Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 11

Proposal: split Aids denialism and HIV denialism into two articles
I propose that the issues of Aids denialism (there is no such thing as Aids, or Aids isn't all that bad) and HIV denialism (HIV is not the [main] cause of Aids) be split into separate articles. I realise that both articles are likely to be short, but they are quite separate issues. I also realise that the term "denialism" is a loaded term but IMO it is the most accurate word available to us, therefore I propose Aids denialism and HIV denialism as the article titles.

In order to give some body to the articles, I suggest we add paragraphs about related issues, or expand the scope of the article. For example, one can treat the social effects of the denialism as a separate heading. The same goes for potential political agendas (if cited).

Also there may be explanations of why a certain denialism may be prevalent in one country etc. For example, I believe that HIV denialism may be prevalent in developing countries (such as South Africa) where diseases with similar symptoms are also commmon, whereas Aids denialism may be more prevalent in developed countries where it is far less common to die from diseases with symptoms similar to Aids.

I also think that "Aids is a gay disease" is a form of Aids denialism, so we might mention it. It does not deny Aids per se, but it denies something which is commonly accepted about Aids (namely that it is a sex orientation neutral disease).

Another form of Aids denialism that we may include, is that of countries where Aids is heavily stigmatised and people with Aids deny that they have it (and even doctors prefer to state on death certificates that death occurred for natural reasons or from some other disease such as TB or pneumonia). Surely this is a related issue?

Any article about Aids denialism and HIV denialism should make it clear that the denialists do not deny for the same or even for compatible reasons, nor do they necessary band together to "further their cause" in some organised way.

So, what are your thoughts about splitting the article? -- 41.208.48.176 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the preponderance of WP:RS. I also oppose the watering down of the meaning of the term proposed, for the same reason. Verbal   chat  18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose That is, what Verbal said. This has also been discussed previously. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As to "discussed previously", erm, where? -- leuce (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the items you list - for example, the misconception that AIDS is a "gay disease" - may be best covered in HIV and AIDS misconceptions, rather than here. MastCell Talk 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of that page. -- leuce (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I refuse to vote. This is ridiculous.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not nearly as ridiculous as not saying why you find a rational suggestion ridiculous. :-) -- leuce (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this moment in time. If the article becomes large enough - then a possibly split (and not necessarily the one recommended) is a wise decision.  Shot info (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This encyclopedia already gives waaay too much undue weight to this particular form of marginalized lunacy. I'm not aware of any other respectable reference work or encyclopedia which so much as mentions AIDS denialism. Splitting this into two articles would create twice the undue weight, and twice the porch lighting which proves irresistably attractive to swarms of POV-pushing mosquitoes. MastCell Talk 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to introductory paragraphs
My concern with the introductory paragraphs of this article is that (a) they focus too much on one type of denialism, (b) they try to argue the case against denialism, and (c) they contains specific information that would be better placed elsewhere in the article. My suggestion for the opening paragraph is this:

''AIDS denialism is a collective term for views that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not or is not conclusively proven to be the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The term can also refer to views that AIDS is not a pandemic or that AIDS is largely misunderstood by the broader scientific community. These views are generally in opposition to current scientific consensus and are often viewed by mainstream scientists with distain.''

I also suggest we delete the line HIV/AIDS denialists prefer the terms "rethinker" or "dissident". It is obvious that people who do not wish to be labelled by a negative term would prefer more positive sounding terms (although "dissident" isn't particularly positive either).

I also suggest we merge the line Some denialist groups reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. into the section about various types of denials.

I'm not happy with the current second paragraph. It tries to debate the issue. What is important is that the reader is made aware that Aids denialism is a minority view that is viewed with much distain. These facts are made clear by the last line of the suggested first paragraph.

I suggest we remove the line With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS denialist material is currently spread largely through the Internet.[8] because it is pure speculation.

I suggest the line Public health researchers have raised alarm at the human cost of AIDS denialism; independent estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, 171,000 HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections to the South African government's embrace of AIDS denialism.[9][10] be incorporated into the section about the impact of Aids denialism on society.

-- leuce (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One
I'm referring to Keepcalmandcarryon's undoing of my edits at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS_denialism&diff=274830584&oldid=274777894

First, I have no idea where he got the idea that I'm an AIDS denialist, let alone "self-avowed". I'm not an AIDS denialist. I have no doubt that HIV causes AIDS, HIV will most likely lead to AIDS if untreated (except by some miracle), and that AIDS is only caused by HIV. Where do you get "self-avowed"?

Second, to defend my edits.

First, I made some typographic changes:
 * I capitalised Perth Group because it was capitalised in the first instance and it seemed to be a proper name.
 * I changed "repeated" to "repeat" because all the entries in the timeline referring to events use the present tense.
 * I added the country to "Maine" -- what's wrong with that?
 * I capitalised Durban Declaration because I regard it as a proper name (and I'm not alone)
 * I added a space after the ellipsis because ellipses get spaces in English (or don't they?).

Then, in a second edit, so that it can easily be undone separately, I changed a few minor items:
 * I realise that anti AIDS denialist literature use the word "ousted" when referring to Mbeki, but the truth is that he resigned and he was not legally forced to do so. Google for it.
 * Saying that Minister Msimang was "removed" creates the impression that she is no longer a minister in the South African government. The fact is that she is still a minister, in a different portfolio.
 * In the cited article, Hogan did not mention Mbeki at all when she made the "era of denialism" statement. She used the term "we", referring either to the South African government as a whole, or possibly to the people of South Africa as a nation.  And saying that she "vowed" is clearly not neutral.

Then finally, in a third edit, again so that it can easilyk be undone without affecting previous edits, I changed an item that I realised may be controversal, but which I deemed incorrect in the original:
 * I find no reference on the cited page that Mbeki wrote a scalding letter. What I do find, is that one of his Premiers wrote a letter, and the tone of the letter is ultra polite.  You can download it as a PDF from that site.  If I'm missing something here, please point it out to me.

So to sum up -- I'm not an AIDS denialist and my agenda for making edits on Wikipedia is hopefully the same as yours :-) namely to improve its accuracy. -- leuce (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise if I mischaracterised you. I seem to have mistaken you for another editor who, like you, has recently been editing AIDS denialism related articles with frequency. I do find it strange, though, for an editor with avowed neutrality on this subject to use as a source a decidedly non-neutral AIDS denialist website with no credibility. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, Keepcalmandcarryon -- I'm sure it happens a lot. As for using non-neutral references, I do not think that that is a problem.  One must obviously examine the tone of the content and make a judgment call about its neutrality, but that applies to all sources, not just sources that are known to be non-neutral.  If a decidedly non-neutral source makes a claim that is heavily contested, or if the Talk page clearly indicates that the factoid has proponents on both sides, then obviously one has to be extra careful. -- leuce (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to check the sources before lecturing us on the need to use Google. Mbeki is widely understood to have been "ousted" (New York Times). This was clearly not a voluntary decision initiated by Mbeki, but a decision of the ANC leadership to which he acceded (BBC). When a head of state steps down after losing an internal power struggle, the day after his nation's highest judicial body accuses him of impropriety, it seems a bit condescending to lecture us on the need to tell the "truth" while concealing the obvious implications. Msimang was "removed" as health minister - this seems entirely unarguable, and supported by reliable sources (AllAfrica.com, New York Times), so I'm not sure what the objection is. As to Hogan's implications, they could not be any clearer. It would require an extraordinary act of contextomy to claim that she might not have been referring to the Mbeki government's policies (New York Times). Mbeki's letter, and its tone, are a matter clearly discussed in the cited sources (e.g. Washington Post). The tone was hardly "ultra-polite", and in any case it was not received as such by its addressees, who reportedly thought it more likely that the letter was forged rather than that Mbeki had actually committed such rhetoric to paper. In sum, the sources support all of the interpretations in our article. If anything, we are more conservative and "neutral" than the New York Times, the BBC, and the Washington Post. Neutrality does not mean that we are required to perform backflips and contortions to whitewash the obvious reality of these situations, as documented by reliable sources. MastCell Talk 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my Google comment came over as a "lecture to use Google" -- I simply meant that the item was generally accepted and that a quick Google would confirm it. I see your point but will you agree with me that "ousted" is a very negative term that represents one view (though a widely held view) of the facts?  Within the context of this article it also sounds like he was removed for his view on HIV/AIDS.  It is interesting to note that his successor is the man who thought that taking a hot shower will prevent AIDS after unprotected sex.
 * Again, it's more the wording that I have a problem with -- it creates an impression that Msimang's change of portfolio is somehow significant. Shuffling around of ministers is normal when a new faction takes over, and it is commonplace even during a single faction's reign, so one should be careful to read too much into the fact that Msimang was moved to a different portfolio.  If anything, the fact that Msimang was not "removed" (from government) is more telling.
 * Still, I think you're reading too much into the paragraph in question. She did not "vow" to change things.  She expressed a humble admission that things have changed (or will change).  Mbeki's government did not "embrace" AIDS denialism -- they merely had a very questionable policy that was broadly consistent with AIDS denialism.  The Talk page of this article is full of comments about neutral language, and "vow" and "embrace" is not neutral and represents a very specific view of the events.
 * Are we talking about the same letter here? The letter I'm referring to had one, single addressee, namely Malegapuru Makgoba (as referenced in the source cited by the previous editor).  You seem to be referring to the letters that Mbeki sent out to the world that everyone initially thought was a hoax. -- leuce (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be arguing that we should ignore the importance and context of Mbeki's and Msimang's removal. That context is amply documented in reliable sources. We do seem to be talking about different letters. Nonetheless, I see nothing in these sections of the articles, about Mbeki or Msimang, that is anything but impeccably sourced. MastCell Talk 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Two
I'm referring to Orangemarlin's undoing of my edits, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS_denialism&diff=274987786&oldid=274973714

This time Orangemarlin reverted my edits, claiming that they are POV. Here are the edits that Orangemarlin believes is POV -- please tell me how on earth they can be considered anything but NPOV:


 * That the Perth Group calls themselves the "Perth Group" (therefore they are not the "so-called Perth Group" but simply the "Perth Group").
 * That Kary Mullis is a biochemist.
 * That the RA group is based in the United States. -- leuce (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain the relevance of any of your edits.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. 1. I removed the "so-called" from the Perth Group because the phrase "so-called" implies that the group has a different official name (or no official name) and that it is only called the Perth Group by others. One might ask the original editor what the relevance of adding "so-called" was in the first place.  2. I mention Kary's profession because the other people's professions in that section are also mentioned.  3. I mention the RA group's location because the other AIDS denialist group's location in the same section is mentioned.  Your call -- leuce (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "So-called" actually implies little other than that the name is used by some and not used by others. "Self-styled" would be better, if somewhat archaic. The Perth Group is the name chosen by Ms. P-E and Dr. Turner to describe themselves, and they are notable mainly through their testimony at the Parenzee trial. They are "so-called" because few refer to them at all, much less as a defined and recognised group. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, I doubt is would be good editorial practice in any publication to prepend all organisations' names with "so-called" until such time that a threshold number of sources make mention of said organisation. If the organisation has a name, then that is its name.  The only time I would feel justified in using "so-called" for an organisation's normal name is if the name is ironic or contradictory (eg if a flat earth society had "Round Earth Society" as their name, or if a "Coalition of XYZ Activists" is not really a coalition).  The Perth Group is a group, and Perth is significant to them, and they regard themselves as a defined group;  what others think of them is irrelevant to the question whether their name is valid. -- leuce (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the so called usage per KCACO. Verbal   chat  07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In one of the External Links of this entry, http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm, "Avert.org: Evidence that HIV causes AIDS" the Perth Group is referred to as the Perth Group, not "self-styled" or "so-called" or in quotes, but simply the Perth Group. Since this is one of the external links chosen to illustrate "Scientific Consensus" then it would be logical that either this proper nomenclature should be used, or that link should be excised as not being a reliable source, one or the other. Haytham2 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't care what we call them as long as it's clear they call themselves the Perth Group; they weren't so dubbed by anyone else, probably because they didn't become notable until the Parenzee trial. The Skeptical Inquirer calls them the "so-called Perth Group". The only other reliable sources that mention them are several papers in Australia (especially The Australian) covering the Parenzee trial. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect the "so-called" is there in recognition of the fact that normal people don't call "two people" a "Group" - unless they are seeking to overemphasize the importance of those two people. - Nunh-huh 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about something like "Calling themselves the Perth Group, activist Joe Smith and physician Jane Smith publish an article arguing blah blah blah." That seems to satisfy the general desires here - identify the particular individuals, make it clear that the name is a self-style one, and not bias the reader. Natalie (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Three
It seems that citing references is not enough -- one must also prove one's edits with long discussions on this part of Wikipedia. I'm referring to this revert by Keepcalmandcarryon, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS_denialism&diff=275028666&oldid=275000416


 * The Western Blot article (of which a copy is available on the Virusmyth web site, hence my citing it) is attributed to the three people, and not to the Perth Group. No mention is made of the Perth Group in that article, and there is no indication that the article was written or published on behalf of the Perth Group.
 * The Western Blot article contains four arguments, of which the previous editor chose to mention only three. I added the fourth argument and rewrote the third one in a way that makes sense, and I changed the term "gold standard" to the term that is favoured by the scientific community.
 * The ozone guy's license was revoked not because he used ozone treatment (there is no indication in the article or anywhere else that ozone treatment would result in license revoking) -- the cited reference (which was added by the previous editor) states that his license was revoked because he claimed to have *cured* the patient of AIDS with ozone treatment. Ozone treatment is not on trial here -- claiming that you've cured someone of AIDS is.
 * The finger jabbing incident is ambiguously written. It is not clear from the original version that the finger was jabbed with a sharp object such as a needle.  The original version can also mean that the guy dipped his finger in a vial.
 * The "so-called" debate carries on...
 * For some reason it is very important to Keepcalmandcarry on that Mullis' profession (biochemist) remains a secret.
 * The official name of the RA group is not "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis" but "Rethinking AIDS: Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis". So you got a choice -- either use the full, long name, or use an abbreviation of it. -- leuce (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Leuce, you are already beyond WP:3RR, as I have warned you. You're not going to help your cause with further tendentious edits and accusations. Please take care to assume good faith. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that I commited 3RR does not make my edits suspect. I'm not the only one reverting here, and at least I attempt to discuss the issue before reverting.  You simply revert without checking the sources.  Your seem to think that you have a dispute with me.  Well, why not try to have a dispute with my edits instead.  I have assumed good faith but I'm beginning to find it very difficult.


 * Now, let's talk about the edits (and not about you and me). Why do you consider the above edits to be POV? -- leuce (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as a minor point, the term "gold standard" is widely used in diagnostics. Any new medical test is evaluated with reference to a "gold standard". We should not be citing virusmyth unless it is absolutely essential in order to convey an encyclopedic piece of information, since it is a patently unreliable source. The article is properly cited by its publication information and PubMed link. I don't think I have a strong feeling about the other issues. MastCell Talk 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have a strong opinion on 'gold standard'. Still, if 'gold standard' is widely used, why write it here in quotes? :-)  My change was based partially on the Wikipedia page about the gold standard. -- leuce (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Western blot for HIV, like the WB for other infections, is made using proteins encoded by the genome of the pathogen itself. As has been noted previously, P-E, Turner and other AIDS denialists seem to misunderstand the protocols, as well as what the term "gold standard" usually is taken to mean; hence the quotes.
 * Regarding your bullets above: 1) The early "Perth" paper or papers are not notable, and really don't need a separate point. The P-E/Turner positions should be summed up in the Parenzee point and the others removed. 2) see 1. 3) Whatever. 4) Jabbing your finger with blood means sticking it with a needle. Jabbing your finger in or into blood would mean dipping it in a vial. No changes needed. 5) settled. 6) I have no objection to Mullis's training being mentioned; I suspect edits you made were reverted en bloc because of denialist POV, and sometimes some wheat gets tossed with the trash. In future, you could avoid this problem by explaining each individual edit in detail. 7) As discussed at the group's article; they're not notable, I'm not sure why we mention them at all, and the last and only reliably-published use of their name was the earlier version.
 * Re: basing an edit on another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia doesn't reference itself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tenses in the timeline
I notice that present tense and past tense are mixed in the timeline section. I propose that the tense usage of that section be standardised. One option would be to use the present tense always (this seems to be the prevailing style). Another option would be to use the present tense only for a date item's opening line, and use the past tense for the rest of the item (I'm not in favour of this approach but it may well be a valid approach). Your thoughts? -- leuce (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be an interest in this, so I'll just do it.  No changes to content, just tenses. -- leuce (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus links - only one of them uses the term denialist - all others do not
I have heard it claimed that the scientific consensus is to refer to them as AIDS denialists rather than AIDS dissidents, but this is not backed up by anything.

Either the lead of the majority of scientific consensus external links should be followed, terminology-wise, or they should be excised as unreliable, one or the other. They seem reliable to me, so I believe we should follow their lead, as per the reliable source guideline. Look for yourself...

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1
 * This reliable source does not ever use "AIDS denial" - it uses "HIV denial" which is accurate and acceptable, since AIDS dissidents do not deny AIDS, they deny either proof of HIV's existence or proof of HIV's causative role in AIDS:

http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm
 * This reliable source exclusively uses dissident, and notes that only "Other dissidents (often called "denialists" by their opponents) include the Perth Group..." so they accurately note that denialist is a partisan term, and use it only in quotes. It is telling that this reliable source does not use denialist at all besides this quote:

http://www.aegis.com/topics/aids_debate.html
 * This reliable source never once uses the term "denialist" but instead chooses to call them skeptics:

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl
 * This reliable source, a series of Jon Cohen's writing for Science magazine, never uses the denialist pejorative either, and instead chooses to call them dissidents. He calls them that without quotes, though the intro to the articles uses "dissident" once in quotes, then once again without quotes. All 4 articles never use denialist but instead use dissident:

The first link to NIAID does not function (I suggest someone who knows what link was originally there find it to correct this), which leaves ONLY the AIDStruth site as the SOLE Scientific Consensus link to call them AIDS denialists! You seriously call that a scientific consensus? Using a term that only one of these reliable sources uses? That seems to me to be obvious and base advocacy. Maybe they once used the term but eventually realized the effect of standardized pejoratives on scientific intercourse? Please explain how this can be so. The only logical course of action is to change the name of the entry to dissident, or these links should be excised. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also look for the mainstream papers at Talk:AIDS reappraisal/Data mining at PubMed about the topic. Or look through the archives for redundant discussions on the matter. Or actually look yourself for more reliable sources using "AIDS denialism", "Denialists", etc. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, but on this latest point, establishing a scientific consensus is not confined to looking at the sources used on this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Haytham2, you make an interesting argument. But I'm not convinced by it.  I have no objection to choosing between the terms based on their prevalence in general, though.  It would seem to me that "aids denialist" is far less common than "aids dissident" (for the person), but on the other hand "aids denialism" is more common than "aids dissent" (for the phenomenon).  Personally I would have no objection to using both terms in the article, i.e. denialism for the phenomenon and dissident for the person.  Ultimately my opinion would be swayed by asking what is most useful and least confusing for a Wikipedia reader. -- leuce (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the conversation above, I don't see anyone arguing that the term "AIDS denialism" has some sort of scientific backing. What we have said is that "AIDS denialism" is the most commonly used term in general. You have completely missed the point, Haytham. If you would still like more support for what term relevant scientists use, I would suggest looking within sociology or psychology, the relevant subject area. Natalie (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to LexisNexis, but a quick search of the NY Times give five articles using "AIDS denial" or some variant, and one article using the term "AIDS dissident". "AIDS rethinker" returned no results. The article using "AIDS dissident" put it quote for the first usage, which generally indicates that the editors do not consider it to be standard wording. Natalie (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Natalie, you misunderstand me yet again, and I will take credit for that. I must have not been clear. I understand completely what is being claimed, and was referring to the heading of the links I was referring to. Natalie, did you only search today's NY Times or something? Never mind: I did my own NY Times search, and urge anyone reading this to do the same. I searched "AIDS denialist" and came up with 126 articles. I searched "AIDS dissident" and was presented with 4,750 articles, a few of which were not about AIDS dissidents, but well over half of the pages I scanned were about AIDS dissidents. Even if a tenth of those 4,750 articles that came up use the word dissident in context of AIDS dissent, then it seems dissenter is again much much more common than denialist. It seems that everywhere I look, every reliable source, I see dissident far more than I see denialist, so I am wondering what prevalence "denialist" truly has. I have still not seen it, everywhere I look. As I have said many times, even reliable sources use dissident, not denialist. Even the references for this entry use dissident more than denialist. But rereading the history of this talk page, my good faith has been almost completely eroded. I detect a great deal of open advocacy for the official line on AIDS, and given the numerical advantage of those editors who make even small edits propagandizing against AIDS dissent (changing someone's description to "former college administrator" from "chemist" - about someone who was a decades-long PhD chemistry professor? Seriously?) there seem to be serious problems with POV I thought could have been fixed with rational argument about the prevalence of terms in reliable sources, but with my good faith depleted I really should bow out. After repeated readings of it, I suspect the policy on fringe theories is not being followed here, but the editors seem too vigilant in their advocacy. I hope all editors are being seriously neutral about this, but since I doubt it, I can't continue here: No good faith left. My Best! :) Thanks. Haytham2 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But you haven't really made "rational arguments about the prevalence of terms in reliable sources." You've mostly abused Wikipedia as a soapbox for your pet fringe belief, which goes a long way in explaining the reception you've received. If you are surprised and dismayed to find that Wikipedia "openly advocates" HIV as the cause of AIDS, then I think you've got a persistent and fundamental misunderstanding of this project's goals and mandates. MastCell Talk 03:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's probably not leaving anyway - the last long rant followed by a petulant "I'm going home!" only lasted a few weeks. To respond to the NY Times query: Haytham, you didn't put your search terms in quotes, thus the vast majority of the articles that you found for AIDS dissident are not using the term "AIDS dissident". Our conversation here is about the term - did you forget?. Find five articles in that search that use the whole term "AIDS dissident" somewhere. Natalie (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: "No good faith left", Wikipedians try to assume good faith unless the evidence gives us good reason not to do. I don't understand why one would lose faith in editors who consistently use reliable sources and maintain the prevalent point of view, the NPOV, that is, that HIV causes AIDS and that those who deny it are known as "deniers". That's the editor's mandate on Wikipedia. In contrast, an editor who joins Wikipedia for the express purpose of promoting a fringe view cannot well expect the assumption of good faith. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I skip reading all of the above flame. I am under the impression (from interviews I saw) that meanstream scientists tend to use the term "AIDS dissidents" for their opponent peers, which seems more polite and factual than "AIDS denialists". Wikipedia should be impartial to the debate, and use the most common terminology, unless we choose words that are *more* neutral than used in the "real world". Agree? &mdash; Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me if I'm doing this wrong. But in response to Xiutwel, I think scientists use AIDS denialism quite frequent.   is a good science/medicine blog that uses the term to describe Maggiore.  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only do scientists use this term, sociologists who study AIDS denialism use it. In addition, reliable, prominent news publications use "denialist". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the same logic used to describe anti-global warming (I mean human caused) as climate denialist (or something similar)? I also think that decaffeinated coffee is caffeine denialism, but that might be going a bit too far.  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article on the subject may clear up the difference between coffee preferences and the sociological phenomenon of denialism. I think the blog piece you cited is excellent work and highly to be commended, but is probably not a useable source here on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the term "denialist" is widely used in the scientific literature (Nature Medicine, PLoS Medicine, etc); in the mainstream media, and even by former denialists (see Robert Root-Bernstein's commentary here). MastCell Talk 05:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't much about coffee. I mentioned the blog only as a sample of where scientists use "denialism" in common discussions.  I thought we could use those types of sources here on the talk page.  Once again, another rule to remember.  How does one remember every rule about Wikipedia?  It seems people spend more time breaking rules than actually following them.  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm mistaken. Can anyone answer which term is more common? Google:
 * 25.400 for "aids denialism"
 * 7.450 for "aids denialist"
 * 8.590 for "aids dissident"
 * and on scholar.google.nl:

