Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 12

Skeptical inquirer
Article from the SI, it's not too old (2007) and could be useful for basic info. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What's next? God denialism?
I suggest the name be changed according to the NPOV policy since denial means "not assimilation of the truth" and that is taking one side.Leodj1992 (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV says to go with the majority opinion (as evidenced in reliable sources), when one overwhelming majority is apparent. NPOV does not say to treat each side equally. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support to Someguy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Leodj, support Someguy. Since HIV causing AIDS is truth and the existence of gods is not, the use of the word denialism to refer to such rejection is appropriate in the first instance and inappropriate in the second.76.185.32.199 (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutralism Laxness: Critical New Information Ignored or Deleted
Who defines what's neutral and what's not in an article?? Right now, the original version of this article, the one that right now the world will watch if is looking for some answers, is rotten with non neutral sentences. What does Wikipedia do about this??

I've tried all day long to insert in this article some updated neutral "alternative theories about AIDS", some new material without affecting neutrality of the article (if we can say that the original article is neutral at all) and changing some words and the semantics of some sentences to reduce the subjectivity of the content. Even more, I added crucial and critical new perspectives from key investigators of HIV as Dr. Montagnier and his most recent statements about AIDS, but somehow there are people who manages to erase and to keep the control of Wiki for themselves.

It is supposed that Wiki is the World's Knowledge Encyclopedia, not just what some people wants to be published and wants not. If you think that someone is writing something without neutralism: ¿why do you erase it? Why, instead of reading it, correcting it and adding the new article (if it has good references) better words and lines, you keep on just erasing at good will whatever you want and you accept whatever you like??

References and citations I've just added (and some guys just kept on erasing them) are from excellent sources. Excellent proven sources. Then, I don't understand why the article must be fully returned to its original. There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia which have, as well, neutralism problems, but they are not erased. Someone writes up of them "this article needs a more neutral writing" or stuff like that.

But here, if you write "Dr. Jean Luc Montagnier stated that he believes HIV by itself does not causes AIDS and several cofactors are needed for the outbreak of the disease" and you give excellent references about that, someone appears, "undo" your contributions and claim either vandalism or lack of neutrality. Are you kidding??

Can someone explain me this?? Someone in Wiki. I wrote to a buddy some minutes ago, no explanations recieved. THE MISSION OF WIKIPEDIA is OBJECTIVITY AND NEUTRALITY, but: who is in charge for that? Who controls and says what's objective and what's not?

At this exact moment, this article remains as a piece of non neutral terms, non updated (when needed) information and a fully partial perspective rather than an useful neutral and objective wiki. That's simply terrible.

Milikguay (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the mission of Wikipedia is not objectivity and neutrality. WP:NPOV/FAQ discusses objectivity:


 * "Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that lack of bias isn't possible. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
 * "This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.


 * "Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day."


 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'neutral'. Have you read WP:NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Specifics. You added words to a quote that aren't in the original source. You removed the term 'denialists', something discussed a number of times before. You added unsourced claims about the Internet and your personal opinion when you wrote ". Yet, the scientific basis of this studies are not utterly proven." Have you read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY yet? Your edit on Montagnier not only has a lot of your own commentary but seems to be more of an argument about what causes AIDS than about the topic of this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER 1
Hi, buddy. I'm reading your answer and I'll reply to it step by step: Says: "Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that lack of bias isn't possible..."... (1)

(1)- First of all, we must regard that perhaps you've made a mistake. A semantic mistake. "Lack of bias isn't possible" is an expression which tends to confuse. If you wanted to say that it is common to have different opinions about a subject, maybe you should have wrote "Lack of bias is possible". Then, while reading the rest of the content one can figure out what you wanted to express, my answer for this is: of course and certainly. Is the most logical outcome in a philosophical matter. Different positions lead to discussions, obviously. But then again: ¿is this a philosophical matter? ¿Are we talking/editing an article about a philosophical discussion? That's the real point.

The point here is: we are not discussing in a philosophical matter whether is possible or not to agree with a subject. We must be discussing the fact that many important information here, in this article, accepted by most of the editors (and by conclusion, the thing that web-users will find if they look upon) is ALREADY filled with opinions and subjective words and lines like this one, I cite:

"Despite its lack of scientific acceptance..."

