AIDS is never diagnosed until HIV tests are available (at least after 1984 or so), so it's impossible for HIV not to occur first. (Think about it!)


 * HIV is the single common factor between AIDS sufferers who are gay San Franciscans, African female heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, children, intravenous drug users.


 * An artifact of the definition of the syndrome. If one contends that different things are going on in these different groups, then all this says is that positive test results correlate positively with all these groups.  This isn't totally surprising, given the nature of the tests.  But the most it shows is correlation, at best, and tautologically manufactured correlation at worst, not causation.


 * Within any risk group virtually only the HIV+ individuals get AIDS.


 * This is simply not true. There have always been HIV- cases of AIDS-illnesses, or what would otherwise be called AIDS.  There were so many, the establishment created a new category -- "ICL" or some acronym if I remember correctly, just to cover up this embarassment.


 * Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-like syndromes were rare, today they are common in HIV infected people.


 * Before the drug epidemic, AIDS-like syndromes were rare, too. Yes, drugs are not new among humans, but the drug epidemic immediately preceding AIDS (60s, 70s) was of a scale far more than any before.  Given that the known immunosuppressive properties of drugs in general take several years or more to manifest in individuals, the time lapse fits pretty well.  Of course, the current epidemic is the result of another drug epidemic -- AZT and protease inhibitors.


 * AIDS and HIV are invariably linked in time, place and population group


 * By definition.


 * The main risk factors for AIDS are sexual contact, transfusions, IV drugs, hemophilia. These have existed for years but only after the appearance of HIV, has AIDS been observed in these populations


 * They have existed, but not in the qualitative way they did in the years leading up to the 80s.


 * Infection by HIV is the only factor that predicts that a person will develop AIDS


 * Given all the people who have HIV and not AIDS, apparently it doesn't predict very well.


 * Numerous serosurveys show that AIDS is common in populations with anti-HIV antibodies but is rare in populations with a low seroprevalence of anti-HIV antibodies
 * Cohort studies show that severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur exclusively in individuals that are HIV-infected
 * Persistently low CD4 counts are extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV or another known cause of immunosuppression
 * Nearly everyone with AIDS has anti-HIV antibodies


 * Of course, if they don't, they're just ordinary sick.


 * HIV can be detected in nearly everyone with AIDS
 * HIV does fulfil Koch's postulates


 * You're repeating yourself. I read these points above.


 * New born infants with no behavioral risks develop AIDS if HIV infected


 * I'm interested to see your evidence. This is not what I've read in the literature.  I count AZT and AVR therapy as "behavioral risk", of course.  The cases of infants HIV+ and surviving healthy that I know of, all of them refused the AVR therapies (their parents, I mean).


 * An HIV-infected twin will develop AIDS, while the uninfected twin does not
 * Since the appearance of HIV, mortality has increased dramatically among hemophiliacs


 * I'll have to check, but I think this is flatly false. To the best of my recollection, overall mortality among hemophiliacs has been decreasing for some time.  I could be mistaken, though.


 * Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS has repeatedly led to discovery of HIV in recipient as well as donor


 * Again, where is the evidence that these cases are really transfusion-acquired? How do you know for certain what the cause of the test result was?


 * Sex partners of HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion patients acquire the virus and AIDS without other risk factors
 * HIV infects and kills CD4+ T cells in vitro and in vivo


 * This I can say something about. It is now a well-established concensus among ALL researchers (mainstream AND dissident) that HIV does not _directly_ kill t-cells.  Mainstream researchers admitted this theory was wrong several years ago.  The best that can be said is that HIV is thought (hypothesized) to kill t-cells by some indirect method, the most popular current theory is something called "homing", I believe, whereby the virus supposedly sends messages to t-cells that somehow instructs them to "commit suicide" at some later time.  But direct killing of t-cells is no longer accepted by the vast majority of researchers.  And the indirect theory is not on the firmest foundations.  I can give you references for this, if you want.


 * HIV damages CD4 precursor cells


 * I've never seen any evidence for this in the literature, that actually shows this happens.


 * Body viral (HIV) load correlates with progression to AIDS


 * This is complete nonsense. MAINSTREAM researchers have admitted how poor the viral load is as a marker of health.  It varies wildly, within the day in the same patient.  It has little relationship to health.


 * HIV is similar in its genome and morphology to other lentiviruses that often cause immunodeficiency, slow wasting disorders, neurodegeneration and death


 * I haven't been shown convincing evidence that ANY "lentiviruses" are really responsible for anything. All the other alleged conditions caused by slow viruses, their evidence and methodology fall into the same pattern as HIV (often the same researchers, laboratories).  There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.

Dissident theory provides no explanation of these facts.

End of removed text

Also, the following paragraph was removed from the section "AIDS is inconsistently defined":


 * This is an issue on which there is some agreement: AIDS was defined before the discovery of HIV, and the definition has been changed as the disease has come to be better understood.