It seems that, on second thought, it does not matter very much. I feel "dissident" is more neutral than denialist, because the latter implies a TRUTH to deny. &mdash; Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 171 for "aids denialism"
 * 67 for "aids denialist"
 * 98 for "aids denialists"
 * 98 for "aids dissident"
 * 179 for "aids dissidents"


 * To cling to a contrarian view on HIV/AIDS, in the face of available evidence, is more than just "dissent" or a scientific disagreement. It requires active denial of numerous well-established facts. The self-application of the term "dissident" is a transparent attempt by the denialists to arrogate the moral authority of the Soviet dissidents. That said, I've actually argued in the past for keeping "dissident" as opposed to "denialist" for encyclopedic purposes, but I don't really feel strongly either. MastCell Talk 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most English speakers don't automatically connect dissidents with Russia; it's a fairly neutral term for people vocally express opposition to the standard position or government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Haytham2's statement that nobody denies AIDS is quite wrong. Stefan Lanka denied that there is any disease that should be called "AIDS", John Lauritsen has implied the same thing, probably numerous others have as well. This can be easily determined through checking VirusMyth (if it still exists), or similar websites. Born Gay (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

December letter (notability)
What can I say? Have you seen The Matrix? ''The matrix is a system, Neo. Most people are so dependent on it that they will violently defend their worldview.''
 * diff →AIDS denialists claims: rv non-notable, unpublished letter to editor) 22:55, 17 March 2009 Keepcalmandcarryon

Why don't you lighten up, Keepcalmandcarryon? At least four of the signatories have a page on wikipedia. How would this letter be so non-notable that it cannot be mentioned in a section called "AIDS denialists claims" in an article on AIDS denialism, huh? You must be out of your mind.

I will do you the courtesy of reverting your edit for you, just in case you would not be feeling good about reverting yourself. (You know, ego and stuff.)

I am not trying to debate the merits of their claims. I am no medical student. Just let information which exists come forward in wikipedia. Do not commit infocide, it's a waste of resources and contrary to the objective of wikipedia, in my view.

Sorry if I sound pissed off -- I had a bad day at work. :(  &mdash; Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 22:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It just seems to me like the AIDS denialists could scream until their heads turn blue, but anything they're shouting is still insignificant until it's been responded to by or received coverage from reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the letter isn't published, then WP:RS comes into play. Is that not true?  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. A published letter to the editor is usually not a reliable source; an unpublished letter to the editor is not a source at all. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey - I've also got an unpublished letter accusing someone of scientific misconduct. I'll put it up on my blog, and then we can cite it on Wikipedia! After all, I put a copy in an envelope and mailed it to the editors of Science. In all seriousness, this is a pretty egregious violation of the biographies of living persons policy (among many others). The fact that AIDS denialism is a tiny-fringe view does not negate the need for appropriate sources. MastCell Talk 03:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good by me. Iff an actually reliable source reports that they wrote the letter and it had some sort of impact then we can cite that. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

FAQ
I have put a proposed Frequently Asked Questions at Talk:AIDS denialism/FAQ, modeled closely on the one in the header stack at Talk:Evolution. I would like to discuss here whether we would like to transclude a FAQ here, and which questions it should contain. Open the collapsebox to see the current version. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 02:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that I have updated the FAQ page to bring it more into line with other FAQ pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Loosely connected?
There seems to be a current edit conflict over the opening sentence of the Lead, between persons who wish to assert that the denialist movement is a collection of "loosely connected group" of individuals and organizations, and persons who assert that this qualifier is not accurate. Can someone point to the sources cited in the article that establish that the individuals and organizations are loosely connected? Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sourced. Nevard (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first time editing wiki so apologies if I do things wrongly. I can't read the cited source, it just points to a book reference that I can't seem to read. it does not even give a page number. Is this really credible source?

I cut the words "loosely connected group" because it seamed such an unbelievable claim that all Aids denialists on the entire planet are "loosely connected". Is there a secret email list? If someone denis the connection between HIV and Aids but is not connected to other deniers are they then by default not Aids deniers? How can anyone prove that everyone who is an Aids delnialist has some form of loose connection to each other without moving into some Orwellian thought police analogy?

On a larger scale, the way this entire page is written is troubling in that it reads like a political attack ad against Aids denialism. I'm not a scientist, I believe HIv causes Aids (cause smart people tell me so) but the wiki page on Aids denialism should be the place for Aids deniers to put their case... followed by a strong rebuttal and criticism of course.

How do you request an experienced wiki editor to look at the neutrality of this page?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube77 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nevard, but that link just takes me to an old version of the article. Which source in the article goes into the connection point?


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Cube77! Removing unsourced material is a perfectly valid action (See Verifiability), but I'm asking first because I didn't want to assume that this was the case. Edits that may be controversial or subject to dispute should be discussed.


 * I personally do not think it looks like an attack ad. The positions and arguments of the deniers is presented, as are those of the mainstream scientific community. Because it is a fringe belief, that belief must be presented in proportion to its status in the public eye/mainstream science, as indicated by WP:FRINGE. I'm not sure if there's a specific resource for examining an article's neutrality other than the informal consensus by which articles are generally maintained, but if I were in your position, I would either go to policy pages on the Neutrality Policy, and either investigate there, perhaps by asking editors with a history of editing that page. Otherwise, I might ask on the Talk Page of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. I try not to abuse that action too often, since he's a busy guy, but he'll generally respond to good questions, to one degree or another.


 * One thing: Don't forget to sign your Talk Page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~) at the end of them. Good luck! Nightscream (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The cited work is written by Seth Kalichmann, an academic sociologist who researched the AIDS denialist movement(s) for several years, meeting and interviewing some of its main proponents. In my opinion, "loosely connected" conveys that AIDS denialism is not a monolithic organisation, but rather an informal collection of groups and individuals connected by their belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. If I understand correctly, User:Cube77 seems to interpret this phrase as meaning that each AIDS denialist must be loosely connected with every other AIDS denialist, which certainly is not the case. I don't read the phrase this way, and I don't consider "loosely-woven pullover" to mean that every strand must be directly connected with every other strand. However, alternative wording suggestions should be entertained. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is that work cited in the article? Nightscream (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence, citation 1. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose Move
I propose the article should be renamed to a more neutral title as 'denialism' is often used in a perjorative sense and with it is often the suggestion of incorrectness with we should not be implying. The article has no hope of achieving a NPOV with such a title. --neon white talk 12:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move This has been discussed before, and I oppose for the same reasons. This is the common name for this phenomenon. Also, no new name has been suggested to move to. Verbal   chat  12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Revisionism or dissent are far less perjorative terms with less negative implications. You'll likely find that 'Denialism' is largely used by those with an opposing POV. Under policy we should not imply that any view is a correct one. This article has some serious issues in that respect. Words to avoid states that 'deny' should be used carefully as it "suggest that the truth is being hidden or ignored." We need to look at articles such as "AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus" for examples of neutral articles. As with holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism the two things are very different and this article is largely about revisionism and the questioning typical views rather than the denial of AIDs existance as the title suggests. --neon white talk 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy is not "we should not imply that any view is a correct one"! To imply that all viewpoints are equally viable (when they are not) is a violation of NPOV. Please see WP:FRINGE: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources". - Nunh-huh 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. See WP:ASF. I don't think this is a fringe view, note the article's list of figures. NPOV still requires every viewpoint to demonstrate in a neutral manner this is a different priciple to what weight they are given. We can talk about mainstream science or major science institutions disagreeing with a viewpoint but we cannot imply one is wrong and the other incorrect. --neon white talk 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then, the basis of your disagreement here is that you are misinformed about whether AIDS denialism is a fringe view or not, and that you misunderstand the policy about whether fringe views should be depicted as if they were of equal value to accurate views. - Nunh-huh 05:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Aids Denialism" is the common name, and is also used in academic literature. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Aids denialism" is the name for the phenomenon that gets the most hits on Google. Larkusix (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's neutral or doesn't have deliberately negative value attached. --neon white talk 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Holocaust denialism" also has a deliberately negative value attached. That's because Holocaust denial is viewed negatively by essentially all reputable sources, and the term is widely used by scholarly and reliable sources. The same applies here. MastCell Talk 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on Holocasut denial also explains it's usage, this article needs the same. --neon white talk 07:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I already looked it up for the next section but then decided not to go that route, here are some of the times the question of titling has been discussed here: Talk:AIDS_denialism/Archive 8, Talk:AIDS denialism/Archive 8, Talk:AIDS denialism/Archive 9, Talk:AIDS denialism, Talk:AIDS denialism. Clearly the title is contentious, but there seems to be a pretty solid consensus that AIDS denialism is well-supported by the sources. I have not checked for a few months, so it may be that the most reliable, reputable, and respected sources have started consistently using a different term. If this is the case, please demonstrate it below. Failing that, this is a dead issue. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be more that alternatives are not covered by the article like they are in Holocaust denial. It should be specified who uses the term. Attributing everything is a good way to achieve neutrality. We have to be careful we avoid academic bias here. --neon white talk 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one sentence on the terminology in thea article, "HIV/AIDS denialists prefer the terms "rethinker" or 'dissident'." Nothing more than that can be reliably sourced, though. The only people who go on at any length about the terminology are the denialists and other unreliable sources. So there's really nothing more to say. And you have to keep in mind that the neutral point of view is the one that can be supported by reliable sources. Attempting to correct a bias one sees in the reliable sources themselves would actually be very non-neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As a side note: what is an "academic bias", and why should we avoid it here? MastCell Talk 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an essay on it somewhere. It refers to the fact that wikipedia ia generally edited my academics which inadvertently leads to a lack of neutrality in articles about non-mainstream science etc. --neon white talk 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to represent the "academic bias" (which is different to the bias of any individual academics); the weighted mainstream view of the academic literature. That is achieved by using WP:RS / WP:MEDRS. See WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc. If wikipedia is mainly edited by academics then there are some really bad academics around :) (joke) Verbal   chat  09:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Neon white - this one? Although Verifiability still requires us to prefer academic sources. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to include an article about a movement which you consider to be a "fringe movement" (but which clearly is not), then you have to include the beliefs of that group at the minimum, and not merely keep repeating the opponents' claims. Otherwise this material is really confusing to read and makes very little sense. This article does not read like an encyclopedic entry, but like a political soapbox. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthias Rath
According to Goldacre, Rath was rather influential with regard to the Durban Declaration. Is it worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.122.236 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DIfficulty Editing Pages
Is anyone else having trouble trying to neutralize this page or related pages, to reflect the actual views of the scientists involved? It seems that this WIkipedia topic is governed by a bunch of people who will not listen to any discussion that goes against their political agenda. Again and again they are proven wrong, but then just say they are right and keep changing the page back to the way they want it. Who arbitrates these things? Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean neutralize in the sense of eliminate (the majority consensus), then I'm not surprised you're having trouble. Verbal chat  09:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading this page, it seems many agree with me. No one is trying to eliminate the majority consensus! But several people such as yourself are trying very hard to eliminate minority views! How can you claim that these views are irrelevant, when they are the subject of this very article? People who are attempting to add the alternate views seem not to be able to. I have not seen any kind of consensus on this, you only pretend that there is. Your strategy is clearly to wear others down by repeated deletion of their perfectly legitimate edits. Mister Hospodar (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosely connected? Says who?
I'm not entirely happy with the sweeping statement that Aids denialists are loosely connected (according to the first paragraph of this article). What would the basis for this statement be? Is it simply an attempt to soften the article for people who feel strongly against Aids denialists? I suspect people who deny the link between HIV and Aids do so for various reasons that may not all be mutually compatible. Therefore I suggest that the "loosly connected group" bit be removed. -- 41.208.48.176 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I suspect people who deny the link between HIV and Aids do so for various reasons that may not all be mutually compatible"...hence, loosely connected. As the reliable sources report, AIDS denialism is a phenomenon spread mostly on the internet by people who have partially overlapping interests in conspiracy theories, antigovernment movements, selling untested cures, etc. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that Aids denialism is an internet-only or primarily internet-based movement. One cannot doubt that the internet would play a big role in furthering the cause of Aids denialists but it seems clear to me from other sections of this very Wikipedia article that certain forms of Aids denialism is internet-independent.  To state that Aids denialists are "connected" at all, is to lump together groups of widely divergent opinion as if they're part of some conspiracy. -- leuce (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS denialist material is currently spread largely through the Internet.[8]" -- The cited reference is a paper by Smith-Novella. In it, he mentions only three examples of Aids denialism spread via the internet, namely Thabo Mbeki, a San Francisco Aids organisation, and a rock group.  The rock group had a song about Aids denialism, and happened to mention something about it on their web site.  The Aids organisation pre-exist the internet, but happened to mention a policy change on their web site.  The Thabo Mbeki reference is not about Aids denialism at all but about earlier claims that AZT can be harmful, and that references to this fact are available on the internet.  Smith-Novella's basis for saying Aids denialism is spread via the internet is therefore not valid.  One doesn't have to have an internet connection to have doubts about something. -- leuce (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The cited source, a peer-reviewed article from a respectable medical journal, clearly supports the statement made in our article. You may of course read the source and disagree with its conclusions - that is a separate issue with minor relevance here. MastCell Talk 03:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The "loosely connected" argument is false. The truth is that many scientists and a few journalists all over the world have come to similar conclusions on their own, by looking at scientific data. Unless you mean that "loosely connected" can refer to persons who hold the same beliefs about anything, or have anything whatsoever in common. So by your criteria all people who go to Starbucks then would be loosely related, as coffee drinkers who have frequented the same chain. It is a very sloppy term here, and quite misleading. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and how does this verbage at all add to the article? Doesn't having this here compromise the neutrality of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.115.20 (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some suggestons for making the first paragraph more neutral:

Current: 1. AIDS denialism refers to the views of a loosely connected group of individuals and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[1] Revised: 1. AIDS denialism refers to the views of a group of individuals and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[1 (The "loosely connected" phrase has been challenged, not adequately supported in counter-argument, and is clearly false and illogical. There are clearly many people who disagree with the mainstream theory that are not connected with one another, except in sharing the same viewpoint or opposition. It is not a political party or a cult). Current: 2. Denialist arguments are considered to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data,[4] with the potential to endanger public health by dissuading people from using proven treatments.[5][6][7][3][8][9] Revised: 2. Denialist arguments are considered by mainstream scientists to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data,[4] with the potential to endanger public health by dissuading people from using proven treatments.[5][6][7][3][8][9] (You need to state who is doing the considering. It's obviously not AIDS dissidents themselves. Current sentence implies a unanimous opinion, which there clearly is not if there are dissidents. A counter-claim that their views are not valid or too fringe is not logical here, as the article is specifically ABOUT their views). Current: 3. Public health researchers have investigated the human cost of AIDS denialism: independent estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, 171,000 HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism.[11][12] Revised: 3. Public health researchers have investigated the human cost of AIDS denialism: independent estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, 171,000 HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism.[11][12] However, AIDS dissidents clam that the deaths in these studies are not caused by HIV, but by diseases caused by malnutrition and parasitic disease in Africa, or by the effects of recreational drugs and AIDS medication itself in developed countries. (The current sentence makes it sound as if "AIDS denialists" are crazy and genocidal, as if their denial is in itself a murderous act. While the mainstream does indeed believe this, the beliefs of the subjects of the article need to be stated here too, or else the statement about the public health researchers' findings should be deleted all together). Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are some workable suggestions there. Re: "loosely connected", I think this is unarguable, obvious from the sources, and value-neutral. There are links between various denialist groups - after all, it's such a tiny fringe that they are all aware of each other - but they are not tightly coordinated and have no central, representative spokespeople, organizations, or arguments. In general, I think Mister Hospodar has (here and elsewhere) imposed an excessively high bar, in that any wording that is not verbatim or near verbatim from a source gets challenged. Our goal is not a verbatim recapitulation of material found elsewhere on the Internet. Our goal is to provide a reasonable, encyclopedic summary of that material. In that sense, I don't see any reasonable objection to "loosely connected", which is amply borne out by the content of various sources, and is not imputing a negative in any case. On the other hand, I can't get myself worked up for what I have no doubt would be a protracted fight about it, so whatever. At some point we'd made a concerted decision not to preface every statement of widely-accepted fact with "According to mainstream scientists..." It's repetitive, distracting, and mildly misleading, in that it suggests that only a faction of scientists (albeit a mainstream one) consider HIV the cause of AIDS. No, every scientist working in the field, and virtually every minimally educated layperson, understands HIV to be the cause of AIDS. I agree the phrasing could be improved, as it does beg the question of who is doing the considering. I'd suggest something along the lines of:"AIDS-denialist claims have been rejected by the scientific community as based on faulty reasoning and cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data. Some scientists and activists have raised the concern that AIDS denialism endangers public health by dissuading people from using proven treatments, a concern borne out by the findings of a 2008 study which identified 300,000 deaths linked to the South African government's embrace of AIDS denialism."... or something like that. At least the sentiments are more clearly attributed, with less use of the passive voice. Re: the South African estimates, no. We cite reliable sources, in due proportion to their relevance and reliability. Translation: if we cite a major peer-reviewed study from the Harvard School of Public Health, we don't "rebut" it by giving the last word to a handful of fringe websites espousing crackpot theories. That's sort of fundamental to the idea that we're trying to build a serious, respectable reference work here. MastCell Talk 20:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording that Mastcell suggests in the "cherry picking" sentence.

As for the "loosely connected" phrase, is does sound like there is some sort of a central organizing body or at least a website or some sort of center or even a leader or group of moderators or SOMETHING, when the words "loosely connected" are used. I will maintain that the only connection these people have is through their belief that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I don't see why the phrase needs to be used, when it is inaccurate at best. There might be a few scientists that are loosely connected, but the rest of the dissidents surely are not connected with these scientists. So if you want to talk about a loosely connected group of scientists who are dissidents, that would be more reasonable, but I still don't think there is any evidence of a connection in most cases.