So, the opinions of Nobel Awarded PhD. Kary Mullis, PhD. Stanley B. Prusiner, PhD. Barbara McClintock or MD Alfred G. Gilman do not have for you or any of the editors a scientific cathegory?? Even Dr. Walter Gilbert who in the beginning was fully convinced that HIV does not causes AIDS, now since he has reviewed his opinion, still thinks that HIV itself is not sufficient.

And there is an entire list of scientific and investigators who states until this date that HIV, if isolated, yet is not proven to be the solely cause of AIDS. This is not something new, started since the very beginning of AIDS issue. Although some scientists took a more prudential point of view in the matter, worldwide many are being more reluctant to accept the official theory.

Then, my question is: ¿which opinions, then, should we accept in an editing? If "lack of bias" using your own words is not possible, then can someone explain me which position is tended to be accepted here? Yours? What about the other's position then? Irrelevant?

"So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity..." ... (2)

(2)- In the most important section of the NPOV page: "Achieving Neutrality", I cite Jimbo Wales recomendations:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

AIDS official theory is held by the majority of world's population. No doubt about it. But the AIDS "HIV Denial" theory (held by a significant majority)-please, I don't have to rename the prominent scientists who claim this- is respectable enough to have an own development and by so (as many important articles can be easily found in the web -as well as many cannot-) is really important to have a neutral (both sides line) article.

Then again, the NPOV page states:

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship."

We certainly know that mainstream dictates (which doesn't means that's allright: Eppur si muove) are commonly absolute. But that does not removes or reduces the important fact (I'll write it again: FACT) that AIDS official theory, every day, is getting more challenged. This is not just my opinion: let Dr. Jean Luc Montagnier speak for himself when he thinks that "Cofactors have a crucial role in AIDS pandemic" and when he says "Our inmune system will get rid naturally of HIV if we have a good inmune system". If Montagnier's words about this are not "scientifically valid" for you or the editors, then I don't know what to think...

But, if you do believe that Montagnier's words are important, then ¿Why did you, instead of making contributions for leading this page into a more neutral state, kept on erasing my addings?

Then you add something as "NPOV SAYS NOTHING ABOUT OBJECTIVITY". Of course, is in your head and everyone's mind to find out what's objective and what's not. If someone writes an article, you must be capable enough to figure out that what this guy is writing is objective or not. Despite all this, FACTS are not matter of discussion. FACTS are not into the "presumable" situation. FACTS are simple provable mathematics. FACTS ARE OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL BY THEMSELVES. One fact here is that Montagnier's most recent words about AIDS are the ones I've wrote before, you like it or not. (If an image worths more than a thousand words, then a videotape should worth more than a thousand images!!). The other fact is that you and other editors ignored this and rather than acting pro-objectivity and pro-neutralism (as you claim you do) kept on erasing this essential contribution to a very important scientific article. I'm not saying that "Montagnier's words are a fact" but "Is a fact that Montagnier sayed those words". Please understand this, is an undeniable mathematical logic.

"...to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so..."... (3)

(3)- Then again, please explain me why did you (or other editors) erased, for example (I'm using this as a leitmotif) my contributions about Montagnier's new criteria of AIDS?? Those are HIS words, not mine. I'm not engaging a discussion here. Just rephrasing his words. If I wrote only some excerpts of the words is because I tried to put only the most essential ideas of the whole. If this was wrong, I will ask again and again and again:

¿Would not it be much better to improve the contributions rather than erase them all keeping the present state of this article, completely non-neutral and non-objective?

"... This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy..." ...(4)

(4)- Absolutely! And I'm agree! But unfortunately, we are not talking about philosophical contents but some science facts and some crucial opinions about this matter. If this would be a debate about René Descartes's rationalism and John Locke's empirism, I wouldn't doubt that those visions were improved by Kant and then again, if something was so needed to be argued, as Wikipedia is a worldwideweb every user property, we should try, instead of imposing elder or "more accepted mainstream believes" which are constantly challenged by a large number of referential people, to take the whole of the correctly referenced information and make this article not a "religious" or "philosophical" matter, but an important, yet not mainstream, place for a primal investigation.

Neutrality must not just be in "some senses" important and consistent. Neutrality is crucial and determinant for every kind of debate. Specially in a so important scientific matter as this one. Nonetheless, that doesn't means that we must argue everything. As I do not argue that HIV, according to the official sources, was isolated primarily in the Pasteur Institute of Paris, no editor should argue that Dr. Montagnier is reporting from a long time ago that "HIV is necessary but insufficient by itself to cause the disease. Cofactors are needed".