 * I find this a queer (in the archaic sense) way to look at things. How should new information induce one to alter a definition?  The whole point of a definition is to give well-defined structure when you're observing data.  The definition is supposed to give form, structure, and delineation to the observations.  But this is just the opposite, it's using observation to give form, structure, and delineation, to the definition.  Completely backwards reasoning.  What's really going on is, researchers (and patients, activists) have a preconceived notion for whatever reason of what "AIDS" is, and when they see someone they believe (for personal reasons, or what not) to have "AIDS", but they do not fit the clincal definition, well, the clinical definition has to be wrong then!  The other reality is that expanding the definition allowed more patients to enter the system, and it allowed the decrease from the peak of the epidemic (in the early 90s) to appear as if it wasn't there. REV

I removed this because I was unable to reconcile it with NPOV, particularly the stuff after the comma. The definition of AIDS has indeed changed over the years, but it is a subject of some dispute whether this is due to AIDS being better understood or less understood (which really strikes to the heart of what this argument is about). Anyhow, I am working on prose-ifying the enumerated points throughout the article; help would be appreciated, but I would also appreciate it if nobody made anymore drastic alterations or additions until these are cleaned up a little bit. The article is pretty hairy as it is; let's not make it worse. Just a polite request :-) Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 22:36 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I tried to bring as much of a balanced tone as I could to the article originally, and preface items with disclaimers that such and such was the view held by such and such. Although I have a POV, I don't think it's impossible for me or others to RELATE both sides, much as a journalist would do, say. I do object to a recitation of points and claims made with the obvious intent of "winning a debate" and I would rather spend my time working out a phrasing or exposition that is usable in the wiki article. This doesn't mean people have to give up their position, but they should realize the purpose of this place is to formulate an ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY, and this involves give and take which can be worked out by both sides to come to something they both think is accurate and faithful of all positions. I answer these points because once they've been aired, I feel many of them have to be responded to, in some cases, to rebut simple falsities, and in others, to present a point so people don't walk away thinking one claim is the end result of an issue. But I would really rather not spend time on this website in a discussion that is bent on "showing who's right". If I wanted to do that, I could wander over to misc.health.aids or sci.med.aids or any of those places and have a debate with George Carter or Steve Harris for weeks. G*d knows I've already done that before, and I've had my fill, thank you. Revolver

whew Is not bad at all in the balance dep't, esp compared to some WP AIDS stuff. One thing I'm going to point out: for this basic scientific fact, recognized by all scientists, to support their position, HIV and AID would both have to correlate with their posited "causitive" factor.&mdash;Only if the dissenters believe HIV correlates strongly w/AID syndrome; it's my understanding they don't. kwantus

Numerous studies of HIV-infected people have shown that high levels of infectious HIV &#91;etc&#93; predict immune system deterioration and an increased risk for developing AIDS. Question: have those studies accounted for the treatment regime usu imposed on HIV+s? The distinction betw high and low levels of virus is made, but no mention the purported medicines were controlled out of the issue... kwantus


 * Good points. That entire section (Consensus arguments) is in sore need of work; if you check out the edit history, a couple of sweeping edits were made by User:Pointless Exercise which cause the article to look like it's arguing with itself, and we (User:Revolver and me) haven't yet finished cleaning it up. My intentions were to reformulate that part of the article in a similar style to the "Arguments by Dissidents" section.


 * To address your questions, though: some dissidents certainly acknowledge that there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS; I recall that Kary Mullis acknowledged the correlation, and said that HIV can be an indicator of the other risk factors that he believed caused AIDS. This would point to a common cause for both HIV infection and AIDS. As for your second point, I agree that some mention should be made of this. John Lauritsen wrote a book about the perceived dangers of AZT (which I have not read), and there was another book which I cannot for the life of me remember the author of, called (I think) "Living with AIDS", which was stories of several people who had had AIDS for years and were coping with it partly by not taking AZT. Anyhow, I don't know what the latest reports are, but the treatment-regimen-as-contributing-factor is something that should be discussed in the article. (Do they even recommend AZT anymore?)


 * I don't think so. AZT went out of fashion when the cocktails came in, and the "AIDS death rate" immediately dropped.&#91;CDC&#93; It was attributed to "successful cocktail" instead of less poisonous pharmochemicals. (Seriously: it's worth mentioning that the only (acc dissenters) long-term trial of AZT had many more deaths in the treated than untreated groups.&#91SoD citing Lancet 343:871?81&#93;)
 * As for "perceived dangers" of AZT, have you read its label? I'm reminded of fluoride, which the EPA acknowledged was stack-scrubber gunk and would have to be treated as a hazardous waste if it weren't filtered through the human population first...


 * Please feel free to rework some of this stuff. We could definitely use a helping hand! -- Wapcaplet 04:21, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. I have seen the AZT label; I'd forgotten about it. I agree that "perceived dangers" is pretty lame, but in the article it'd be good to stay as neutral as possible; let the facts speak for themselves. -- Wapcaplet 00:30, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there's a shortcut to debating mdecine vs viral loads. I (kwantus) was rereading the "Science Fiction" article:
 * Dr. William Cameron, an M.D. and consultant to the Canadian FDA, "completely demolished the viral load surrogate marker" as a relevant way to measure health or the success of treatments, according to Rasnick...At the highly private conference, where no press is allowed and attendees are told not to discuss what they hear, even Ho recanted his central tenant &#91;sic&#93; and said, "Viremia [viral levels] are not predictive of clinical outcome."
 * "People can have a high viral load and be healthy and have a low viral load and be sick and everything in between," says Rasnick. "These guys will admit this between themselves, they just don't admit it publicly."
 * Odd kind of health "science" that involves secret conferences...and here, in another Farber article, but on Mbeki's conference:
 * On arriving at the hotel, we learn that there will be no press access to the actual proceedings, because the mainstream side objected fiercely to this.
 * Were I on the orthodox side, I'd wonder what we were hiding.

This article serves as a good counterpoint to the AIDS Misconceptions and Conspiracies page, which is also in need of a lot of work. I'll link to this page from there. Think you folks can help out there as well? --Modemac 16:15, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments on that article's talk page. It could be tricky trying to reconcile an article like that with NPOV. -- Wapcaplet 00:30, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)