As for the number of victims of AIDS denialism, I would not try to privilege AIDS denialist claims here, or to rebut anyone else's claims, but the wording here simply is not accurate. The assumption has to be made that HIV=AIDS, and that AIDS deaths in Africa are directly attributable to Africans not receiving AIDS medicine. But there is a GREAT deal of controversy over this issue, so there must be a way of introducing the fact of this controversy instead of just stating the results of the study? I would welcome suggestions for different wording, but I don't think it's accurate to just state as a fact that deaths were caused by AIDS denialism, as if AIDS denialism in itself is a source of death.

For one thing, the study is called "Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa," it's not called 'AIDS denialism causing X number of deaths in South Africa."  So if you want to be more accurate in terms of the references you are citing, you might say; "Public health researchers have estimated the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa, as follows: ..." Also, the study in question is based, in the reporter's own words, completely on "projections" and "assumptions," and NOT on statistics. They estimate deaths not in terms of actual people they think would have died, but on something called "person-years," which multiplies each person by the number of years they would have been expected to live with ARV treatment. The study never comments on where they got their data abut how ARV drugs increase life-expectancy, because to date there have been NO STUDIES that show that ARV drugs increase life expectancy in HIV positive individuals. The study assumes when it adds up "person-years" that all individuals who contract HIV will immediately die, although  it is well-known by now that being diagnosed with HIV is not a death-sentence. People have lived for decades now with HIV and without drug treatment, and are healthy. So what I object to the most is the statement that AIDS denialism in ITSELF is a source of death. That seems to me to be a little far-fetched, even given the wildly unsupported claims and inaccuracy of the article itself. "Peer-reviewed" is not in itself a holy grail of truth, it just means that the article was accepted by others, which is easy to do in an article that never claims to have any real data, only "assumptions." Mister Hospodar (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I don't feel strongly enough about "loosely connected" to argue about it. I think it's moderately informative but non-essential, so I wouldn't make a fuss assuming no one else has major objections to removing it. As to the Harvard School of Public Health study: all studies involve "assumptions" and "projections"; to equate the use of these words as evidence of dubiousness is naive. I stopped cold at your categorical assertion that there are "NO STUDIES that show that ARV drugs increase life expectancy in HIV positive individuals." That is demonstrably and unarguably false. Even a brief reading of this article should provide the evidence whose existence you deny. Let's take, among many similar studies, . You will note the conclusion of the abstract:"A significant and progressive decrease in mortality and increase in life expectancy were observed over the 12-year study period. The increase in life expectancy and decrease in mortality were directly associated with the use of modern forms of HAART."You may also find interesting (fulltext); it describes how the dramatic effectiveness of modern antiretroviral therapy, and the attendant gains in life expectancy, convinced some of the more intellectually honest AIDS denialists that they had been wrong. Incidentally, it also confirms the destructive impact of irresponsible advocacy of AIDS denialism in South Africa. I'll go on once you've corrected your incorrect statement about a lack of evidence. MastCell Talk 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually when I use the words "projections" and "assumptions," I am quoting the article itself, which never claims to report any actual statistics. I haven't read every single article referenced in this article but I've done extensive research on the subject, and the evidence pointing to the efficacy of AIDS drugs seems only to be their efficiency in increasing T cells and decreasing viral load, not in actually curing any disease. If I'm wrong about this I apologize, and I will look at the article you reference here. But the fact still remains that the study referred to is based on projections of how many people would have been saved if they estimated all of the people they "think" have HIV in Africa, not on how many people "have" tested positive for HIV, and what would happen if all of those people were given an instant death sentence based on a hypothetical HIV positive status, compared to all of those people surviving the maximum number of years that people have been known to survive when given drugs. So even assuming that this study is accurate, (which is difficult to determine based on the fact that many  Africans are dying from diseases they were already dying from before AIDS was known, such as tuberculosis and malnutrition, and that now those people are termed AIDS victims whether they test positive for HIV or not, so we really have no way of knowing whether these people assumed to have HIV do indeed have HIV), even assuming that, we should not state as a fact that "AIDS denialism" has been the cause of all of these deaths. What we are talking about also is not actual deaths, but PROJECTED deaths, deaths in the future that they decided "would" happen based on projections. So if you go ahead and state, as I suggested before, that ""Public health researchers have estimated the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa, as follows: ..." at least the sentence will be more accurate as to what the article actually claims, although I still think it's a problem not to mention at least somewhere that there is a dissenting opinion. Mister Hospodar (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the article you referenced above, supposedly proving that AIDS drugs decrease mortality, but I don't see how that study can be considered scientific when there were no non-drug controls. So if everyone on the study was taking the drugs, how can we know that the drugs increase life expectancy compared to those who are not taking the drugs? The conclusion drawn here seems dubious at best. Why have there been no control group studies that prove this? If should be easy to do now ethically, since so many individuals have opted to not take the drugs of their own accord. Mister Hospodar (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To Mastcell: I've taken out "loosely connected" and replaced the "cherry picking" sentence with the one you suggested, also I've quoted the article about South African AIDS deaths directly, to avoid any loss of neutrality. I really would prefer to also include the dissidents' claims that the South African deaths were/ are not the cause of denialism, as I always think that it's better to provide two sides of an argument in order to let people know what the debate is, whether it's hotly contested and discredited or not. Thanks. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've understood . I'm not sure what you mean by "non-drug controls"; it would be unethical to withhold effective drugs from someone with an otherwise fatal disease. The study looked at people treated at various points in time between 1993 and 2004. The most important time point is probably around 1996, when protease inhibitors were introduced. Life expectancy for people with HIV increased from 9 years (in 1993) to 23 years (in 2004). Perhaps just as notably, the 2- or 3-drug regimens were substantially more effective than single-drug regimens. If the AIDS-denialist crap about antiretrovirals being deadly and "causing" AIDS were true, you'd expect that the more drugs people were given the worse they'd do. The reality is just the opposite, and note that this is just one paper of many documenting this reality. An intellectually honest scientist, faced with this sort of data, might reconsider his or her hypothesis. MastCell Talk 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue with you about the findings, but I will say that usually if a drug is to be tested for efficacy, it is tested against a placebo, not against itself. Back in the '80s and '90s, when they thought that HIV was a death sentence, and that these drugs were the only way of prolonging life, I can see that it would have been unethical to implement the placebo test. But now, when thousands living with HIV are voluntarily not taking AIDS drugs and thriving, it would be easy to conduct such a test using volunteers. Due to the nature of the test cited, there is really no way to know whether people were living longer because the medication itself had improved and become less toxic (which it did), and there is no data about what other treatments these people were receiving (chemotherapy, etc). Mister Hospodar (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I question your assertions - they are dubious and likely incorrect, and without any supporting evidence beyond your say-so (which I distrust for reasons apparent above) I don't see a point in arguing with you. It is, again, a mark of ignorance to believe that drugs must be tested against placebo to prove efficacy. In diseases where a standard treatment is established as effective, new drugs are compared to that standard treatment, not to placebo - this is a matter of Medical Ethics 101. If you have a new malaria drug, you don't give half of the study subjects placebo and watch them die; you give half of them the best known antimalarial therapy, and half the new drug, and see which works better. I could point to documentation that people who refuse antiretrovirals generally don't "thrive", and that HIV-positive denialists who finally agree to take medication improve dramatically and wonder why they ever believed this nonsense... or I suppose I could point you to other evidence. Take a look at . In China, antiretrovirals were generally unavailable until about 2002 - so people weren't on them, though it wasn't a matter of voluntary choice. They had a high HIV/AIDS mortality rate. With the introduction of free first-line HAART, the mortality rate dropped substantially. That's exactly what you'd expect given that HIV causes AIDS and anti-HIV medications are effective in treating it. It is exactly opposite of what you'd expect if anti-HIV medications were poisonous or deadly. There are dozens of studies like this one. All of them directly contradict the claims of AIDS denialists. If someone cannot be convinced by a mountain of scientific data, and they cannot be convinced by specific cases like that of Christine Maggiore and her daughter (or the dozens of other HIV-positive denialists who have died of AIDS), then one is forced to conclude that their belief is not rational, but dogmatic. It is denialism. There is literally no evidence that could convince the hard core of people who remain denialists. MastCell Talk 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not identify myself as a denialist, I only wanted to point out that the study you referenced was not conclusive about the effectiveness of the drugs, because of the way it was conducted. I actually was sort of excited that there should be such a study, because I've done a lot of research and haven't myself been able to find one that makes the argument conclusive either way. You really can't compare it with malaria, which we have such a solid grasp of compared to HIV. Even Montagnier himself has said that HIV alone is not sufficient to cause AIDS. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the main AIDS diseases killing gay men, was thought to be caused by HIV before, and is now known to be caused by the herpes virus 8. So scientists are learning something new every day, which is how it should be. So all of those gay men who died of "AIDS" before - was that that really AIDS? Or was it herpes virus? We can't know. This issue is not a closed book at all. Theories about what it means, how it grows, and how to treat it are changing every day. Mister Hospodar (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you don't identify yourself as a denialist. Few people do. On the other hand, your arguments are taken straight from the denialist playbook, right down to the clumsy and intellectually dishonest attempt to take Montagnier's words out of context and turn a guy who won the Nobel Prize for linking HIV to AIDS into an "AIDS skeptic". Nonsense. I won't bother correcting your inaccurate and misleading claims about Kaposi's, because experience (cf. this thread) teaches me that even when caught in an obvious falsehood, you'll rationalize it away with additional vague falsehoods. That, in a word, is denialism. Let's go back to discussing specific changes to the article content, for the sake of both of our sanities. MastCell Talk 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I only argue for the sake of pointing out that there might be a reason to represent both sides of the argument, rather than to insist that something is a done conclusion, which not even the scientists will admit is true. I did not take Montagnier's words out of context. The fact that he drew that conclusion does not mean that he is a "denialist,' only that he is a scientist and looking at the data. Maintaining a war against people that hold an opposing view seems to me to be not in the interest of truth or science. The way this article is written, it would be quite tough to get a sense of what "AIDS denialists" are actually claiming, so it seems rather inadequate as an encyclopedic entry. I have no problem with stating over and over again that what they say has been debunked and discredited, as this is also the truth, but I do want to be able to read what their claims are in an article that is supposedly about these claims.

Here is a link by the way to an article about Kaposi's sarcoma:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/41159.php

This is probably the sort of discovery that would make someone like Montagnier claim that HIV alone is not sufficient to cause AIDS. Note that the article does not say that the disease is caused by the herpes virus in addition to HIV, but that it is caused by the herpes virus alone, and that the disease itself is "associated with HIV/AIDS." This is from a mainstream medical journal, it does not come from "the playbook." Mister Hospodar (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We only represent both sides of an argument to the extent that they are indicated in reliable sources that we can cite, not based on a continuation of the debate on the article's Talk Page. Your statement that MastCell compared AIDS to malaria is a lie. He did not compare the two diseases. He illustrated the principle by which drugs are tested, and used another disease as an example. Its similarity or dissimilarity to AIDS was irrelevant to that point, and you well know it. Your statement that we "can't know" the cause of AIDS and that researching studies does not yield a conclusion are also false (such conclusions are not determined by "one" study), and your statement that it would be tough for a reader to get a sense of what denialists claim is disproven by the fact what they claim is explicitly stated in the article's opening two sentences. Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Back to the article. If anyone still demands a source for the phrase "loosely connected", I'd proposed this interview of Seth Kalichman, a professor of social science at UConn (see the question about "beehives"). Kalichman's book, Denying AIDS, would probably also be sufficient sourcing for this, but I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read it. While we're at it, if you like technical explanations, here's one exploring what I assume is the basis for the misguided claims about Luc Montagnier. And this essay might be useful reading to address the HIV-positive denialists supposedly "thriving" off medication (it probably also ought to be added to our article on The Other Side of AIDS). Not sure if it's worth adding Peter Duesberg's latest publication on the subject : it's apparently been "withdrawn [by the journal] pending the results of an investigation." MastCell Talk 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that you can't compare HIV to malaria because of the difference in WHAT WE KNOW about the two diseases. We know what malaria is, we know how to control it, and medication has proved successful. No such certainty exists with HIV. I will maintain that no such group exits as an AIDs denialist network or conspiracy, even if some of the scientists involved may be working together or know one another. But the point here really is that the information here is misleading in terms of what the "denialists" themselves claim. Two sentences is not enough to explain why they came up with such an idea, or what grounds, if any, they have for making it. Therefore, it is not a very informative encyclopedic entry, as one has to go elsewhere to actually find out anything substantial about the debate. (And yes, there IS a debate). Mister Hospodar (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We know what HIV is, we know how to control it (unless you also deny the voluminous literature on safer sex practices, screening of blood and organ donations, and other forms of risk reduction?), and medications have been successful. If those are your criteria, then HIV/AIDS is as "well-understood" as malaria, if not better. I guess the point of my post was that I'm no longer interest in what you "maintain". I'd like to refocus on what reliable sources have to say. I presented a couple, of varying quality and usability, in my previous post for discussion. MastCell Talk 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There may be a wealth of studies, but there are no studies that have successfully isolated the HIV virus or explained how it is supposed to reduce T-cell count. Delving deeper into the scientific literature reveals this paradox. That does not mean that HIV doesn't exist or that it doesn't cause AIDS, only that there is a reasonable doubt, which is what dissidents are trying to point out. For now, suffice it to say that this is a very poorly written and sourced article. Mister Hospodar (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "What I said was that you can't compare HIV to malaria because of the difference in WHAT WE KNOW about the two diseases. We know what malaria is, we know how to control it, and medication has proved successful. No such certainty exists with HIV." One more time: This is not relevant to the point MastCell made about not testing a new medication for it against a placebo. What we know about it is irrelevant to this point. You keep pretending that you don't comprehend this, and it's not working. The differences between the two diseases is IRRELEVANT.


 * Your statements that studies have not isolated the virus or explained how it reduces T-cell count is a lie. Anyone who wishes to learn how the virus does this has only to read up on it. The doubt you mention is not "reasonable", the article is indeed well-sourced, and whether you "identify" yourself as a denialist or not, you are obviously not interested in improving it. But if you find reliable sources that can be used to improve it, feel free to submit them. Nightscream (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't normally agree with the use of words such as "lie" on Wikipedia, I must agree with Nightscream here. The literature is replete with isolation of HIV: its proteins, its genome, whole virus particles. That's all that counts on Wikipedia, not Mister Hospodar's opinions or my own personal, EM-related knowledge of the topic. Let's try to stop debating the scientific consensus and focus instead on the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Aids denialists dying from Aids
It may be ironic if people who deny the existence of Aids die from Aids, but such irony has no place in a neutral article in Wikipedia, IMO. Besides, most Aids denialism is about the link between HIV and Aids, and not about Aids itself. Radical views are always sensitive issues and I think we should strive to avoid emotive tactics of prose. -- leuce (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The references given in that section show that the sickness and death of AIDS denialists has actually been a significant factor in the evolution of the denialist community, so it's quite relevant to this page. I'd actually say that removing it is inappropriate for a neutral article on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, it is very relevant and removal would bias the article. Verbal   chat  19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. There is a section in this article called Death of HIV-positive denialists, that I have nothing against. I agree that the section is relevant. My complaint is not about that section, but about the references to persons throughout the rest of the article who have died from this or that cause (among them Aids). The stunt pulled by Aidstruth.org is relevant to the debate, certainly, but it doesn't mean that the Wikipedia article must be written in a similar vein. Whether X or Y died from heart attack or Aids or whatever, is not really relevant here. -- leuce (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Christine Maggiore's daughter was never diagnosed with AIDS, and neither was Christine Maggiore herself. Her daughter was never sick until right before she died, and suddenly died from an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. Neither Christine Maggiore or her daughter had the health history commonly associated with AIDs patients. Even the mainstream scientists an doctors acknowledge this. Do the research yourself. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the point. The article provides sources for people to do their own reading on the subject. Your assertions are, in some cases, baldly wrong - for instance, most "mainstream" doctors who have commented have described both Maggiore's and her daughter's health history as typical for someone suffering from untreated AIDS - but ignorance is probably best corrected by letting people read the sources. MastCell Talk 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

POV
Although I see that it has been discussed at length already, I feel I should nonetheless state that this article seems strongly POV in much of its language (and not merely use of the word 'denialist'). I don't doubt that there is a strong scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS, but it seems to me that does not give licence to use quite such disparaging & dismissive language about opposing views. The implication is that all who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS are ignorant, biased, idiotic, have a hidden agenda, etc. A well-edited encyclopedia would not do this. Ben Finn (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The implication of this well sourced and supported article is that anyone that believes that HIV does not cause AIDS is ignorant, OR biased, OR idiotic, OR has a hidden agenda, OR has been mislead, OR hasn't looked at the evidence, OR ... You'll find that any factual article often contradicts those that hold spurious and incorrect beliefs. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't treat all views as equally valid. See WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Verbal chat  10:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SCICON might also be a useful read, particularly because you acknowledge that a scientific consensus already exists. TechBear (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly not a scientific consensus, or scientists would not hold an opposing view in the numbers that they do. There are something like 2500 scientists worldwide who are still waiting for proof that HIV causes AIDS and even that HIV exists, and for a single article where this is proven, but who haven't yet been given that information, and so the number of doubters or "denialists" is actually growing rather than waning. The orthodoxy holds that because a majority believes that HIV causes AIDS, then it must be true. But a consensus still is not a fact, unless that science has been proven. The "world is flat" analogy used earlier simply doesn't hold here, because we have proof that the earth is round. However, we do not have proof that the HIV virus exists. Scientists such as Peter Duesberg have claimed that the moment such a virus was isolated or found in someone's body (no virus has ever been found, only antibodies have been found), he would drop his doubt and happily admit he was wrong. I feel the reason for such strong censorship of this article is that there are people who have something to fear if more people know that the majority of scientists have been hanging onto a flawed and unproven theory all of these years.

Claim: However, we do not have proof that the HIV virus exists. Scientists such as Peter Duesberg have claimed that the moment such a virus was isolated or found in someone's body (no virus has ever been found, only antibodies have been found), he would drop his doubt and happily admit he was wrong. This is absolutely, beyond a doubt, false. Look at the electron micrograph on the wikipedia page on HIV - there's the virus that "doesn't" exist. No virus has ever been found? Of course HIV viruses have been found. What do you think scientists study? Viruses are isolated from patients, introduced into cell culture, used in experiments, taken apart, their components studied, put back together in cell culture, producing more of the virus. And repeat. This is not conjecture, but based on fact - I personally have done this in the course of my graduate studies, in fact, as recently as two days ago.

However, whether something is true or not is actually not the point here, the point is that an encyclopedia entry should present facts clearly without bias, and that is not happening here. One side of the argument is almost totally omitted, and there are many specious "facts" which are not facts at all included here, (such as the "fact" that AIDS denialism has caused X amount of deaths in Africa), when the jury is still out as to why those people are getting sick. The fact is that no one really knows what's going on, all we have is speculation, in the absence of clear scientific data. AIDS denialists have their own theory, the absence of which makes them sound like murderers. You may hold the opinion that they are murderers, but that's still only your opinion. What is needed here are facts. The theories of individual scientists and dissenters is the subject of this article, so why would their views be repressed?

Again, I am not trying to skew the article towards any kind of consensus or non-neutral point of view, but merely to point out that there IS a debate, that it's not a fringe debate, and that it should be taken seriously on something that purports to be an encyclopedia. Cross-referencing here, you will find that every single article that has to do with an "AIDS denialist" has the same type of strange, hysterical non-neutral writing attached to it. Whether one agrees with these arguments is totally beside the point. Mister Hospodar (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a scientific consensus, particularly on the part of those who actually do science correctly. "Consensus" does not mean "unanimity". It refers to a majority. Even if we accepted your figure of 2,500 scientists (you provided no source for this), this does nothing to refute a consensus on HIV/AIDS, because the consensus that indeed exists is based on evidence and the Peer Review Process. Those who insist there is no evidence that HIV causes AIDS do not abide by this process, and that is why they are considered a fringe. Genuine "debate" is when both sides abide by proper empirical methods. When one side does and the other does not, that is not a genuine debate, and that latter side is indeed called the "fringe".


 * As far as biased language in the article, if you want to argue this, then please provide examples of it. The denialist side is not "omitted", since the entire article is about it. As for your assertion that the jury is still out on the reasons for deaths in South Africa attributed to denialism, this is false. An independent study by the Harvard School of Health determined that the deaths in question were attributed to denialism, and that source is indeed placed in that passage. So the assertion that the "jury is still out" and that it's just "speculation" is false. As for the assertion that denialists are "murderers", "ignorant, biased, idiotic, have a hidden agenda, etc." the article contains no such assertion or implication to this effect. If this is what you interpretation, then it originates within your own mind. If you have specific examples that show otherwise, then please list them. Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Science is not based on a majority consensus, but on scientific data. Who are you to say who does and who does not do science correctly? All I am claiming is that the disparate views of dissenting scientists be put forth equally. It's the HIV/AIDS people who have failed to prove in a single scientific paper that HIV causes AIDS, or exists at all. It would seem to me that the burden of proof is on them. If they had indeed proven that, then there would not be a dissenting group at all. There would be no reason for it. But in fact they have not. Perhaps you yourself are ignorant of the facts, which of course you would be if you rely on WIkipedia for your information!