This is perfectly consistent evidence (and there is more), which has been deleted. So, if you consider yourself a sophisticated relativist, please explain me why there is a neutrality laxness in this article?? Why should we accept this??

"Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day"... (5)

(5)- You've just entombed yourself with this. If you strive towards objectivity and neutralism every day (regarless that you've wrote in (1)(2) paragraphs that "lack of bias isn't possible", "Wikipedia's NPOV says nothing about objectivity" -as if objectivity is pointless at all-) then why do you allow to stay this non-objective and non-neutral article here, in the same perfidious state as it was, ignoring and dispising important contributions (most of them with proved neutrality) of other editors?? Is this sophisticated and neutral at all??

"Specifics..." ...(6)

(6)- I myself admited that I erased the term "denialists" because of a mistake. I saw that you all agreed that this is the "official" term to be used. If is correct or incorrect, well. You've already decided that.

About the quotations of Montagnier. My friend, evidence speaks for itself. My section was entitled "Dr. Jean Luc Montagnier's Position", and it was clear that, by his own statements (of which I just took some excerpts, perhaps that's my mistake) he believes that HIV itself does not causes AIDS. Cofactors are needed. About his opinion on AIDS drugs, references speak for themselves as well. And yes!! The arguments presented talk about what causes AIDS, in the version of Montagnier. And believe me, is a dissident version. "AIDS is caused by HIV with the conjunction of other important cofactors". He is saying it!! These are not my words. And even he permits himself to slide a sarcastic smile when he admits that "his message is different from Anthony Fauci's message" (Anthony Fauci is, alongside Robert Gallo, the fiercest defender of AIDS official theory).

About the scientific probity of most of AIDS statistics, many headboard scientists and investigators as officialist Dr. James Chin or denialist MSc. David Crowe challenge them saying that "they are manipulated and not scientifically based". So what's the big deal with accepting that information?? Can you explain me??

Conclusion: My adding (and many other guys important contributions) are being erased or deleted or rejected by nonesenses, non-neutralism and non-objectivity.

Milikguay (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These points and more have been raised and discussed before. You may be interested in the FAQ at the top of this page, and the archived discussions, also linked at the top of this page. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work. Every serious, reputable source on Earth regards AIDS denialism as a form of entrenched ignorance - and potentially dangerous or deadly ignorance, at that. If we pretend otherwise, then we're being dishonest and non-neutral. This site is intended to increase access to knowledge, not provide a forum for nonsense. I think people are politely asking you to take the YouTube links and high-school-debate-club sophistry elsewhere, since this is intended to be an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One needs to provide reliable sources in support of concise suggested changes to edit this encyclopedia. Otherwise, it is just soapboxing.  You have some constructive suggestions from experienced editors here - please heed them.  -- Scray (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER 2
Hi buddies. I'll answer to MastCell writings step by step.

"...Wikipedia is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work..." ...(1)

(1)- Once again, we are entering the "non-neutral" fields. If we talk about respectable reference work, then again: ¿who can decide which reference is and which reference is not respectable enough for being accepted? I could give you here one thousand key sources and investigations links but ¿how will you decide if they are provable or not? They must be "mainstream accepted" to be approved??

The entire Wikipedia is filled with many kind of references, in scientific topics, religion, philosophy... Every kind!! So, if we will just take "key references" as the acceptable ones: We should erase half Wikipedia!!

Notwithstanding, I gave you some crucial references (videotape recorded ones, some other from written links) and yet, you and other editors tend to consider them as "not respectable". Are PhD. Kary Mullis words and investigation "non respectable references"?. Before, I gave you as well some quotations and links about nobel awarded scientifics and other worldwide renowned investigators who questions AIDS official theories. Are those guys "non respectable reference"??

If I summon the name of MD Gordon Thallon Stewart, emeritus Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, UK, and an honorary consultant physician in epidemiology and preventive medicine in the NHS and allied agencies, and his investigation about AIDS Alternative Theories, where he concludes that "HIV/AIDS theory is a mistake", ¿will you consider this, again, a "non-respectable reference work"? If I name once again here to Dr. Jean Luc Montagnier and I write that he is almost certainly sure "Cofactors are needed for AIDS infection, alongside HIV"  ¿will you consider this as a "non respectable reference work"? I can easily find thousands of pages, links, pdf files and other stuff of scientific works of Montagnier and his team talking about cofactors. And this is different from what Fauci and Gallo think about AIDS. Should I remember you what he have said (videotape recorded in Youtube), available for whoever wants to see and delight himself??