It is not a fact that AIDS deaths in Africa are due to AIDS denialism. There is much evidence to the contrary, and yet I know if I try to mention any of it here I will be censored, as I have already been warned that anything I write here will be considered as being part of a political soapbox and will be removed. Of course if you attribute deaths to a direct cause, then the people who are responsible are implied murderers.

There seems to be no point in trying to change the language bias in these article. Trying to change just a few biased (and indeed incorrect) words in the Gary Null article has met with much opposition, and no one will justify this biased language, they just keep reverting the edits. It's always the same people, they watch these pages like hawks.

My opinion is that if this was really a fringe movement, then there wouldn't be be people policing these pages night and day. But to mention that might give me warnings, threats, and blocks, as it has in the past. Fascism, anyone? Mister Hospodar (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Science is indeed based on scientific data, and when an idea is given enough support that it is reasonable for it to be regarded as fact, that happens when there is a scientific consensus on that data. It's not an either/or question. Both are part of the same process.


 * Who am I to say who does and does not do science correctly? I'm someone who understands the distinction between science and pseudoscience. When people put forward an idea that they assert is fact, but do not do so according to the proper methodology, then they are not doing science. That is criteria by which science and non-science are distinguished.


 * An article like this one needs only to accurately summarize its topic. But it does not need, nor should, it give equal weight to both a mainstream scientific view and a fringe one. It should give due weight to views based on their standing. See WP:FRINGE. This has nothing to do with "censorship". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a forum for debate where participants have to be given equal time. Encyclopedias are only obligated to describe such conflicts in a dispassionate, accurate, third person manner, and not to help perpetuate it.


 * That HIV causes AIDS has indeed been proven through this aforementioned methodology, and it is for that reason that it is a scientific fact. The notion that it has not been thus shown is false.


 * Equally false is the notion that if it were proven "there would not be a dissenting group at all", and that "if this was really a fringe movement, then there wouldn't be be people policing these pages night and day", because this implies that fringe groups' ideas are predicated on rational methods of discerning reality. In fact, the opposite is true: Fringe groups, particularly with regard to science, do not care about the Scientific Method, the Peer Review Process, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, etc, and are unaffected by attempts to help them understand these things. That is precisely why they are on the fringe of science. None of this has anything to do with policing pages, as every dedicated editor has articles on their Watchlist. I have over 1,300 pages on mine, most of which are not science or pseudoscience-related, and most of my patrolling deals with reverting vandalism and unsourced material added by anonymous IP editors who are unaware of or do not understand the Verifiability policy. Ad hominem comments like this show that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. But I invite you to do so.


 * I do not rely on Wikipedia for information, nor do I add my personal observations or opinions to it. Like any other good contributor, I rely on reliable, verifiable sources when I add or vet material. That is Wikipedia's strength, particularly with regard to its well-maintained articles. If you read WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, you will understand this.


 * Again, the denialist cause of deaths in Africa was documented in a Harvard study that is cited in the article. If there is something wrong with this study, denialists are free to say what it is. If that source is not reliable, you are free to say so right here. But you didn't. Why is this? Similarly, if denialists have reliable data that supports their claims, then they can present it to reputable medical journals, and if it gains standing, this article will reflect that. As for your attempts to add to the article a reference to the mainstream scientific community as an "orthodoxy" is a clear attempt by you to add your personal opinion, which violates WP:NPOV.


 * As for Gary Null, looking through his article's Edit History shows that you didn't change any "incorrect" language. You tried to place a cite tag at the end of the passage that describes his statement that his experiences with PBS may have been an attempt to silence him. In fact, that assertion is indeed supported by a cite, a Time magazine article that supports that assertion. You also claimed that Act Up is not a reliable source (indeed it is), and tried to refer to denialism euphemistically as an "alternate point of view", arguing that one cannot "promote denialism", a specious attempt to split linguistic hairs, as one can easily promote denialism by promoting the ideas of denialists. None of this constitutes correcting incorrect language. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Since this is a reality-based encyclopedia, at least in theory, let's summarize the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS, and the fringe view that it does not. This fringe view is notable, if no longer scientifically viable, at least insofar as it is held by reliable sources to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths in Africa. This talk page is not the place to debate the claims of AIDS denialism; the Internet abounds with such venues. Let's stick to the talk page guidelines and discuss specific, concrete proposed changes to the article text with supporting reliable sources. Anything else is liable to removal as an abuse of the talk page. MastCell Talk 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to MastCell for yet another beautifully-worded summary. On the one hand, I appreciate Nightscream's patient and careful explanation of the issues; on the other, responding to users such as Hospodar is useful only up to a certain point. That point is comparatively early for me, and we're well past it now. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No arguments here. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you keep out the opinions of the SUBJECTS of this article on the basis that they are fringe? I can understand limiting or deleting entirely this group's opinions on any other page...but on the page that is FOR discussing their point of view? Please! Oh yes, and Keepcalmandcarryon is so impressed with Mastcell's beautiful wording, and Nightscream's patience and care. These guys can * each other's *s all day long, but it isn't going to make this article any less sucky or more neutral. Mister Hospodar (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have several options; you could try to convince us with rational, civil arguments. Or, if you're convinced we're obstructionist zealots, you can solicit outside opinions (see dispute resolution for suggestions). Your current course - non-stop edit-warring combined with personal attacks - is unlikely to be successful. MastCell Talk 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cost of AIDS in South Africa
No study would actually claim that "AIDS denialism" costs lives (as if it were itself a disease). It can only imply it strongly, which is what the sentence I've reinstated does. I haven't actually questioned the integrity of the article, which you would realize if you understood the nuances of the English language, I've only corrected it to state what the article actually states. Hysterical and non-thinking deletions to changes that correct the meaning of incorrect language need to be allowed to stay, otherwise this whole process is like a mad tea party. Mister Hospodar (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AIDS denialism encourages HIV-positive people to avoid antiretroviral therapy. HIV-positive people who do not receive antiretroviral therapy die from AIDS.  QED.  There are certainly studies that demonstrate this, in South Africa and elsewhere.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell: please see my previous comment. You are undoing an edit that corrects the meaning of the sentence so that it accurately represents the article it says it's referencing. Please bother to read and understand material before deleting. This is not the first time my edits were deleted when they are only citing YOUR sources correctly, without adding extra bias. Pay attention: theories don't cause deaths. And it is highly unlikely that lack of antiretrovirals caused those deaths either. But if that is what the article states. Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Skinwalker, LOOK at my edits. They CONFIRM that the study showed that the policy in South Africa lead indirectly, through patients not receiving antiretroviral treatment, to death. I was just correcting the extremely silly language that assets that "AIDS denialism" leads to death. No, "AIDS denialism" is not a disease, like cancer or leprosy. It's a claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The article states that it estimates that X amount of lives may have been lost due to lack of availability of AIDS drugs to South Africans DUE to "AIDS denialist" policies. So that is what I reinstated there. Please refer back to the discussion where all of this has been gone over already. It seems that there are people who will now undo any edit I make at all here, because they have decided that I am not of their "camp." But please, people, have some logic and try to understand the English language. All you are doing by behaving in this way is ruining your own credibility as editors. Mister Hospodar (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ionizing radiation can cause DNA damage, which can cause cancer, which can cause death. The existence of a chain of causation doesn't mean the first cause doesn't lead to the final outcome. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While the specious nature of Hospodar's claim that denialism doesn't lead to deaths simply because the causal relationship is framed as indirect rather than direct is noted without objection by me, it does appear true that in his Sept 4 00:02 edit, he was merely adding more specific language that was in the cited source. The cited source says this: "More than 330,000 lives were lost to HIV/AIDS in South Africa from 2000 and 2005 because a feasible and timely antiretroviral (ARV) treatment program was not implemented, assert researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) in a study published online by the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (JAIDS)." All it appears Hospodar did was change the passage from this: "Public health researchers in South Africa and at Harvard University have independently investigated the human cost of AIDS denialism. Their estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, 171,000 HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism." to this: "Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that more than 330,000 lives were lost to HIV/AIDS in South Africa from 2000 and 2005 because a feasible and timely antiretroviral (ARV) treatment program was not implemented, due to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism."

In addition, the previous version said the deaths were estimated to be 330,000 to 340,000. But the source says, "More than 330,000". That's the figure to which Hospodar changed the passage. (I could not find "340" on the cited source's page.) Aside from Hospodar's failure to include his rationale in the edit's Summary, and removing the attribution to both South African and Harvard studies, can someone explain to me how this edit was not valid? The attribution of the absence of the timely antiretroviral program to the government's embrace of denialism was left in the passage, and not touched. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I indicated in my edit summary, the citations point out 2 different studies of the human consequences of AIDS denialism in South Africa. Mister Hospodar's edit altered the text to suggest that there was only one study, while the citations continued to point to 2 studies. I preferred the original text because it was a better representation of the cited sources. That's all. MastCell Talk 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you have no objection to the inclusion of the text about the "feasible and timely antiretroviral (ARV) treatment program", right? Nightscream (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that. MastCell Talk 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nor do I. Mister Hospodar's language indicated only one publication and removed the estimates of excess infections. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. The number of studies wasn't even his point of contention in this discussion. Glad to see that's one fire put out. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags
This is a good faith tag saying that this article needs some work. It's my opinion that the article is lacking the facts to support it adequately as an encyclopedic entry. Looking at the archives, I can see that many others agree wit me and have been frustrated by the NPOV and removal of descriptive content. If I think it's in need of work, why would your opinion, or the opinions of your similarly biased cohorts, count above mine? Why not include a tag to an article that is obviously disputed, and has been for years? What's the point of keeping the tag out? Why the rampant censorship? No, Mastcell, YOU need to stop. I don't believe I need a consensus to put this tag back. The page's history is proof in and of itself. Any page that doesn't let new NEUTRAL edits stay up for more than 30 minutes is a major PROBLEM as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and is ABUSE of its intended use. The tag GOES BACK. It is a FACT that this page is hotly disputed, and your opinion that others should not know about this fact is IRRELEVANT. Mister Hospodar (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem, from my perspective, is that you're not making a good-faith effort to discuss your concerns and reach some sort of consensus. Nor do you appear overly concerned with Wikipedia's content policies. Numerous editors have disagreed with your assertions and your applications of Wikipedia policy. Rather than follow the suggestions in our dispute resolution pathway, you're looking for ways to force your viewpoint on the article over the objections of numerous other editors. The fact that one editor won't work toward consensus, won't follow the dispute resolution pathway, insists on edit-warring and leveling personal attacks, refuses to take an interest in this site's content or behavioral policies, abuses this site to promote a narrow fringe agenda, etc is not grounds for inserting a tag, nor is it evidence that the article is faulty or "hotly disputed". MastCell Talk 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Category
I feel strongly that this article should be moved away from the pseudoscience category, as it does fulfill any of WIkipedia's requirements of pseudoscience. Wikipedia states:

Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia:

Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

"AIDS denialists" are not proposing a new form of science based on non-scientific methods, they are merely disputing that the claims that other scientists make, and these disputes arise ENTIRELY from science. In fact, "AIDS denialists" claim that MAINSTREAM scientists are not using science correctly. In fact, all they are doing is asking for scientific proof of what the mainstream scientific community insists exists but can't verify. Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, AIDS denialism in its current form is not part of science, nor an "alternative formulation". Perhaps back in 1986 a reasonable person could be skeptical about HIV as the cause of AIDS... perhaps. But with the evidence available today, it takes an enormous amount of willful rationalization, selective belief, and denialism to believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. The idea is not taken seriously by the scientific community. As to whether it's "pseudoscience", I don't really care. It's more trouble than it's worth to fight about the label. I'd be fine with removing the category, because categories aren't meant to make a point - they're just meant to help navigate articles. I think this indisputably belongs in Category:Denialism, on the basis of available reliable sources, but I would be fine with either keeping or removing Category:Pseudoscience. MastCell Talk 04:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AIDS denialism is pseudoscience. All reliable sources that have weighed in on the subject state that no available data support AIDS denialism. No primary research has been published to support AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, AIDS denialism isn't an alternative view to the mainstream scientific opinion the same way creationism isn't an alternative view to evolution. Pseudoscience is appropriate.  Sources -, , . WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Yes, categories are to aid in navigation, and that's why it's important to categorize this article properly, so that people researching AIDS, AIDS denialism, denialism in general or pseudoscience in general can find it. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverts
Here is the revert claiming I introduced grammatical errors. Can we take the changes I made, point by point? For example I prefer 'is the view' to 'refers to the view'. I removed "The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established by multiple lines of evidence as a subject of scientific consensus." as barbaric. For example 'causative role' is superfluous. Use 'role'. 'Estimates' do not attribute, people attribute. And so on. Please do not roll back many different changes. Thanks. The Rationalist (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I had another go, replacing the clumsy "The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established by multiple lines of evidence as a subject of scientific consensus." with "There is a large amount of evidence supporting the scientific consensus that HIV causes the development of AIDS". Simplicity = beauty. The Rationalist (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a tag at the top of this talk page that says this:
 * The reason people were reverting was because that has gotta be the most important sentence in the article. Your new wording is quite muddling. Also the two refs attached to that sentence don't say that, they support the former wording. JoeSmack Talk 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The two sentences say entirely different things, and the thing that needs to be said in an article on AIDS denialism is that it is an established scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS, rather than that there's "a large amount of evidence" that HIV causes AIDS. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also your grammatical changes change the weight of the wording considerably. JoeSmack Talk 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with JoeSmack and Nunh-huh. I also find it somewhat irking when a user accuses others of using poor grammar while introducing phrases such as "There is considerable scientific evidence about". As for The Rationalist's various edits (earlier and today):
 * "AIDS denialism" (as in the PHRASE) refers to a set of beliefs or views. There's nothing wrong with this phrasing.
 * "held by loosely connected group of individuals and organizations" is poor grammar.
 * "There is considerable scientific evidence about" is wrong. There is evidence for or against, not about.
 * The Rationalist's edits remove wikilinks from the lead, such as to denialism and scientific consensus. Why?
 * "predominantly" is replaced with "mostly"...why?
 * "the scientific community" was removed. Why?
 * Several editors have now weighed in against the changes. There seem to be two major issues, one being accuracy and the other being personal preference. Re: the latter, I would urge The Rationalist to consider that while "simplicity = beauty", beauty is also in the eye of the beholder. (And some people happen to like long wikilinks and semi-colons!) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as I've weighed in against some of the changes, let me say that the one that absolutely makes sense to me is removing "refers". There's no need to make a use–mention distinction here. But the removal of "refers to" doesn't necessitate changing the rest of the sentence. "AIDS denialism is the view...." etc. Some rewording may be needed, but it would be better to discuss it rather than go back and forth in the article. - Nunh-huh 22:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Replying:

The Rationalist (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Mastcell  has replaced the deeply offending sentence with one that is much better, which disposes of one problem.  I am puzzled how 'conclusive' might differ from 'scientifically conclusive' but that is a quibble.
 * 2) I object, like 'Nunh-huh' to 'AIDS denialism refers to'. Obviously the term, not the thing is meant, but encyclopedia articles shouldn't begin 'snow refers to a form of frozen water' or 'William Pitt refers to a former British prime minister'.  I propose to change that one back.
 * 3) There are other problems but will leave for now.
 * Emphasis needs to be placed on the lack of questions about the cause of AIDS among real scientists - is there any reason not to use something as strong or stronger than "It is the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS"?
 * "Refers to" probably depends on the grammatical form of the page's subject - I'd use it for verbs perhaps, not nouns. I could go either way here.
 * Also, is AIDS denialism a "set of beliefs" (current) or "the promotion of the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS that is held by a loosely-connected group of individuals throughout the world" (proposed). Beliefs that aren't advertised are essentially invisible, it's the associated activities that are relevant.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why my word 'view' was changed to 'set of beliefs'. Surely there is only one view in question, namely that AIDS is caused by a virus.  There may be shades of opinion within that single view (e.g. as to whether HIV exists at all), but it is a single view for all that.  Also, why is it called 'AIDS denialism'?  Who invented this term?  Why isn't it 'HIV denialism'?  The denialists don't deny the existence of a syndrome or disease.  They deny that this is caused by a virus.The Rationalist (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not very specific (apart from the enormous list that appears after the introduction) about the reasons AIDS denialists hold their view, or about the arguments for and against the view. I have now read around the subject. Duesberg's argument is that casual sex and particularly drug use is responsible for the syndrome. He believes in the existence of HIV but argues it is a 'passenger'. In order to defend this there are a number of important counter-examples he must deal with, including the difficulty that the proposed cause of the syndrome, according to him, does not exist in Africa, namely drug use. But there appears to be a huge epidemic of AIDS in Africa. Accordingly, Duesberg explains the African variety of the syndrome as being something else. There are also other problems, such as the Thailand epidemic, and the haemophiliac phenomenon. None of this is dealt with sufficiently in the article. The article, in my view, should explain carefully the view, and the variations of it, explain the reasons this view is held, and the reasons why these are not taken seriously in the scientific community.

Here are the arguments which, according to Richard Strohman, Duesberg used in his article "Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality"


 * 1) There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.
 * 2) The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24­48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!
 * 3) The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.
 * 4) There is no animal model for AIDS.
 * 5) HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.

Shouldn't these be included? I also looked at this which is a MUCH better article summarising the reasons why AIDS denialists have got it wrong. I.e. it explains to someone who is not an expert (me) in clear and non-technical language, the evidence for HIV being the cause of AIDS. The article here explains hardly any of this. The Rationalist (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the previous discussions on this talk page about why it's called "AIDS denialism" and not "HIV denialism".
 * About the article itself: the subject of this article is AIDS denialism; it is not meant to be a point-by-point explanation of the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV and AIDS. Nor is this talk page to be used for a "but, gee, I'm just asking questions" repetition of denialist arguments. There are plenty of blogs for you to visit if you want that sort of debate, and I urge you to find them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The important issue is that there are reliable sources pointing out that denialism occurs, and that they're wrong.  A point-by-point rebuttal is inappropriate, per WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE.  In discussing angels, we don't have a loving discussion of the number that can dance on the head of a pin before labelling them fictional.  Nor do we need to discuss the hand-waving by a minority to push their point.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to understand why AIDS denialists believe what they do, particularly when some of them have credentials. It would be more persuasive if it presented their views, and reasons why scientific consensus does not agree with them.  The current article does not inform me about the debate in any way, and is poorly written to boot.  Also, some of you seem to be implying I am an AIDS denialist.  Why is this? The Rationalist (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two schools of thought about the article. One school holds that the article should explain, point by point, what the AIDS denialists claim, and then offer point-by-point rebuttals of why these claims are considered ignorant nonsense by the scientific community. Personally, I see two problems with that approach. First of all, it creates the appearance of a scientific debate where there is, in fact, none. Secondly, it's very difficult to pull off without descending into original research and synthesis. Inevitably, the AIDS-denialist blogosphere contains newer claims which, while scientifically unfounded, have not yet been rebutted by the National Institutes of Health, who presumably have more pressing matters to attend to rather than proving again that the Earth is indeed round. So these claims either go un-rebutted (lending them a false air of correctness or at least sanity), or else they are rebutted through original synthesis. A second school of thought is that numerous respectable sources already exist which outline both AIDS denialist claims and the reasons they are considered incorrect. We link those sources, so that an interested party can read them (I assume you found the AVERT site through links from this article). We don't need to re-fight the argument here. More to the point, AIDS denialism is a sociopolitical rather than a scientific phenomenon - it is beneath notice on a scientific level, but has obviously had a major impact in some nations in a political context. Presumably, our article should reflect this by weighting its coverage to the sociopolitical rather than scientific aspects of the subject - that's where the good sources are anyway. MastCell Talk 04:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well put MastCell. JoeSmack Talk 05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The parallels to creationism are again interesting and quite clear.  Evidence for the existence of AIDS should be in the AIDS article (which I'm pretty sure - yup, we link to).  You've no consensus for your suggestions Rationalist, please don't beat the dead horse any more.  Perhaps discuss on Talk:AIDS whether there's merit to a proof of AIDS article.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'''Let's just go with reliable sources and verifiability. It's Wikipedia policy. --TS

Is it pseudoscience?
I found this article, admittedly on a denialist website, but it is by Richard Strohman, who is not connected with the site. The article makes it clear that Duesberg's work is not obviously pseudoscience.The Rationalist (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article makes it clear that the author believes that Duesberg's work is not obviously pseduoscience. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most pseudoscientists and supporters believe their work isn't pseudoscience. That article is 14 years old and snows no evidence of publication in a reliable source.  It's unsuitable.  Please review WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'article' was written by the late Richard Strohman who was Professor Emeritus in Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. It was the preface to Duesberg's book "Infectious AIDS; Have we been misled?". Also, it may be true that all pseudoscientists believe their work is not pseudoscience. That does not imply that all those who believe their work is not pseudoscience, are pseudoscientists.  That is fallacy of the consequent.The Rationalist (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'article' is not published in a reliable source in a way that is sufficient to make medical claims. Who was the publisher?  Also, it's 14 years old, he's hardly commenting on the state of the art.  And there's other current sources that explicitly call it pseudoscience.  If the best he's got is "it's not obviously pseudoscience", well, perhaps it wasn't in 1995 but obviously now it is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, anyway, it's become clear that User:The Rationalist is interested in sparking a debate on AIDS denialism. This is unhelpful, as are continued accusations of poor writing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi just to say I am not interested in sparking any debate. I remember AIDS denialism from back in the 1980's when the Sunday Times supported the idea. I thought it was a strange idea at the time, then thought it was dead but was intrigued to read it wasn't. My interest is in improving the article by explaining a little more about and exploring the reasons why a small number of apparently clever and respected scientists believe it. For exactly the same reasons I am interested in why creation scientists believe what they do. I think an encyclopedia has a duty to report pseudoscientific beliefs without endorsing them. I also think (from having read some more about this) that AD differs from creation science. But there seems a pretty entrenched attitude on this page so I'm going to leave it. With every kind wish. The Rationalist (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS There is far more in Wikipedia to be intrigued about. Sea: "A sea is any large amount of water filled with animals such as crabs, whales, sharks, and fish". The Rationalist (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent
An article HIV dissent was recently created as an apparent POVfork of AIDS denialism. Please to be discussing the merger of these two articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh, this is the result of a long debate over at Talk:HIV. It is very much a POV fork. JoeSmack Talk 05:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the content seems usable. All of the claims in the article appear to be referenced by unreliable or outdated sources, except those that are not referenced at all or are synthesized. I'd recommend deleting the page outright, but I'll wait to hear what others watching this page think. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Related though not identical discussions at and Talk:AIDS denialism/Archive 8. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Textbook WP:POVFORK. It's a rewrite of the same material from a single editor's point of view, and an end-run around the consensus-building process. I've redirected it here. I think it should remain as such pending further discussion, especially given the weight of opinion expressed here thus far. MastCell Talk 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a POV fork. This article includes verifiable information that is not covered by AIDS denialism. It is the beginning of an article, not a fully complete article. However, the information contained in it is not duplicated in the denialism article. It has been made very clear that the information contained in HIV dissent is not welcome in AIDS denialism.


 * Furthermore, AIDS and HIV are not the same thing. AIDS denialism has many political implications regarding Africa in particular. HIV dissent does not duplicate that information, nor is it an attempt to do so. I would request that you look at the difference from an unbiased POV, and reappraise your dismissal of the information. Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it is not worthy of inclusion in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you've actually illustrated the problem with your edits quite well. You say that "it has been made very clear that the information contained in HIV dissent is not welcome" here. In other words, a consensus of editors feels that the information is unencyclopedic. If you feel otherwise, then the correct approach is to try to convince those editors that the material should be welcome here, ideally with reference to Wikipedia's content policies. The incorrect approach is to take material which has been rejected by consensus and stuff it into a new article. The material hasn't become any more encyclopedic, plus you've tried to make an end-run around the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, which ends up irking people. MastCell Talk 05:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: some of this debate started on Talk:HIV_dissent. JoeSmack Talk 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The information is well within the WP policies for content. It is verifiable, it is referenced, it is written from an unbiased POV, unlike AIDS denialism. It includes information that does not fall under the purview of AIDS denialism. The problem here stems from the idea that HIV and AIDS are indistinguishable, which is clearly the POV on the HIV article. The content under HIV dissent is not duplicated in either HIV or AIDS denialism and is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. You don't have to agree with the information, but the information that I have included thus far is verifiable, peer reviewed, and presented in an unbiased fashion. Neuromancer (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps after reviewing Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) you may wish to use the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JoeSmack Talk 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully support the merge of the POV fork into this article, per all above (apart from Neuromancer). Verbal chat  13:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)...and Alternative_HIV_viewpoints has been created by Neuromancer, the same material as he put in HIV dissent before it was redirected to AIDS denialism. JoeSmack Talk 15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that would make the new article an excellent candidate for speedy deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How so? It seems to me that this is censorship, not good editing. Neuromancer (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No he means Csd, G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". No one is censoring you, you're certainly getting to say your piece. ;) JoeSmack Talk 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, seeing as how it was not deleted per a deletion discussion, but rather reverted to the forward that existed prior to me creating the article, while a current rfc and discussion were taking place... I am not worried about it. The article wasn't deleted, it was forwarded. Consensus cannot be reached in 24 hours. The article is more appropriately entitled Alternative HIV Viewpoints than HIV dissent, and since it was a forwarded page 3 days ago, it can remain a forwarded page. The information contained on the page is not duplicitous, it is researched, it is verifiable, and it is unbiased. It presents information without drawing a conclusion, and instead allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. Still a work in progress, perhaps it will remain up for more than 3 hours so that I can continue editing it. Neuromancer (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Recreating the same article under a different name is still recreating an article, and it is a violation of policy. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Just in regards to that last sentence, perhaps consider moving it to your own userspace and editing it until you feel it is just right. Like this, User:Neuromancer/sandbox. Create that, bring your work in, and work it until you feel it is at its best before putting it back in article space. That's totally kosher. JoeSmack Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be fine if Neuromancer is actively working toward creating an article that is encyclopedic according to this site's policies (which would involve building consensus about the wording with other editors). On the other hand, userspace is not intended to be a repository to archive "preferred" versions of disputed content. MastCell Talk 04:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns
I feel that this page is being presented from a biased POV. Everyone talks about consensus, yet the information provided in the article has an obvious slant toward the derogatory and pejorative. Citations are not peer reviewed. Potential valid arguments are not presented. etc, etc.

I understand that there are points of view that the editors may not agree with, however, that does not mean they are not worthy of inclusion. The proper way to present a sensitive topic is to present all points of view, and allow a reader to draw their own conclusions. Censoring information regarding a topic is just that. Neuromancer (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concerns are unwarranted. We do not present absurd views as though they were plausible; our intent is to educate our readers, not misinform them. And presenting absurd views as absurd is not censorship. Please see Fringe theories and Reliable sources and undue weight. -- Nunh-huh 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion that my views are absurd. I respect that. However, as I have said in previous postings, give me information that contradicts what I have presented. Then present both points of view, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Neuromancer (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Neuro, you keep on saying that we don't agree with the POV and thus we don't think it's worthy of inclusion. This is not true. Additionally, no one is censoring you or the article. The real reason things are presented the way they are is because of wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be of the utmost help if you could present a sentence that you think needs to be changed so we can focus on constructive discussion. Or say 'this journal, I don't think it is peer reviewed'. Specifics neuro, specifics. JoeSmack Talk 03:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter how often you claim POV, and no matter how many different ways you try to phrase things, the answer is not going to change: fringe theories are not given equal weight as established scientific consensus. You have been told this on the talk pages of many different articles, including this one. How many times do we have to tell you this before you stop? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not stop. I will find a way to present information that I, as well as others, feel is important and valid. Just because you have a little cabal going, does not mean I will give up. There have been others who agree with me, and they have lost interest in fighting with you. I will not give up, and as others who share my viewpoints arrive, we will stand together as the existing cabal has done to make a change that we feel is in the best interest of the Wiki and the world. Only the best of intentions on my part. Neuromancer (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to echo what Joe said above. Please provide concrete examples from the article of POV violating sentences. Most of the content on this article has been subjected to extreme scrutiny by many editors, and there is a strong consensus that it accurately represents the views of reliable sources. That's a fact you should keep in mind when listing examples; the neutral point of view is the point of view that can be supported by reliable sources. If reliable sources treat a subject as being absurd, then so will Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have cited numerous reliable sources, and without actually discrediting the sources, I am told they are not reliable sources. It seems that there is a consensus built by the WP:HIV cabal that is based on a common POV. That POV has deemed anything, regardless of reliability or verifiability, that goes against this common POV consensus as "nonsense," "denialism," "slant," "synth," etc. The fact remains that the citations I have provided are sound, and cannot be superseded by an actual peer reviewed source. There are consensus citations that discredit the overall idea, but there are no actual scientific papers available to refuse the references that I have attempted to include in the articles in question. Neuromancer (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

← Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Some people get that and some people don't. Dealing with someone who stubbornly refuses to listen isn't a good use of time, and eventually people will get frustrated and say things they'll regret. It's probably time to set some clearer boundaries for Neuromancer. Shunning might be a reasonable next step. Specific, concrete content concerns raised with reference to Wikipedia policy should be entertained and discussed, at least once. Everything else should be ignored, including repetitively raising the same rejected arguments and accusations time and time again. MastCell Talk 04:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Neuromancer has been reminded repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a forum, yet continues to insist that fringe viewpoints are "important and valid" until the rest of the Wikipedia community convinces Neuromancer that denialism is wrong. That's not how it works. Wikipedia doesn't make judgements on what is "valid", only what is notable and verifiable. AIDS denialism is notable; that's why it has an article. It's not considered valid by subject experts, and sources from those experts, by definition, constitute Wikipedia's current NPOV on the subject. The place for AIDS denialists to change this consensus and enable reporting of "validity" judgements is the scientific literature, not Wikipedia talk pages. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly agreeable to an alternative manner in which to discuss proposed edits to an article. I am not using this talk page as a forum. I am using it to present proposed edits in a good faith attempt to better the article. If there is a more appropriate manner or location in which to discuss such proposals in order to reach a consensus, please let know and I will take my concerns there. Neuromancer (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.” Neuromancer (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to shout, and even less to quote WP:NPOV out of context. The sections on undue weight and "equal validity", if read in their entirety, should clarify why the edits you're pushing are inappropriate. MastCell Talk 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ
Added a FAQ to the top of this page. Please feel free to improve or to remove for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a well written answer to some difficult questions. One comment, though - in the article itself, isn't the word "claim" used a bit too often given WP:Words to avoid. I've removed a couple of statements to the effect that denialists "argue" x or y as being inappropriate in my view, but think that overuse of the phrase denialists "claim" x or y is also inappropriate. A simple "claim" (or "argue")->"say" might be a solution. 86.165.41.194 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and “reliable sources”
My general understanding of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy has always been that information is supposed to be presented neutrally and fairly. The NPOV article bears this out:


 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

And the reliable sources article goes on to say:


 * Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Several people here seem to be arguing that the manner in which reliable sources present something is how Wikipedia should present it—meaning, if said sources present something in a biased manner, even outright ridiculing the topic, then such ridicule can be copied directly into Wikipedia, suddenly becoming “neutral” simply because it came from “reliable sources” demanded by Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

That is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the NPOV policy: It sounds like the kind of convoluted lawyering someone would engage in in order to find a way to inject their own biases into an article. NPOV requires both neutrality in Wikipedia and neutrality in the reliable sources one cites. If your reliable source ridicules a topic, find a better reliable source.

From the NPOV article on article naming:


 * Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.

Using a pejorative name that the opponents of a theory use to label said theory, no matter the fringe nature of the theory, cannot possibly be justified as “representing fairly” a topic. There is absolutely no way someone can claim the word denialist is non-biased. It’s an ad hominem designed to make someone draw conclusions about a topic before they even start reading about it.

I can’t find an exact policy on this, but to me, the most intuitive policy for naming an article would be to use the name a group uses for themselves, with redirects in place for alternative names, including biased ones as used by their opponents. Some people have recommended using the word dissidents in this article title, but such terminology often has a positive connotation to people: Political dissidents are often portrayed as people who are brave enough to stand up against the status quo. So that’s not NPOV either. I would recommend renaming the article simply Alternative AIDS theories, which is the most neutral term I can think of.

And, if it’s true that these alternative AIDS theories are not “significant views” or are “fringe theories,” then the Wikipedia NPOV policy seems to lead to the conclusion that there should be no article at all on this topic, not one that ridicules the topic with a title of “AIDS denialism.”

&#8212; J&#8217;raxis &#9990;&#9997;  06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I came to this article looking for information, having clicked the link on another AIDS article, and have little foreknowledge of this topic other than a vague understanding that some people question the HIV–AIDS connection. I don’t have a dog in this fight on one side or another, other than to improve Wikipedia. I only looked at the title and the first paragraph before dismissing the entire article as so biased as to be useless for learning anything about this topic.


 * Actually, the way reliable sources present a subject is the neutral way to present a subject. "Neutrality" does not equate being kind to all viewpoints. To water down the only scientifically accepted viewpoint on the topic would be introducing an editorial bias against the reliable sources. Further, there is absolutely no person, no source, nothing of human creation, that is without bias. To assume that we mere editors can fashion an unbiased article, or even an unbiased title for this article, is simply...wrong. And that's why NPOV tells us to go with reliable sources. It prevents us from having to worry about the bias issue. If the reliable sources are biased, then so be it. A little further down the naming section of NPOV that you cite you'll find "Wikipedia article names should use the most neutral term that is widely used in reliable sources." It's been shown several times in the archives that "AIDS denialism" is precisely that term. The NPOV policy itself gives a two examples of articles that have have very loaded titles, and they do so because those are the most commonly used terms by reliable sources.


 * Another way you can think about this is to try and imaging the course of discussion that would take placed, depending on the understanding of NPOV. If editors were supposed to weed out the bias in reliable sources, the debate would have no end - no logical conclusion. No matter the arguments presented, there would always been accusations of bias from somewhere. But if neutrality is simply going along with reliable sources, the debate can actually end. It only gets complicated when multiple reliable sources are in opposition with one another, and this is certainly not such a case. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a talk header that I found elsewhere that might help. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline section should be prose History section
Most sections in articles that trace the history of a given thing are called "History", and written as prose. Bulleted lists sections should be kept to a minimum, and used only when the material is best presented as such. This section is not one of those. When I put the tag on that section, Nunh-huh removed it, saying, "By its nature, a timeline is bulletpoints." The only problem is, no one ever said that it has to be a timeline in the first place, as he is assuming that as a given. It isn't a given. It's something that should be discussed. Nightscream (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's headed Timeline. If you have an alternative prose version that is an improvement, please present it. - Nunh-huh 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could certainly consider a well-crafted prose alternative, although I don't have problems with the current presentation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"It's headed Timeline." And as I just said, in both my edit summary and just above, there is no reason to assume that it has to be a timeline. Headings serve to describe sections. Sections do not serve to conform to headings. If you find this reasoning flawed, why not respond by explaining why? Why keep repeating the same fallacy over and over? Stop pretending that section names are written in stone. They're not, any more than any other material subject to editing.

As for the far more constructive and relevant suggestion of presenting a prose version, how's this? Nightscream 21:14, 26 January 2010

CIA article
Interesting article here describing some initial AIDS conspiracy theories as Soviet propaganda. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg's Inventing the Aids Virus
Being new to Wikipedia, I'm soliciting comment on a proposed stub for Duesberg's book. It's currently a blacklisted title and so resides on my talk page. Appreciate any constructive comment, as well as a cover-pix. Bruce Swanson 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs)

Luc Montagnier - strong immune system
An ip user repeatedly added a quote from Luc Montagnier that "a person with a strong immune system should be able to throw off the effects of the virus". Is this quote being taken out of context? KeepingPace (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes - and it's poorly sourced, and it raises WP:BLP issues to misrepresent a living person in such a way, and it fails the most basic test of common sense. See WP:REDFLAG. MastCell Talk 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So when will the article title be changed?
I had a look at the "important notice" at the top of this page which says that "The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past". Consensus is irrelevant where truth is concerned, and that a point has already been discussed several times - gosh! that should rule out any further discussion, shouldn't it! And I don't need to read through the archives again to see whether my concern has been addressed, because my concern is that the article's title still hasn't been changed. (That's leaving aside the content of the piece.) The term "Denialism" has no place in the context of scientific debate. It is a politically loaded term. The question of the use of the phrase "AIDS denialism" has nothing to do with the scientific debate on whether or not HIV causes AIDS. It has to do with the way in which one party (right or wrong) is using this loaded term to "persuade by rhetoric". Please change this title a.s.a.p. Muzieka (talk) Muzieka (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is no actual scientific debate on the causation of AIDS by HIV infection, HIV denialism is a pseudoscientific sociopolitical movement. There are ample high-quality reliable sources that discuss it as such, using the term denialism for its specific description of a mode of thinking (that contrives and cherry-picks supporting evidence whilst rejecting vast amounts of contradictory evidence) that is found in other pseudoscientific sociopolitical movements. Since the reliable academic literature supports the use of the descriptor "denialism", it is the NPOV term to use, giving proper weight to the term. &mdash; Scientizzle 12:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

scientizzle, 1. there IS scientific debate of causition of aids by hiv - and those who refuse hiv as causition of aids are called "aids-denialists" within this debate caused by the existance of the debate, discussion, discurse or whatever you need to call it! the question is "why?" and by what evidence or (scientific) rights are those persons in question called in the manner that makes the problem?

2. it is sure that not medicine or biology or immunology has made the "proof" that the persons in question are denialists as this is not what biology, medicine or immunology is trying (or able) to find out; those who "found" the persons in question to be denialists are psychologists or sociologists or else what; and then we need to know why psychologists (and else) are allowed to talk about aids and hiv when (biology-, medicine- and/or immunolgy-degreed) scientists are not (after they found to be "denialists"). and why psychology is of any proper value here AT ALL! so if science "found out" that "those poeple" are "denialists" they should read heisenberg and popper.

3. scientists calling themselves or others "denialistic" are just not talking (just) about science, but about believe or oppinion since no one can claim to know ultimate truth, hence it is no act of denial to think a subject in question is different from what we know. controversity of knowledges is what makes sciences work! claiming people who investigate different ways to be denialists is to claim science itself denialistic and scientists how do investigate different ways of understanding to be deviant.

4. it is scepticism towards methods (and ethics) of (this very parts of) science as inappropriate or wrong (or without profound evidence or, or, or...) concerning the question of "what is aids? where does it come from? how does all work together?". it is nothing but the very scientific claim of "we still dont know the last truth" which is all the reason why humans are doing science. and that we dont know the last truth about things is true even in the age of wikipedia and will be true in the ages where there is no wikipedia anymore. 5. people investigating aids without hiv-hypothesis are still investigating aids and hiv (for the afford of not taking hiv as evidence, they are still thinking the problem of hiv and it became even a political problem to them!), but with different methodologies; what actually is supposed to be called science: to investigate an object of question with different methodologies. btw: psychology is not an instance to judge about those methods.

6. wikipedia should be a mirror of knowledge of things, not a bible. there are questions about aids and hiv coming from different spaces. asking questions is not denying; you can say there are stupid questions but then you need to proof that a question is stupid - and this is not done by calling arguments denialistic. i dont know about this whole aids-hiv-controversal and where the truth in it is; but we will hardly find out when we call sceptic scientists heretics - or denialists - and by the way this will not make those people shut up or stop. this "denialistic" or "heretic" attitude of science is called scepiticism and its more than a towthousands of years old and its father is called Pyrrhon of Elis. guess what: they called him heretic and some of his followers have been found to be denialists of the gods - like socrates for example (who got death-penalty for his "hereticism"). so watch your speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.178.240 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a nice block of poorly-informed "just asking questions" prattle...there is no longer any actual scientific debate on the causation of AIDS by HIV infection becuase there is a long-established scientific consensus on AIDS causation. This is readily confirmed by any PubMed search and the sources within this article. A handful of contrarians with meager evidence to support their assertions does not a scientific controversy make. Skepticism is an important component of science, but skepticism turnes into denialism (and therefore is unscientific) when data is promoted and discarded not based on its quality and relevance but to fit a given desired narrative. HIV denialism is a pseudoscientific sociopolitical movement and there are ample high-quality reliable sources that discuss it as such, using the term "denialism" for its specific description of a mode of thinking (that contrives and cherry-picks supporting evidence whilst rejecting vast amounts of contradictory evidence) that is found in other pseudoscientific sociopolitical movements. Since the reliable academic literature supports the use of the descriptor "denialism", it is the NPOV term to use, giving proper weight to the term. Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. &mdash; Scientizzle 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll find any reputable independent sources describing an active scientific debate about whether HIV causes AIDS. That's because there isn't one. Nor will you find any published research into alternative causes, nor will you find any open research projects, funding applications, or clinical trials based on alternative causation. On the other hand, you will find numerous reputable, independent sources describing the phenomenon of AIDS "denialism". I believe the term is chosen because the denialists do not engage in debate (where each side engages the arguments of the other). AIDS-denialist arguments have been repeatedly engaged and falsified by the scientific community. Each time, the goalposts have shifted - remember Koch's postulates? the hemophiliacs? the lack of effective treatments? Each of those AIDS-denialist arguments have been demolished by scientific evidence, but rather than engage that evidence, the denialists have simply stopped mentioning or acknowledging those areas entirely. Anyhow... MastCell Talk 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add a few lines, but Scientizzle and MastCell have said all that's needed. I do so very much enjoy the reasoning: "There was once a thinker who was right, but other people thought he was wrong. Therefore, everyone who is ridiculed as being wrong is actually right." I suppose there's hope even for me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but by definiton anyone who thinks "they laughed at Galileo" is a compelling argument is more or less bound to end up at a page like this.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim about Continuum
The article states: "For example, the magazine Continuum, which consistently denied the existence of HIV/AIDS, shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes. In every case, the AIDS denialist community attributed the deaths to unknown causes, secret drug use, or stress rather than HIV/AIDS."