So, explain me, why this important scientific investigation should be disdained and considered "non respectable reference work"? Should only Robert Gallo or Anthony Fauci's investigations considered as "referential"??

"...Every serious, reputable source on Earth regards AIDS denialism as a form of entrenched ignorance - and potentially dangerous or deadly ignorance, at that. If we pretend otherwise, then we're being dishonest and non-neutral..." ...(2)

(2)- Not every serious reputable source. There are many Nobel awarded guys and key investigators worldwide who think that "there are terrible mistakes about AIDS official theory". And this group, rather than reducing, is growing up. Should I recall them?? I think not, better watch above, I already wrote and referenced this.

You talk about "potentially dangerous or deadly ignorance". Mate, is not ignorance. These are critical points of view of the most important authorities of the subject. None of them says or claims that "AIDS does not exists or does not causes damages". They are just saying that "Until this date, is not utterly proven that HIV is the solely cause of AIDS". I'll ask you this question (for you or everyone reading this):

Does someone questions that Treponema Pallidum causes syphilis?? No, I'm quite sure about it. Then why so many important investigators question if HIV itself (if exists) is capable of causing AIDS?? It is an extremely unique kind of supernatural virus?? Does it really exists?? Man, is terrible that the scientific world is in such a discrepancy about it...

Then you wrote :"If we pretend otherwise, then we're being dishonest and non-neutral...". No, my friend. It is the averse. We are being dishonest and non-neutral by denying that many people of great scientific importance, discoverer of LAV (HIV) himself and his team, challenge every time even more the official theories. "Our Inmune system will get rid of the virus in few weeks, if we have a good inmune system" claimed Montagnier one year ago. Should you need a drawed picture for understanding?? Is a videotape a "non referential scientific source"?? I'll leave this to your own criteria...

"...This site is intended to increase access to knowledge, not provide a forum for nonsense. I think people are politely asking you to take the YouTube links and high-school-debate-club sophistry elsewhere, since this is intended to be an encyclopedia..." ...(3)

(3)- Liquidated yourself. If we do want to increase "knowledge", why are you (or other editors) denying access to crucial investigation, points of view and conclusions of this matter to the most common people??

I myself use wiki for little things and for adding important information rather than enlightening me. I read scientific books of all the kind with a neutral and objective point of view. I've read Gallo and Fauci's investigations as well as Montagnier's or Duesberg's, so, I don't have a "Wikipedia" idea but a different one. That's exactly why I intend to propose the most neutral and objective information available from any site or source to this website. So people who wants to make a "primal investigation" as I wrote before, can read everything and make his own conclusions, as this subject is yet worldwide fiercely debated.

Why only some knowledges can be allowed?? If the knowledge and the scientific dissent criteria I'm presenting here (as well as many other editors do) is correctly referenced, why can't be accepted?? What's wrong about them?? Does this actually kills people?? Am I denying the jew holocaust by saying with excellent references that "worldwide scientists are yet in disagreement about AIDS and his causes" or expressing that "many key scientists believe that HIV is necessary but insufficient for causing AIDS"??

No one is still giving me an irrefutable answer but yet, my contributions are considered "non important", "non objective", "non neutral" and even "deadly dangerous" and they continue to be deleted.

Milikguay (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page before rehashing the same points over and over. Yobol (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER 3
About FAQ and other points.

(POINT Q/A 1) ''Q1: Why does this article dismiss AIDS denialism as a valid scientific hypothesis?

A1: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field universally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of AIDS denialism, it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to report this as part of a full treatment of the topic. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories and Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guidelines.''

(POINT Q/A 1): Sophism itself. The answer talks about "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Yes, we are agree. But by reading several times older discussions about this subject I make myself this question: Which sources can be considered as "fact-checked and accurate" and which cannot?? Can only be the officialists sources regarded as useful ones?? What happens?? And, by the way, who does claim that official sources are accurate and fact checked?? Mainstream?? Eppur si Muove!!