Two citations are given. The first, aidstruth.org, does not make the claim Continuum "shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes". It lists some editors and some writers for the magazine who died of what aidstruth.org thinks was AIDS. The references it gives are iffy, such as a reference for Jody Wells (a 404), and a reference for Tony Tompsett (which links to Probart Encyclopaedia, which in turn cites no sources).

The second citation, the J Med Ethics, supports only a subset of the given claims. I have changed the statement accordingly. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added an additional source, which states, "Jody Wells, Huw Christie and Michael Baumgartner published London’s Continuum Magazine which served as an outlet for AIDS denialism, including pseudoscientific “studies”. Continuum ended after the editors all died following long bouts with AIDS." Incidentally, aidstruth.org refers to Continuum as "a long-running AIDS denialist newsletter from the UK that folded when all the editors" died of AIDS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. I'm still skeptical of the claims of aidstruth.org, and I suspect the New Humanist article used that website as the source for its claim. For example, the editorial in the last issue of Continuum states that the news editor, Nigel Edwards, is still alive. Michael Baumgartner, who is described by the New Humanist article as one of the "publishers" of Continuum, and by virusmyth.com as a founder, is also alive. I simply don't see how the claim can be true. --NilsTycho (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

survey paper
This may be useful: http://www.springerlink.com/content/108174nr1788q73w/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.170.24 (talk)
 * Thanks for the link. That looks like a good source.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the citation in proper format:
 * It's definitely useful, but I haven't the time presently to incorporate it. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely useful, but I haven't the time presently to incorporate it. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Watering down
Editor (Freakshownerd has been attempting to water down the definition of denialism at this and other pages (Phillip E. Johnson, Peter Duesberg, denialism), arguing that it is pejorative. We've been over this countless times now, and the outcome is always the same. The most reliable sources use denialism, and it's a view, not merely a mean-spirited "label". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keepcalmandcarryon has already been warned by an admin for his violations of our BLP policies. If he has a specific complaint or a suggested edit (sources are certainly useful and he is reminded that the content should be IN the source) let's hear it. His history of distorting subect matter and maligning biographical subjects that he doesn't like is disturbing to the extreme. As far as the term "denialist" being denigrating it is already covered in the denialism article and wasn't added there by me. Maybe he should familiarize himself with the subject matter before stalking and harassing me to engage in further vandalism of appropriate article content. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you make more of an effort to comment on content rather than contributors? I don't think the "stalking" allegation is going to fly. Keepcalmandcarryon has been active on this article for quite some time, so if stalking charges are to bandied about, he would seem to have a much stronger case against you than vice versa. In any case, it may be worth taking a look at previous discussions in the talk-page archive on this subject, as it has come up before. The general consensus has been that because numerous current reliable sources use the term "denialism" to describe this movement, we follow those sources. We are not editorially denigrating anything. On the other hand, if we as editors choose to water down the language used by virtually all reliable sources, then we are violating content policy and inserting our own editorial preferences over the content of independent, reliable sources. I'm willing to listen to counterarguments or to discuss this further if you can stay focused and constructive, but that's where I'm starting from (and, I think, where previous discussions on the topic have landed). MastCell Talk 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AIDS denialism as pejorative term
Based on the denialism article and the sources used for htis article it is quite clear that this terminology is derogatory. As such it should be made clear that it is a label attache dot those who hold these views and that the contrarians do not self-identify as such. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously, this is the term widely used by independent, reliable sources to describe this movement. It is not our place as editors to substitute our preferred terminology for that of independent, reliable sources. It is obvious that "AIDS denialism" is a label, and that no one self-identifies as a "denialist". We call Holocaust denialism by that name here, rather than "revisionism", because that is the term used by reputable sources to describe the phenomenon. Similar considerations apply here. MastCell Talk 04:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you go any further Freakshownerd would you mind answering whether or not you think the Holocaust denial page should be renamed something like "Alternative Holocaust Theory"?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looked and there are plenty of sources backing this title.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Denialism is pejorative, and rightly so because there is no science behind AIDS denialism, only wishful thinking and misrepresentation. Neutral doesn't mean "equal treatment to both sides" it means fringe views are contextualized in relation to the perspective of the appropriate scholars and scientific consensus.  Anyone who denies HIV causes AIDS should be given the label "AIDS denialist" and it should justifiably be portrayed as the pseudoscience it is.  The term is derogatory because the people who do so employ dishonest means to push their POV.  It's as derogatory as calling someone who steals things a thief, and someone in prison a criminal.  These people are not "contrarians", they are denialists.  The scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS and dissenting views should be appropriately contextualized as nonsense.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above explanation is misleading. There should always be dissidents among the scientific community that expound on alternative ideas because it's an integral part of the scientific method. Semmelweis as an important example was a dissenter himself who was targeted and marginalized by other members of his scientific community. He ended up being right and his findings were beneficial to healthcare. CenterofGravity (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between wondering about specifics of HIV infections leading to AIDS, and wondering whether HIV causes AIDS. You can't compare a pre-scientific, 19th century physician at a time with no awareness of the germ theory of disease or antisepsis, with the contemporary, evidence-based, well-validated, scientific consensus.  Lots of pseudoscientists like to invoke Galileo, H. pylori and similar concepts as if they were comparable to the well-established, well-studied HIV-AIDS link.  They are not.  Deusberg and others have had their ideas examined, and rejected.  You can only claim the status and certainty of science if you use science's methods.  AIDS denialists do not, nor do creationists, Holocaust deniers and Moon landing hoaxers.  It's not true skepticism because there is no actual engagement with the evidence.  It is pseudoskepticism motivated by whatever nonsense the denier perfers over reality.  AIDS denialism is not realistic dissent like whether circumcision helps prevent infection - an actual, unknown fact that is being explored (and actually I think it's a "yes" by now).  AIDS denialism is denial of science and medicine.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cofactors
Dicussion of cofactors and their role still seems to be occuring. If Mastcell's comment that so-called denialists no longer argue that they play a large role then a source would be usefull. Here's a source discussing cofactors that is quite recent. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. That paper has no apparent link to AIDS denialism, and explicitly recognizes HIV as the cause of AIDS. Are you asserting that its author, Prof. Stillwagen, is an AIDS denialist, or that she is addressing AIDS denialism? I don't see any evidence to link her with the AIDS denialist movement in any way, and so I don't see how her paper is relevant to the beliefs of the AIDS denialist community. MastCell Talk 22:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You suggested that cofactors are no longer part of the contrarian arguments about the HIV-AIDS connection. I went and looked for sources that could establish that this was the case (and even if it was, the key denialist arguments from the past shouldn't be dropped from the article, although I have no objection to context being included to establish when they were used if they are no longer au courrant). What I found suggested have long been a key part of contrarian arguments and are even noted recently by mainstream scientists that don't question the consensus about HIV-ADIS. So I included one of the recebt cites I found to show that cofactors are still being discussed as relevant to the AIDS discussion. Again, if you can find something that establishes that those arguing against the HIV-AIDS connection no longer include or have come to dismiss cofactors as not being relevant to their positions, then by all means let's add the content from those sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has plenty of reliable sources in it already. If you think cofactors are important, then find one (here or on the Internet) supporting your edit. Don't make an edit and then demand that I find a source proving your edit is incorrect - that's backwards. I think you may be confused about various usages of the term "cofactor". Early on, some people associated with the movement argued that HIV alone was incapable of causing disease, but that if you combined it with some nebulously defined "cofactor" then AIDS might result. That is, the cofactors were necessary from a pathophysiological point of view. The paper you cite, by Prof. Stillwagen, uses the term "cofactor" somewhat differently. She accepts that HIV is the sole and sufficient cause of AIDS, but believes that current strategies to prevent transmission of HIV are too narrowly focused. The cofactors she describes are conditions which facilitate the transfer of HIV - not agents which are necessary for HIV infection to produce AIDS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this distinction clearly, but it is vitally important to avoid misusing this source. I categorically oppose using this source to substantiate claims about the denialist movement, because it clearly has zero connection to the denialist movement. It borders on a BLP issue to associate Stillwagen, the paper's author, with AIDS denialism when she clearly does not share the movement's beliefs nor even address the movement at all in her paper. MastCell Talk 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your edit summary I thought you suggested that cofactors were no longer part of the "denialist" argument. So it seemed to me that cofactors were not in dispute as having been advanced as an explanation for AIDS, but that the only question was whether they were still being used (and if they aren't being usede any longer my suggestion remains that we make that clear rather than expunging them entirely since they seem to have been a core part of the arguments). I've provided some sources noting the role of cofactors in the "denialist" argument per your request, which still seems a bit ridiculous to me since it's so well established, and I turn it over to you, again, to establish your hypothesis that cofactors are no longer part of the contrarian arguments. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think your text accurately represents AIDS denialist arguments. The most prominent camps at present are represented by Duesberg and by the Perth Group. Duesberg argues that HIV is harmless, full stop, and cofactors don't enter into it. He believes that any cases of immunosuppression or opportunistic infection are caused by recreational drug use, anal sex with multiple partners, or treatment with AZT. The Perth Group goes one step farther, and claims that HIV simply does not exist (once again, cofactors don't enter into the equation). The "cofactor" camp was probably led by Robert Root-Bernstein and Joseph Sonnabend, both of whom have distanced themselves from the denialist camp. By the way, the two sources you added are from 2002 and 1998, respectively. The age of those citations sort of reinforces my point that cofactors are not a big part of the current AIDS-denialist worldview. Have you found anything more recent? MastCell Talk 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything in my brief search for sources that suggests the cofactor arguments have been dropped, but if that position has been dropped I have no objection to it being noted based on what realible sources have to say on the subject. I'm happy to help look for cites to support what you've stated, but I have to go now so I can't do so immediately. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There also may be some ambiguity over what is meant by "cofactor". But that's the term I've seen used. I did see Duesberg mention cofactors in a critique of scientific research related to HIV-AIDS. I won't do any more edits for a while, so have at it I suppose, but I do think cofactors should be noted up front because they seem to me to be noted in much of the literature criticizing the HIV-AIDS connection. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Duesberg does argue AIDS is only a passenger virus. But isn't his argument that the cofactors ARE the AIDS disease? That's what I took away from glancing the article on his 1996 book. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes - he argues that factors other than HIV are responsible for AIDS, to the extent that he believes AIDS exists. But I guess I wouldn't call them "cofactors" - since HIV is ostensibly harmless, it doesn't really make sense to talk about "co"factors. MastCell Talk 00:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. But my recollection from reading other sources (including the two I added before they were removed) was that other contrarians argued that other factors were responsible in addition to the HIV virus for making it virulent. I'm not sure why the article would only reflect one figure's point of view. Also, I support adding context about the origin and evolution of the denialism movement. It doesn't seem that it's noted up front when it developed o how it progressed (into irrelevancy it seems to me). I think that stuff should be noted because its key to understanding what is meant by AIDS denialism and how the terminology came to be applied. The article seems to me to be written as if this a current phenomenon that's just as relevant and active today as it was in the 90s. Clearly that's not the case. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be giving great detail on the contents of AIDS denialist schools of thought, their methods are more relevant. And even then we are only citing them to criticize because they are not the methods of science despite an attempt to co-opt the status science has in society (the essence of pseudoscience).  Even though sites like virusmyth.com are possibly reliable to document the reasoning of AIDS denialists, we shouldn't give them much weight or links anyway - particularly since there are reliable secondary sources that discuss (and refute) these claims (Kalichman 2009 for instance, but there are many others).  Edits like this one introduce poor-quality sources that are better replaced with critical, address-refute mainstream sources.  Edits like this one are also inappropriate because the scientific community actively rejects these notions.  It's not like two competing theories where the community decided on the appropriate one.  AIDS denialism isn't, and has never been a competing theory (though they have adopted, and perseverated with what were once competing theories but have long since been dropped by the scientific community).  The details of the denialist assertions are unimportant since it gives excessive weight to the notion that they have some merit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the term "Denialist" is inherently biased
It lumps scientists who have alternative hypotheses with Holocaust "deniers".

Could a less-pejorative term be used? Perhaps "AIDS Alternative Hyphothesism", or something similarly neutral.
 * Sceptic is an accepted, neutral term used by the critics themselves. "Denial" means refusing to believe in truth, hence this term is implicitly biased and partial to one side of the debate. Geira (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the title of this article makes it a joke. There is no neutrality at all in the title. These people seem to have a theory that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted sexually, but that doesn't mean they are deniers or whatever. I don't see how such a POV article has gone unchallenged for so long.JettaMann (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "denier" already sets up battle lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Battle lines? No, the battle is over, although some people are denying that. Hence the term.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The debate is not over unless both parties agree to end it. To claim you have won the argument is a partizan view, not appropriate for Wikipedia.Geira (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was shocked to see the word denialism used on this article; I'm currently at a conference where the issue has come up. Mainstream science -- where the money is -- says one thing; there is not one coherent alternative viewpoint, but a lot of people pointing out issues with the mainstream view. Further, most agree that AIDS exists, but the question is why; what is it. Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please point out the scientists that have this alternative hypothesis and their foundation. From what little i've seen of this so far, those who deny the connection between HIV and AIDS have no science behind them and are not reliable evaluations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in previously)
 * Well, there's Peter_Duesberg. I'm really rather shocked at how non-neutral the terminology in this article is. Psychobunny2412 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are others listed on [|Virusmyth.com], among them a Nobel Prize winner and several university professors. Are you claiming that those are not scientists? Geira (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.28.39 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think this association is in particular? Do you think they have some kind of neutral, non-political background? DO you think their position is free from non-medical, non-scientific background? :::Have you tried to find out who's behind that name?
 * http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/AAPS
 * http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html
 * http://www.conservapedia.com/Andrew_Schlafly
 * Being non-scientific is exactly what the AAPS is about. Not a good source. Quoting AAPS for a scientific argument rather proves what you want to argue against. This claim is in itself onsided as well, but THEY started it.TaoQiBao (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is the single most biased page I have ever read on Wikipedia. AIDS "denialists"?? Could you get more one-sided? I agree with one of the above posts- "AIDS: Alternative Hypotheses" is much more neutral. Articles should not be written like all of science agrees with the mainstream opinion, and that opinion is infallible. There have been countless times throughout history when the commonly-held opinion was proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.163.33 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Claiming the eart is flat does not a debate make. It is "one-sided" since there is no "other side!" Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because something is held as truth by most of the scientific community, does not make it 100% true. Truth is not democratic. Of course there are things that are trivial to be proved as being true, that can be tested by any person without specialist equipment and knowledge. But the things that are very hard to prove, like HIV causing AIDS, or reality being better described by Newton's theory of gravity or by Einstein's theory of relativity, even if backed up by the entire scientific community, should not be considered fault proof. We should take truth as the authority and not authority as truth. In the movie Einstein and Eddington (2008) Einstein was considered by the scientific community to be a Isaac Newton denier, then anyone claiming his theory was flawed was considered an Einstein denier, then when Quantum Mechanics was proven right Einstein was again called a denier since he disagreed with it's findings. So I think that word is wrongly employed as it implies the wrong thing, and I urge the use of more appropriate words such as AIDS: Alternative Views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.28.39 (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is most definitely another side to this debate, and they never, repeat never, call themselves "denialists." They are AIDS dissidents. "Denialist" is very one-sided. It is obvious to me that the Wiki AIDS community is heavily biased and this heading is proof. The main denial here is the active denial of the existence of any debate. Everyone here is ignorant of the claims made by dissidents, and proudly so. There are hundreds of scientists and medical doctors who dispute the HIV hypothesis for AIDS. Two of them are Nobel Laureates (yes in pertinent realms) and Peter Duesberg is consistently nominated for a Nobel prize for his cancer research (since the AIDS grants dried up when he stepped out of line with the HIV-as-cause theorists). AIDS dissidents are portrayed as crazy, and these discussion pages always devolve into slandering and debates on the issue instead of anything useful to the page, but when anyone brings up the dissident viewpoint, many "hey this isn't for deciding the issue"s are posted.

Beri-beri was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's thiamin deficiency. Scurvy was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's vitamin C deficiency. Pellagra was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's niacin deficiency. SMON was thought to be a new, contagious virus. It isn't - it was caused by pharmaceutical drugs. Influenza was thought to be a bacteria, but they found out it's a virus. Childbed Fever was thought to be non-contagious. It wasn't - it was contagious, and doctors using unsanitary practices spread it.

Everyone is acting like nature is a democracy. It is not. We have been wrong before and are probably wrong now and will be wrong in the future. To act like we have it all figured out is the most amazing, idiotic hubris. The important thing is to keep debate open, listen to dissenting views, and dispute or synthesize with them using facts and studies. Period. It is precisely the circle-the-wagons approach that the AIDS orthodoxy takes to AIDS dissidents that fans the flames. All the ad hominems, all the silence, all the denial of study grants to people who dare propose studies that step out of line from the AIDS orthodoxy which is unscientific. Any Wiki community that steps in as an enforcer of the "democracy" of science, rather than an unbiased dealer of facts, is not worth anything except a laugh in the future. I'll get off my soapbox when people get off their soapboxes about flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.

The term "denialist" in entirely pejorative. In the south and the north of the US, many white folks called African-Americans... well we all know the N word. It's insulting. But southerners claimed it was simply an innocent descriptor. You guys think it was? But African-Americans requested that, out of respect, that word not be used by general society. True, some African-Americans eventually "reclaimed" the word, but only to take the pain and oppression out of the word. The point is, "denialist" is pure propaganda. No one denies the existence of AIDS. But dissidents do dispute the cause of AIDS. It's that simple. No one calls themselves a "denialist" - that word is meant to deride and invalidate, not to describe. It is used exclusively by those who disagree with AIDS dissidents, and was in fact invented by them. It brings to mind holocaust deniers, and is effective propaganda. Worst, it is an entirely incorrect descriptor. "AIDS denialists" do not deny AIDS! Haytham2 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that scientists are sometimes wrong doesn't make them deniers. It doesn't even make them bad scientists. Science progresses when scientists take new data into account to formulate new theories. If a scientist sticks to his old, disproven theory, he denies the new evidence that points the way to a more accurate theory. When someone initially theorized that AIDS was caused by poppers, for example, it was certainly a tenable theory. But the actual facts now show that that theory was mistaken; the predicted correlations were not found when actual data was examined. Someone who prefers his theory to actual data has become a bad scientist and has certainly earned the title of "denier". - Nunh-huh 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dissident is mentioned in the second sentence. The reliability-weighted preponderance of sources use denialism, so we follow that. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly in the real world even scientists are human, and I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions, as a good illustration of how scientific paradigms shift from one to another. I wish the scientific method was followed exclusively, but the human politics of science doesn't let it play out like that. Cliques get and hold power, to the exclusion of genuine science. Speak with any research scientist for awhile. They'll surprise you.


 * I am interested to see which studies deny the correlation between poppers and AIDS, because published studies have not only established correlation but also causation between poppers and AIDS-defining diseases. You are mistaken. There are many published studies that dispute the HIV hypothesis's validity, and I recommend you scroll down from:
 * http://healtoronto.com/nih/
 * to peruse the links to those studies. I'm sure you would agree that Current Medical Research and Opinion Journal, Bio/Technology (now called Nature Biotechnology), and Emergency Medicine are all professional, reliable sources for published REAL science, not "pseudoscience." They are peer-reviewed, which generally means "not remotely pseudoscience."


 * In other words: these are collections of actual data, cemented by scientific reason. So who is denying these papers, if not the AIDS orthodoxy? I know of no AIDS dissident who doesn't refer to actual scientific data. Indeed, all the prominent dissidents I'm aware of are scientists who rely on papers. Look up the Padian study (Padian N, Shiboski S, Vittinghoff E, Glass S. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: Results from a ten year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-357, 1997) then try to explain how AIDS is an STD. The issue is NOT decided. Although many scientists have decided HIV is the cause, not all of them have. And the minority have peer-reviewed papers to back it up just as the majority does. And although Wiki treats science like a democracy, which it is not, Wiki certainly shouldn't be painting dissidents as psycho idiots by calling them "denialists." Sorry to spoil your tea party, but there is a debate still. It's just that it keeps getting shut down by the AIDS orthodoxy, which is distinctly unscientific behavior. And Wiki apparently? So widespread ignorant misuse of a word rubberstamps it? Haytham2 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging out references that you'll just ignore; have a look at, have a look at Kennedy, Edward, U.S. Senate, Chair Committee on Labor and Human Resources. "REPORT of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources." Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Amendments of 1988. Section 4015. 1988, or better yet do a medline search. If you stop getting your information from denialist sources, you can predicate your opinions on science rather than on books about the philosophy of science. And as pointed out, Wikipedia merely reflects labels given by others. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any assumption that the term "denialist" equals "psycho idiots" seems yo be your own. The term does in fact describe what AIDS denialists do, which is deny the well supported thesis that HIV causes AIDS. As has already been said, if you wish to see the use of this word change Wikipedia is not the place to do so. We report culture, we do not make it. Natalie (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out before, NO ONE denies AIDS. No one. If you are especially attached to a propagandic term specifically invented to evoke holocaust deniers (which everyone here seems to be) then simply be accurate: HIV denial. There are some who deny HIV's existence, not surprising given the quality of science that supposedly proves that, and the rest call HIV a harmless passenger virus. But AIDS dissidents all deny that HIV causes AIDS. So "HIV denialist" would be accurate. I realize that using that term would rob you all of your invalidating power by painting someone who denies the reality of people dying from suppressed immunity, for whatever reasons. But the fact remains that both "psycho" and "idiot" are both very apt in describing how posters here feel about dissidents. In one discussion thread I read that dissidents should be roasted over a pit for all eternity. (I think the Christine Maggiore article). It's that kind of pure-orthodox there-is-no-debate "We just report culture" bias that made me think commenting here would be fruitless, as it has proved to be. At least I have the respect for discussion to not immediately change the article, as the AIDS orthodox mob has done consistently. There are articles about communism that do not simply deride communism as an idiotic position, because this is an educational tool, an encyclopedia. You would think an encyclopedia would not use values-heavy "F-off, debate over" terminology like "denialist" since there is no article about common usage "pinkos" (a word unironically broadcast daily on right-wing radio and TV) but rather what they prefer to be called "communists" or "socialists." No matter how many people communist governments have killed, their position in political science is treated as valid. Because that debate is not over either, although many people would like it to be. To eradicate the "communism" article in favor of one entitled "pinkos" is what happened when dissident went down the memory hole, to be replaced by "denialist."


 * Similarly, the "denialist sources" above merely point to articles originally published in peer-reviewed professional, scientific journals. That is not a "denialist" source. Such invalidation sounds like McCarthyism in its inherent mindlessness. Similarly, Kuhn's book is not about philosophy but about the actual practice of science, in reality, not as idealized by those trusting souls who don't practice it. I am already familiar with both sides of this issue, yet I can't say the same for others posting here. Instead of commenting on anything I have posted, you spew the same papers that are always spewed by "AIDS apologists." Perhaps those who believe that HIV is proven to cause AIDS should be called "AIDS apologists?" Dissidents wouldn't get on that train because it shuts off dialog, which is crucial in REAL science. Invite the crazies to say their peace. The more that is said, the more you can see what the issues are, what studies say. The term "denialist" is partisan, similar to the N word, or calling the AIDS orthodoxy "AIDS apologists." I know I'm pissing in the wind here with such single-minded folk, but the occasional lament that there are no "denialists" to comment on these matters I took as an invitation. My bad? Haytham2 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the vast majority of economists and political scientists referred to communists as "pinkos" then, yes, that is what the Wikipedia article would be called. That is not the case, and thus the article is Communism. Your rant doesn't change the fact that the most common term used for this opinion or theory or whatever you want to call it is "AIDS denialism", and the policy and consensus on this encyclopedia is to use the most common term. If you want to have an effect, you need to either show that there is a more common term used or take your criticism to the sources themselves. Wikipedia is not the place to fight this battle. Natalie (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "but the occasional lament that there are no "denialists" to comment on these matters I took as an invitation. " If you read the entire discussion, you will see that you are not the only person making this argument, unless you are one of the editors above no longer signed in. Unfortunately you have not actually addressed the issue and appear to either not understand or not care about the policies of this website. Natalie (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the only Wiki poster (that I know of) to ever identify myself as an AIDS reappraiser (another respectful, accurate term besides dissenter), the lack of which I have seen lamented in Wiki discussions. I have trouble with "common usage" being evoked where obvious "lack of faith" exists where this term "AIDS denialists" is concerned. Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently?) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked, racist theories defended on the [the N word] article, because that was the scientific consensus of the day, and all would shrug and go on upholding the status quo of the day. Consensus One, Truth Zero. Do you get my point? Intentional demonization of one side of a debate is antiscientific, to say the least, and certainly not consistent with any kind of respect for knowledge. "AIDS denialist" is in use in AIDS orthodoxy, a term specifically invented by that faction to libelously evoke holocaust deniers, rather than be a descriptor, where it fails miserably since literally no one "denies" AIDS (another intentional muddying of the waters by HIV theory proponents). I am new to Wiki and apologize for my slowness in getting that Wiki is not reflective of truth but rather of consensus, which has a long history of making tragic and fatal mistakes, and requires much less rigor, hence anyone can sign on here and take part. I assumed an encyclopedia would strive for truth rather than consensus. That was my mistake. This is why I suspected that this would be a waste of time for me, since I noticed an alarming lack of rigor in some Wiki articles I've seen. I will leave you to your consensus, as I see libel is all part of any groupthink/consensus ideology, and apparently none of us will profit from my posts calling anyone out on this. MastCell has messaged me specifically to tell me not to engage in "general" discussion, despite the fact that my sole criticism in every post I've made is the "lack of faith" in the term "AIDS denialist", which is singularly discouraging. Wiki is a wonderful experiment, gaining credibility every year, and I wish it the best when I return someday! Haytham2 (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion, see WP:TALK. Wikipedia reflects common usage, and you'll have to change the common usage before you can change wikipedia. See WP:ADVOCACY. Also, see WP:No Legal Threats - do not use terms like libel. Verbal   chat  10:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently?) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked, racist theories defended on the [the N word] article, because that was the scientific consensus of the day, and all would shrug and go on upholding the status quo of the day." Yes, actually, we would. If Wikipedia had existed in 1750 its coverage of race would have reflected the racism of the day. Why is that so hard to believe? If you ever get the chance, pick up an encyclopedia from 200+ years ago and check out their article on, say, the Congo. (By the way, we do already have the article Nigger.)
 * "Consensus One, Truth Zero." You are closer than you probably think. WP:Verifiability, not truth. We are not concerned with The Truth™ because we can't be - that isn't anything a group of mostly anonymous people on the internet can objectively determine. All Wikipedia is capable of doing is relaying the "truth" of various other groups.
 * You and some of the other people who have raised this issue in the last few days seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not a place to advocate for a political position or a fringe theory. Dozens of new accounts show up everyday thinking that WP will make them famous, spread their neologism or catch phrase, legitimize their fringe political theory or legitimize their pseudoscience. All of these people are wrong, yourself included. If you are ever able to accept that, I for one invite you to return. Natalie (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

section break
I'm back! And why? All because of WikiProject Alternative Views! A good idea! If it was around in Aristarchus' day, there certainly would be more progress toward the idea that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa. I find the policy of simply defending whatever the dominant paradigm is to be both intellectually lazy, and a bit too wishy-washy relativist for my personal liking, but then some might say I am overly devoted to the scientific method, rather than guy-on-TV-said-so-ism. Sometimes common sense must come into play, instead of whatever our scientist-priests tell us, don't you think? I could go on and on about how all the reactionary defenders of AIDS orthodoxy here on Wiki would have just as insultingly attacked anyone like Aristarchus, who dared question the scientific consensus of his day, and kept science on the wrong paradigm for 1700 years, but that would be petty. In fact, the sole reason I came to Wiki was to cast legitimate doubt on the intentionally insulting and invalidating term "denialist." The discussions on Wiki are so willfully and proudly ignorant of AIDS dissidents and their work, that some people even drew laughable divisions between "denialists" and deissidents, as if there was any difference. All I wanted is to get rid of this insipid and inaccurate term "denialist" so that some semblance of a respectful discussion might exist. I didn't even change anything in a single article. Posting on the discussion page was enough for people to start saying I was on a soapbox, but my intent was merely to point out that rethinking AIDS is a legitimate scientific position, held by legitimate scientists, on a legitimate scientific basis, not pseudoscience, not sociopolitics, but on a scientific basis. So it is a science-versus-science debate, not science vs. pseudoscience, as the AIDS industry likes to portray it as. Every word of mine was to point out that the term denialist is NOT the right word to use, since it is both innacurate and intentionally invalidating and obfuscating. It's not using Wiki like an "AIDS-denialist blog" to point all this out. In fact, it's an important first step in WikiProject Alternative Views, to cover these views "without bias." Using the term "denialist" is HEAVILY biased. It is also wildly "misrepresenting" rethinkers. Am I correct in assuming nothing has changed here? This new movement is far more PR than anything else? Tell me now so I don't waste anyone's time.

And yes I know there is an entry on the N-word, but it accurately speaks of how it is a pejorative term, which is more than I can say about the word "denialist" bandied about here. And my point was that a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting. As far as me coming here to "get famous"? Are you serious? With a pseudonym? (Haytham is not my real name, by the way). Did any moderators come and post on your page how you are supposed to "stick to the subject?" I somehow doubt this. By using the term "denialist", Wiki is misrepresenting the rethinkers/reappraisers/dissidents - who NEVER use that term to describe themselves - EVER. I think replacing the insulting term "denialist" to something *neutral* would be a step in the right direction, the goal of the project to strive towards more "neutrality." Haytham2 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for your argument, your saying that there is a "science-versus-science" dispute doesn't make it so. Also unfortunately, you seem to want Wikipedia to distort information by portraying denialist objections to scientific fact as scientifically based. We don't distort the 'sides" of an argument on WIkipedia to be "neutral"; instead we make sure that the depictions of each view reflect the relative levels of support for them. Please see WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the place to crusade for Aristarchus or for denialism; it's the place to accurately depict the current understanding of a subject. - Nunh-huh 10:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of my argument is sketchy if you believe that I ever claimed that my mere say-so makes anything so. It is not how I characterize something, but the FACT that scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed professional scientific journals, are what dispute the HIV hypothesis. How else would you characterize that, beside science versus science? But you seem oblivious to this as well, and no one has responded to my above post about these studies either because (wild guess here) you know next to nothing about what dissidents believe, since you only consume biased media, which would stand to reason with your staunch defense of the biased insult "denialist." The WikiProject Alternative View seeks to redress this absurd oversight of Wiki philosophy by at least treating alternative views in a neutral manner. Calling dissidents "denialists" is not neutral. The game has changed. It has been recognized that Wiki can be very reactionary propaganda because of certain of its standards, HENCE the WikiProject that AIDS "Denialism" is now under. I am well aware of WP:NPOV. Please consult WikiProject Alternative Views for a clearer understanding. I also suggest studying the claims of both the AIDS industry and actual AIDS dissidents if you truly strive towards an understanding of the controversy. Haytham2 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of your argument is just fine, thank you, it's your argument that's sketchy. Present your reputable supporting sources, if you care to; without them your "argument" is pointless. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please start paying attention. I have already presented my supporting sources. Scroll up, please. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already paid too much attention. Crusade on, and see how far this style of discourse gets you. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am already well aware of the mentality and bias of this community since a poster in an AIDS Wiki talk page has already publicly wished for dissenters ("denialists" (s)he called them) to be roasted on a spit for all eternity. This comment went entirely without comment or warning from any moderator.
 * It is inaccurate and probably intentionally dismissive of you to call a good faith effort to eliminate bias as per WikiProject Alternative Views a "Crusade." and pardon me for expecting more from this community. But since you refuse to pay attention to a discussion you are actively taking part in, I will waste the bandwidth you request me to by reposting from above a study you should consult: (Padian N, Shiboski S, Vittinghoff E, Glass S. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: Results from a ten year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-357, 1997) Please stay on topic. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haytham, I understood your point that "a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting." - I already responded to it upthread. To repeat: You are exactly correct. A 200 year old encyclopedia would (and does, they are still extant) reflect the racial attitudes of the time in which they were written. I don't understand why you think this is surprising or some kind of dynamite argument for your cause. Note, also, that I did not say you were trying to get famous. That sentence contains the word "or", meaning that not all of the clauses apply to you. And incidentally, I am not using a pseudonym.
 * If you want to argue this point about the term "denialist" I have two suggestions. Respond to points that people are actually making, for starters. And base your arguments on actual evidence rather than 3500 bytes of logical fallacies. Natalie (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Haytham's account of WikiProject Alternative Views an accurate summary of its raison d'être? If so this wikiproject sounds very worrying indeed. Needless to say, I still think, as does the preponderance of WP:RS, that the title of this article, and use of the term "AIDS denialist," is appropriate and meets NPOV, etc. Verbal   chat  14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Natalie, I apologize for saying you accused me of seeking fame here on Wiki with a pseudonym, I should have said "intentionally implied" instead, which any reasonable reader would infer from what you wrote. And I am interested in knowing which logical fallacies you claim I employ here. The logical fact remains is that humans are not robots, and humans are inherently biased, as are human endeavors. I think it is an impressive attempt to rise above this and to try and portray both sides of a controversies in an unbiased way, as much as possible. The fact is that this article, indeed all AIDS dissidence articles on Wiki, are heavily biased through one main tactic: the employment of the pejorative term "denialist" used to describe the politically weaker side of this scientific debate. Yes, it is true that the preponderance of AIDS industry professionals use a biased and insulting term to describe those they consider their enemies. If I disagreed with someone, and refused to debate the issue, as so many AIDS apologists do, should I simply not call them by the names they go by, "Frank" for example, and instead call them "puppy-fucker"? That would be insulting, inaccurate and obfuscating. The fact that Frank does not fuck puppies would be ignored if Frank was unpopular enough, and his protests in favor of respectful dialog would go unheeded. The fact that everyone here seems to support using an intentionally obfuscating and inaccurate term like "denialists" speaks more to the wish to propagandize in one certain way, rather than call everyone what they want to be called, as well as should *accurately* be called. - My point about how typically reactionary Wiki can be, vis a vis the N-word, is to point up that Wiki is not a moral soapbox, yet some of the posters on AIDS dissident entries have called for the importance of defending against the evil menace of "denialist" thought. Which is also absurdly biased. I don't think this is unbiased - it is unacceptable as per the guidelines of WikiProject Alternative Views Verbal, click on that link for more information - its aims are stated clearly. Thank you. :)
 * The fact remains that the AIDS industry supporters here are entirely ignorant of the claims made by dissidents is absurdly biased. I am well versed in what the AIDS industry claims. As well I should be, being a part of such a debate.Haytham2 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that us "AIDS industry supporters" are necessarily ignorant of denialist claims. For instance, I'm familiar with both Nancy Padian's work and with the twisted misrepresentations and out-and-out lies propagated about it by AIDS denialists. I don't think you really understand the concept of bias, at least as it applies here. One idea is supported by thousands of scientific papers as well as every reputable scientist and medical body in the world. The other is the province of a shrinking handful of discredited zealots. It would be biased to pretend that there is a real scientific debate here. It would be biased to pretend that these two ideas are on anything like an equal footing. Any truly unbiased presentation will make clear the relative weights assigned these two views by experts in the field. The fact that AIDS denialists consider this article "biased" is, to my mind, a reasonable confirmation that we're fulfilling the project's goals. I'd be much more concerned if an AIDS-denialist agenda account was happy with this article's presentation of the concept. MastCell Talk 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The goals of WikiProject Alternative Views are simply not being met in these entries dealing with AIDS dissidence, which is specifically why this WikiProject has under its heading all these entries. The fact that you think (or at least it sounds like it to me) that you believe this article, indeed any article, is "unbiased" betrays your lack of understanding of the concept of bias. There is no way to include all information on any given topic. Some facts are included, some are left out. Included data is arranged in certain ways. Certain words are chosen over others. These are all steps that erode the perfect neutrality that is ideally sought. So no, there is no such thing as an unbiased report or article, period. Any other belief can only be described as self-serving delusion. If you are familiar with Padian's ten-year study on seroconversion, then you are well-aware of the results of the study. However Padian chooses to misrepresent her own work, and however she futilely tries to explain away the fact that not one HIV- person became HIV+ while regularly having unprotected sex with their HIV+ partner over the entire 10 years, is propagandic work I am not interested in, since the facts speak loudly for themselves. After all, if she stated the obvious about her own study, her research funds would dry up. Perhaps you are one of those trusting people that believe that research science is an industry magically free from politics? Maybe you also believe that the judicial branch is a politics-free zone? There are certainly those happy souls who cling to those reassuring beliefs. But a "shrinking" group of "zealots"? That is yet another blatant lie. In fact, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis has a roster of signatories, and that list has been growing constantly for years. People take their names off from time to time, because the social and political pressures against publicly dissenting against the AIDS industry is enormous. In fact, as any reasonable person would realize, those that bravely sign onto that organization are in the minority, the tip of the iceberg, most people (such as myself) couldn't hope to retain any professional credibility in the face of overwhelming ignorance on the subject and the scientific McCarthyism it engenders. In fact, there are 2,641 dissenters listed on their official website. Note (before this portion of this post is erased) how many of them are MDs and PhDs, or otherwise professionals who might have some level of authority: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm I wouldn't have mentioned or posted any of this, but I am merely responding to your mistaken impression of the state of AIDS dissidence, and you did specifically askbeing to get people to respect Wiki's decision to enact the  WikiProject Alternative Views, and realize that using a pejorative term to describe the lesser politically powerful side of this scientific debate is neither acting neither "fairly" nor "without bias." (those are the WikiProject's words in quotes, not mine). I suggest taking this WikiProject into serious and honest consideration, since Wiki has decided not only to enact it but to bring all the entries dealing with AIDS dissidence under its heading. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is neutral. If these are the aims of this project then it should be investigated and shuut down if its goals are to destroy NPOV. However, it could be that Haytham2 is misrepresenting the project, and there is a lack of support for his biased views here by members of the project. Verbal   chat  07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, I urge you to to click on the project's link and read it for yourself. This article is not neutral specifically because it refers to the minority side of the debate, using solely an inaccurate, pejorative term. That is neither fair nor unbiased. Please acquaint yourself with the project. Its aims are admirable, to bring respect to the minority side as well, which is the best way scientific truth can be striven for. Science has such an embarrassing history of completely false ideas that the orthodox clung to, at times for purely political reasons, that I think it is still a valid way to portray scientific issues openly and as un-propagandically as possible. I also agree with its aims to note the relative strength of support of each side. Don't take my word for it: click WikiProject Alternative Views. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haytham, I "intentionally implied" nothing, and I respectfully suggest that you check your bad faith at the door. I meant exactly what I said - reread it if you are unclear on what that was. Among your logical fallacies, you continue to conflate scientific consensus with racism, for what I assume is an attempt at guilt by association. You also appear to believe that, since scientific research has not been 100% correct historically, your particular view is de facto true. Your frequent use of the term "AIDS industry supporters" to refer to everyone who disagrees with you here is poisoning the well.
 * As far as Alternative Views WikiProject is concerned, they have no power to set policy or override long consensus. The guidelines posted on their page outline the purpose of the project, not Wikipedia policy. That said, I believe you have misjudged their purpose. I think if you invite them to join the conversation here, you will find that they have a different view of our policies that you do. Natalie (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's call a spade a spade: as much as one valiantly strives towards neutrality, one is in fact supporting the AIDS industry by using the term "denialist". That is not even debatable, but fact, as unseemly as it sounds. Thank you for mentioning poisoning the well, Natalie. I didn't want to be the first to mention it. That is precisely what is happening by Wiki choosing to use the term "denialist" at all. And to correct you: I never said that BECAUSE so many orthodox scientific views were wrong, therefore my particular view is correct - I never stated nor implied any such causation. I was merely pointing out the proven, lethal habitual failings of science taken as dogma, in order to remind you that not all scientific orthodoxies are correct, in order keep the reader's mind open, since what I have seen here mostly is a remarkable ignorance on AIDS dissident's viewpoints. All my posts have been in direct response to other posts, after all. Haytham2 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the term "denialist" has such negative connotations, but it remains the most accurate word for what is described in this article. If those who dislike the term "denialist" can come up with an alternative, then obviously it should be considered, but so far no viable alternative has been suggested. The word "dissenter" does not quite work, IMO, because a dissenter is usually someone who belonged to a certain organisation and then broke away from it. -- 41.208.48.176 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on "dissenter"; I disagree that "denialist" can be changed simply by those who dislike it providing an alternative. On Wikipedia, we use the term used in reliable sources. Recent reliable sources use "denialist". Other terms occasionally used are also mentioned in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyatham2, I'd really hope you'd realize that it's a waste of your time to keep on beating this extremely dead horse. I'll try to follow through in a very simple, logical train of thought: The neutral point of view is the honest reporting of the significant views that have been presented by reliable sources. Supportors of fringe science cannot be reliable authors or publishers on fringe topics. These points are held by most of the editors who maintain this page, and arbitration hearings on similar matters on other pages have fallen in favor of the idea that pushing the fringe point of view (as defined on Wikipedia) is disruptive. This means that most active editors as well as the higher ups support the idea that the mainstream scientific POV is the only significant POV on most fringe topics. And that means that the terms used to describe AIDS denialists (or whatever you call them) will be the terms used in mainstream scientific publications. Now, you seem to come off more as a crusader for the AIDS denialist community than someone actually concerned with NPOV. If you are concerned with NPOV, here is a very simple reason, given the preceding, that you are wasting your breath: The prevailing consensus amongst editors, administrators, and arbitrators on Wikipedia is that the fringe point of view is insignificant. You will not achieve a change on this page because the consensus is that on a fundamental level fringe publications are not reliable, and so fringe views can never be significant. And if you are a crusader, this should convince you that you're preaching to the same evil conspirators that want you to keep quiet out in the real world, so wherever the salvation for AIDS denialism lies, it's definitely not on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Someguy1221, Thank you but I am already aware of all you have posted (scroll up). So what of WikiProject Alternative Views? Is it mere public relations? It is precisely my interest in NPOV which first got me involved here, but I am also interested in this WikiProject, which alters things slightly. I shouldn't have to quote from its page, since I link to it so often, correct? Please review its scope, goals and motivations and ask yourself honestly if calling dissidents "denialists" is in any way "fair" or "unbiased." True, I have admitted candidly that I am an AIDS dissident, while many people have either candidly owned up to believing the AIDS orthodoxy, and some might even honestly believe they have no bias. I am simply honest on that point (I wish more people were candid/self-aware as to their bias) and I am not particularly concerned with how I "come off" since my aim is to provide constructive input here, in good faith. I have a major problem with the pejorative "denialist" for reasons I have repeatedly expressed, and no one has answered these concerns in light of  WikiProject Alternative Views, a WikiProject which I feel validate these concerns. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The existence of a wikiproject validates nothing, and you are misrepresenting the view of the project its members (apart from one). Verbal   chat  09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In its own words, WikiProject Alternative Views is involved in "describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors." as it says under its Motivation. The "AIDS Denialism" is a perfect example of a significant alternative view, and in fact now has this WikiProject's heading over it. Calling dissidents "denialists" is an intentional misrepresentation, just as is calling someone named Frank "Jessica" or some other inaccurate pejorative. Do you see my point? I also know about this subject, and care to improve it. I have the respect to take my concerns up herre in the discussion page and have never changed any article whatsoever, even in the smallest detail. I am not misrepresenting the project, and am curious as to how you even got this idea, Verbal. Please explain. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haytham, if you believe the members of the WikiProject would support your position, I again suggest that you invite them to join this conversation. Natalie (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to enter this discussion, except to note that "no one denies AIDS" (as stated by Haytham2 above) is wrong. Stefan Lanka (to take one example) did exactly that, and quite likely would accept being called an "AIDS Denialist." Born Gay (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Haytham is right, "AIDS denialist" is a misleading term, as no one denies AIDS, only that HIV causes AIDS. And the term denialist is wrong. The fact is that HIV still has not been isolated, and that HIV tests do not prove the existence of HIV in the blood, only of antibodies to HIV, which are often cross-contaminated with other cultures. In fact, in spite of scientists' claims to the contrary, no HIV has ever been found. So what scientists are denying is the existence of HIV, not of AIDS. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The term 'denialist' may be wrong. However, that is the term that is used to describe this group. Whether such usage is right or wrong is not a judgment that should be made by Wikipedia. Rather, our purpose is to report what reliable sources have written on the subject.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 12:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed in a RFC
See Talk:AIDS_denialism/Archive_8 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm an "HIV Believer" but this may get the prize for wikipedia's most polemical, biased article. I came here looking for a sober description of the "other side" of the argument, and found a hatchet job. Of course words like "denier" and "denialist" are biased. This article is typical of the modern epidemic of confusing science with activism. As a reader, I'm simply extremely disappointed. The whole thing needs a rewrite from scratch, by editors who can approach it encyclopaedically, rather than as a chance to attack their perceived ideological enemies.82.71.30.178 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll have to take up your complaints with the writers of the sources for the article, rather than with Wikipedia's editors. The neutral point of view requires the article to reflect reliable sources, and not to describe a subject as the subject itself would prefer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

@(talk) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC) You should read the german article for the same topic and you would change your oppinion: there the price for "wikipedia's most polemical, biased article" should go, cause it starts with "argumentation and ideology"...with sources, of course. :) In this article "mistrust against medicinical and scientifical institutions and authorities" is part of a (pathological) ideologie, so you can think yourself what "sane" would mean...one needs more to laugh then to anger about i think. if you have a bad day, read the aids and hiv and aids-denialism articles and discussions, if you have a really bad day, read history of same articles and get mad of laughter :) --88.69.238.0 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliability-weighted preponderance
Many people evoked the principle that says the different points of view must be "weighted" (WP:WEIGHT). The problem with this principle is that it's not demonstrable, not even partially. If someone claims that "there is a fringe minority" that oppose the view that AIDS is caused by HIV, that someone cannot demonstrate that it is a fringe minority. The question is, "minority" relative to what? Or, "majority" relative to what? Where are the statistics that prove that the majority of scientists believe HIV is the cause of AIDS? And how about the ones who think HIV exists, but don't think it can cause AIDS alone? Is this a third point of view or is it incorporated into the "majority"?

Weighting is subjective by nature. And since Wikipedia wants to minimize subjectivity (WP:NPOV), there is a serious conflict here. Bwass (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You should probably read the policy guidelines regarding scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that advanced HIV disease causes the collapse of cell-mediated immunity, and that this collapse is what causes AIDS. Given that the phrase "fringe minority" appears nowhere in the article, I believe you are attempting to create a straw man. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bwass should read WP:WEIGHT a little more closely. Start with the first sentence - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"."  Note that underlined portion.  We demonstrate weight by citing sources.  It's not a magical task approached through pixie dust and hope - we grind our way through articles, books, newspapers, medical bodies and other reliable sources to be able to verify what the mainstream opinion is using reliable sources.  It's actually quite demonstrable, if time-consuming.  The citations throughout this and other pages related to AIDS denialism are to respected mainstream publications that clearly indicate AIDS denialism is crankery, that Duesberg is an AIDS denialist, and that Mullis' opinion on HIV/AIDS is worthless (and that he's more than a little off in general).
 * We don't need statistics, we need sources - and we have them in spades. Weighting requires editorial judgment, but it's not subjective.  By asserting that "AIDS dissidence" exists and is respected enough to deserve serious treatment, you're POV-pushing an agenda that will never go forward.  I urge you to abandon it, because you're wasting everyone's time.  AIDS denialism has about as much respect as flat earth theories, creationism, moon landing hoax beliefs, the Loch Ness monster and psychic abilities.  It's rather textbook pseudoscience.  Thanks, we're done.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a disaster.
Has huge problems with bias, weasel words and phrases abound, circular reasoning about efficacy of AIDS treatments. I suggest that this page be reviewed such that it can be made completely NPOV.

Eliseunder (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the section just above, and stop using WP as a soapbox (i.e. your recent edits, which are not supported by reliable sources). The scientific consensus clearly identifies HIV as the infectious agent causing AIDS.  Those who deny this fact in spite of this consensus are engaged in AIDS denialism.  -- Scray (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPOV. Grounding an encyclopedic article in a scientific theory with any controversy is unacceptable.  I am reverting page back to the edited state, and will likely obtain a block for doing so.  Do not revert it.  My edits are to make this page objective.  It is unacceptable to make an argument based on faulty axioms within Wikipedia as established fact, thank you very much, and the "scientific consensus" is definitely under dispute.  Do not revert the edits.Eliseunder (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV requires sticking to reliable source, which in this case are scientific and roundly ridicule the AIDS denialist movement. Therefore, a neutral article on this topic is one that reflects that point of view. If you continue to make it sound like there is an actually controversy amongst scientists on this subject, you will be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will disprove the entire theory in one sentence. You ready?  'HIV' produces a cytokine response from CD4+ lymphocytes, and this is an acknowledged fact on both sides of the controversy, thus 'HIV' is not capable of subverting immune response, and since it has not been shown to establish latency anywhere within the body, the only conclusion is that it cannot cause a chronic immunodeficiency, and thus, the immunodeficiencies that characterizes AIDS must be caused by other phenomena.  I don't care how "scientific" you think the material you've been fed is, anybody who's studied it in enough depth realizes it is extremely pseudoscientific, "consensus" or not.  I haven't been watching this controversy on Wikipedia for a long time, but I can only assume that attempts to accredit claims to "denialist" sources have been removed.  Do not exercise editorial power to enforce POV on a controversial subject, this is dishonest, strong-handed, and misleading behavior. Eliseunder (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Assertions alone are not enough; reliable sources are mandatory. Adding content based on personal knowledge is considered original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should the production of cytokines make it impossible for HIV to kill CD4+ T cells or cause immunodeficiency? Actually, never mind. What Evil Saltine said. MastCell Talk 04:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make it impossible for them to kill the CD4+ cells, rather it makes it impossible for a chronic infection to be sustained. One of many sources verifying cytokine response to 'HIV': http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20846036 .  As I said, as latency cannot be established, this simple fact proves that the immune system removes 'HIV' from the bloodstream on its own, following the normal viral infection curve, as even this (inaccurate) graph describes for 'HIV': http://hiv-net.org/imagesv1/HIV/stadien_en.gif Eliseunder (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Whether cytokine responses are triggered is irrelevant, since the source you point to doesn't go on to say that HIV therefore cannot establish a chronic infection. Rather, that's your personal interpretation, which is not appropriate for any article on Wikipedia. Listen to the comments above you. Wikipedia is not a place to fight a battle or get "the truth" heard. We follow the mainstream scientific sources, which all agree that HIV causes AIDS. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're missing the point. A cytokine response to any pathogen that a CD8+ lymphocyte, or normal phagic white blood cell, will then respond to (and indeed does, for HIV) is sufficient to demonstrate that the immune system can eradicate that pathogen.  The "battle" is already over, now we just have to deal with the fact that the "mainstream scientific sources," as you describe them, are themselves biased in favor of that theory.  There are indeed "independent, reliable sources" to support what I'm describing, do you want me to just start listing them? Eliseunder (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have one that says "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, do you have any source that says that a cytokine response to a pathogen means that the immune system has eradicated it? Because that's not true, and it suggests a substantial lack of familiarity with basic immunology. MastCell Talk 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, please don't put words in my mouth. Immunoregulative cytokines are only a signal that something needs to be destroyed.  From the first line to the WP article for cytokines: "Cytokines (Greek cyto-, cell; and -kinos, movement) are small cell-signaling protein molecules that are secreted by the glial cells of the nervous system and by numerous cells of the immune system and are a category of signaling molecules used extensively in intercellular communication. "  Of course, the juicy bits are in the article Adaptive immune system, where you can indeed verify that this cytokine release is meant to signal that an infection is occuring, and needs to be dealt with.  This process is related to the general process of 'inflammation', and indeed why lymph node swelling (in particular) seems to occur from HIV/HTLV-III infection. Eliseunder (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Someguy: Dozens. Duesberg's work will always be the gold standard in why this virus cannot cause AIDS: http://duesberg.com/papers/index.html and in particular this one: http://duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html "HIV is not the cause of AIDS," although it should be noted that his work with respect to explaining the pathogenesis of AIDS is woefully incomplete.  Like I said before, I'm sure somebody has already tried to make edits with this as a source, and seen it get ad-hominemed into the mud, but it is extremely well-stated.  To this date, HIV still does not fulfill Koch's postulates - you'll notice that the official explanations of how it does (it doesn't!) rely on sleight-of-hand to prove it, for example how this one relies on epidemiological data but NOT demonstrated development of AIDS after infection with HIV/HTLV-III (as it is unethical to perform such experiments): http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/beta/b43/b43hiv_causes.html .  There are interesting coincidences here w.r.t. animal studies - namely the failure to demonstrate any AIDS-like pathogenesis in simian or feline populations (besides those domesticated, of course, which opens up a whole can of worms with respect to immunosuppressive factors), even though SIV and FIV are both posited to exist, and above all, Duesberg's points on a) how epidemiological data for "AIDS" is massively different across separate continents and b) how it is confined to specific populations that are all at risk for such immunosuppresion, most notably hemophiliacs and people who use illicit (and hence impure) IV drugs.  Eliseunder (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and how the marker diseases for HIV+ diagnosis also differ, i.e., Kaposi's sarcoma and cytomegalovirus in the U.S., but things ranging from dysentary to malaria to typhus in Africa, which appear to all be diseases associated with poor water quality, whether stagnant water for mosquitos or immunosuppresion plus infection from dirty water sources (by that same protozoa which characterizes malaria). See where I'm going with this? Eliseunder (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that you are not, by far, the first person to bring up most of the issues you mention (although I can't recall anyone else arguing that the cytokine responses prove HIV can't cause a chronic infection). But in any event, any argument you provide will be ignored except for the sake of conversation. As was mentioned above, Wikipedia relies on verifiability, and not on truth or the strength of an editor's personal analysis. We rely on published sources only. At one time, Deusberg was taken seriously in the field of HIV research, but he's very much in the minority now. Such an extreme minority, that his work on HIV cannot be used on Wikipedia, except in historical contexts (as it is presently cited on this very article). Wikipedia is not kind to every viewpoint. Please, read the links. Really. If you really wanted to take this further, you can have a look at the procedures for dispute resolution, but it won't help you. This dispute will not be resolved in your favor due to the inherent bias Wikipedia has toward reputable science: most likely no one will come to your side, and no administrator will back you up. You can check the talk archives; everyone who tries to do what you are doing here either quits the subject or gets banned from the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not the correct way for Wikipedia to function. At all.  If a truth is verifiable, and if there are "independent reliable sources," is this not sufficient to steer an article away from condemnation of that truth as 'harmful pseudoscience'?  This is absurb.  WP:UNDUE -> WP:NPOV states "This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. "  Duesberg was an NIH-recognized expert on retroviruses, for what reason are we to doubt his reliability?  You talk about an "extreme minority," but I've met some of these people myself, not to mention how many I've spoken to online.  It is a minority, but not a negligible minority.Eliseunder (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously AIDS denialism is not negligible - among other things, it's been blamed for a few hundred thousand avoidable deaths. That's hard to ignore. Anyhow, it's obvious that this belief is considered beyond the pale of rational, intelligent thought by experts in the field. It still appeals to a small handful of people, for a variety of reasons which are of interest to psychologists and sociologists, but it has no scientific currency at all. Our presentation needs to honestly and accurately reflect that reality. MastCell Talk 04:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a convenient illusion and all. Unfortunately, showboating about how a view is the only correct one does not make it so.
 * Any administrator who's watching this, please consider my edits as a good starting point for the revision of this article. Eliseunder (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This Administrator thinks they are not an acceptable starting point. You've already said that you disagree with the way Wikipedia works. You've been reverted by several editors so you are editing against consensus. You're using completely unacceptable language such as 'mainstream pay-journals' which indicates you don't understand our NPOV policy (or rather perhaps that you disagree with it). Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The application of Wikipedia rules is governed by the consensus of its editors, Eliseunder. Governance by consensus means that sometimes you are going to be on the wrong side of it, and when that happens - no matter how right you think you are - your only recourse is to suck it up, accept defeat and move on.  "I'm right, so you have to do things my way" is a premise accepted nowhere on Wikipedia.  If you cannot convince people to accept your viewpoint here, it's time to accept defeat and move on.   RGTraynor  10:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason give any weight to the AIDS denialist viewpoint, since it's not in any way supported by the mainstream scientific opinion. Original research referencing primary sources against WP:MEDRS requirements for secondary sources doesn't change this, and shouldn't be pursued anyway.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Eliseunder: Someguy1221 is an administrator. I'm an administrator. On this site, admins don't have any special clout when it comes to decisions about content. They may be more likely to recognize (or at least do something about) clearly inappropriate editing behavior, though. MastCell Talk 04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eliseunder, I would add that like above user's have suggested, review the talk page archives. This is an argument I have seen many, many times before, and always ends in a manner that expends more energy than it's worth. JoeSmack Talk 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, taking all this into consideration here. I am clearly unfamiliar with some of the protocols of Wikipedia, but I have been watching it carefully for many years.  It is my very clear understanding that some of the protocols are conflicting.  WLU's suggestion that my edits violate WP:OR are incorrect, my edits are simply poorly sourced.  I absolutely reject, with no qualms, the idea that "AIDS denialism" is relegated to the fringe, by any mechanism other than that of fear.  RGTraynor's statement, "You're using completely unacceptable language such as 'mainstream pay-journals' which indicates you don't understand our NPOV policy (or rather perhaps that you disagree with it)," is absolutely lopsided.  They are "mainstream," they are "pay journals" (with the rare exception of open research), and I absolutely reject the idea that it's a violation of NPOV to make the edits I did, as a whole.  Please compare the page before I got here with the page containing my final edits, there is a DRAMATIC improvement in the OBJECTIVITY of the article.


 * This is not an "original research" problem. The area is well-researched, and the "AIDS denialist" standpoint, in terms of scientific backing, has far, far surpassed the mainstream "HIV->AIDS theory."  Maybe you think administrators have no clout, Someguy1221, Mastcell, etc., but you understand that your interpretation of the rules on this website guides your own behavior.  You are invoking obscure, inapplicable protocols like WP:OR to places where they are not applicable.


 * My options, at this point, are to go through and cite the dozen or so claims that I made, or to leave this article in its existing, highly biased form. The former is an unreasonable request to make of one person, seeing the sheer amount of vitriol that attempts to change this article generates.  However, the claims that I've made are supported not only by "independent, reliable sources," but by fully applicable sources on other Wikipedia articles, as I've already described fully on this very talk page!


 * Let me boil this down to one source: "HIV does not cause AIDS":


 * http://duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html <-- Independent, reliable, and verifiable. What else do you want?   If somebody links that shoddy, piece-by-piece "debunking" of this article, I'm going to start tearing my hair out over here.  WP:NPOV takes precedence over every other Wikipedia policy, and that's the only way this site can even function.  If you want to go to RationalWiki or Conservapedia, they're over that way.  Eliseunder (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me refine the sludge you've boiled down: Your assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS violates the scientific consensus and thus comes down to a fringe theory. You may wish to read these two essays before editing this or related articles further. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, let me do the refining. Here's a notable excerpt from the recent massive ArbComm decision:


 * 7) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. (from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Purpose_of_Wikipedia )


 * There you go. Neutrality is non-negotiable. This is more serious than most articles, because this is a matter of public health.  It is not an option to slander the opposition until they recede into silence again, I firmly reject your categorization of these theories as "FRINGE." Eliseunder (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't expect anyone with less than a hundred edits to understand our NPOV policy. This is not an insult, just a statement of fact. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't expect anybody who judged the validity of a theory based on the number of Wikipedia edits on the account of somebody espousing it to be sufficiently versed in any subject to make definitive claims about it. Consensus must be reached between us to retain the article in its current state - I am amenable to reasonable persuasion.  I don't take this matter as lightly as you.  I have removed the divhide that was placed here, as there is not a scientific consensus, nor even a consensus in this talk page.  This needs to be settled before we just move on.  Eliseunder (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of the scientific community is very clear, as indicated by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, United Nations, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many others. What we as editors believe does not matter - this encyclopedia must reflect scientific consensus and reliable sources. The rejection of AIDS denialism is not up to us - it's already established and well-documented. This discussion seems to be going nowhere, because you're offering no reliable evidence (as recognized by WP) to support your claims. The article, and others such as HIV and AIDS, already provide copious evidence contrary to your position. Please argue from evidence or desist. -- Scray (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are copious cited sources within this article that clearly express the negligible weight given to Duesberg's claims within the relevant academic literature and major scientific bodies. It's really not disputed that Duesberg's claims are actively dismissed by the scientific, medical, and governmental bodies that deal with this area of research. You may not agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors, Eliseunder, but you can't dispute the reality that your stance is far out of the mainstream. This is also why these claims fall under the purview of WP:FRINGE.
 * To state "HIV does not cause AIDS"http://duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html, as you suggest above, would be a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, an important component of WP:NPOV. We can, and do, present Duesberg's claims; we must also necessarily place them within the overall context in which these claims have been tested, refuted and dismissed to the satisfaction of almost every relevant professional.
 * Further, WP:CONSENSUS should not be conflated with unanimity. It's clear your position is in the minority on this talk page. This is not a valid neutrality dispute, nor is it likely a discussion of much further use. If you have any specific suggestions about any specific content, you may make more hay if you present the offending passage with a clear rationale as to why it should be changed whilst also providing alternative phrasing and any additional supporting citations.
 * Finally, if you choose to continue in the manner above, I think it is inevitable that you will soon be blocked from further contributing to Wikipedia. This is not a threat, merely a blunt observation based on your volatile actions and uncooperative behavior. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment on the number of edits was (pretty clearly I thought) a comment on an editor with only about 70 edits preaching to much more experienced editors about our NPOV policy, not about evolution. Of course, I may be wrong about Eliseunder, who may well be a more experienced editor using a new account. They still don't understand or agree with our policies and guidelines, especially if they are under the impression that one editor can establish the lack of a consensus. This is just filibustering. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)