If any source supporting Gallo or Fauci can be considered as referential, why can't be a link for an AIDS reppraisal asociation be it as well?? And even if this can be clearly answered, can you explain me why, for example, investigations by Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger (virologist from the Robert Koch Institute) or MD Gordon Stewart (pathologist and public health expert, from the University of Glasgow) which are correctly referenced (I gave links before, I have many others) can't be accepted as "referential and fact checked"?? Because they are denialists sources?? It's a nonsense!!

(POINT Q/A 2) ''Q2: Why does this article use the term AIDS denialism? Why not AIDS dissent, AIDS reappraisal, or some similar term?

A2: There are several alternative terms describing the same constellation of ideas, and Wikipedia articles should use the most widely accepted in the most reliable sources.''

(POINT Q/A 2): I have no big problem with this. Although I think this article could be renamed as "HIV Dissident Theories", it is fine the way it is now. No argue from me at least in this point. I think, by the way, you can assume that I'm not an AIDS Denialist but someone who simply wants a neutral perspective on this important scientific issue.

(POINT Q/A 3): ''Q3: What about the famous and respectable scientists who dispute the role of HIV in causing AIDS?

A3: The scientists most often cited by the AIDS denialism movements are usually speaking outside their field of expertise. For instance, Peter Duesberg is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and Kary Mullis invented PCR. Within the HIV-AIDS research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS.''

(POINT Q/A 3): Moved yourself in Forced Checkmate with this. I gave you several names of key investigators and worldwide renown scientific, biochemists, virologists, medical doctors, pathologists and chemists who dissent in one way or another with the official theory defended by Robert Gallo, who states that "HIV is the solely, the necessary and sufficient entient or factor, to cause AIDS". This guys are not improvised people. They worked many years in science investigation and, despite what most of you think, science is entirely conected. Anyone who studies biochemistry have the same amount of knowledge, as the same capability for investigating. Virologists, pathologists, chemists, they are all working in related fields of Science. So, Kary Mullis, Stanley Prusiner, Peter Duesberg or whoever, they are prepared enough to make their own researches, to do their own works if they really do so, and to present their own conclusion, regardless of what they think or mainstream people think.

But let's say that this is correct. They are not in their "expertise" field. Biochemists, like Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR, used for detecting HIV -even if he says that this cannot do that-, what a paradox!!) or Barbara McClintock (who already died) know nothing about AIDS. Let's admit that Peter Duesberg, Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Stefan Lanka and other worldwide recognized virologists know nothing about viruses and HIV. Let's just assume that MD Gordon Stewart, MD Stanley Prusiner, MD Albert G. Gilman, MD Heinrich Kremer are stupid moron's who only want to talk idiot stuff, OK, I'll admit it...Let's admit this... Let's say that there is a mysterious university cathedra called "HIVists" or "HIV Expertise" which you must take mandatorily for being an accepted HIV investigator... Well...

Explain me this, if you can:

"Cofactors play an essential role in AIDS. Our inmune system will get rid naturally of HIV if we have an inmune system"

"Cofactors are, probably, at least as important as HIV in AIDS infection"

"HIV itself is necessary but insufficient alone for causing AIDS"

Dr. JEAN LUC MONTAGNIER and his collegue, Dr. FRANÇOISE BARRÉ SINOUSSI (I already gave you many references for this as well, but I do have plenty more if you like... The third sentence belongs, actually, to Mrs. Barré Sinoussi, but the others are of Montagnier)

I'll write this again, if you like: DR. JEAN LUC MONTAGNIER...!! DR. FRANÇOISE BARRÉ SINOUSSI...!! BOTH THE REAL DISCOVERERS OF HIV.

I even have a published investigation in french of Mrs. Françoise Barré-Sinoussi giving her explanations and her own dissent theories about HIV and AIDS. But probably you will consider this as a "non referential scientific source". I already gave you undeniable sources, but you don't accept them, so, what's big deal??

There are two kinds of people in AIDS world: Officialists and Denialists. While officialists believe that HIV is the solely necessary cause of AIDS, there are many kinds of denialists: the ones who think HIV does not exists or that its existence is not proven, as The Perth Group or PhD. Kary Mullis; the ones who think HIV exists but is completely harmless, like Dr. Peter Duesberg or MD Albert G. Gilman, and those who think "HIV is necessary, but itself is insufficient. Cofactors are needed" like... Like... Like... Dr. Jean Luc Montagnier...!!

Then, why are these important contributions being ignored or deleted?? Can you give me a logical intelectual answer to this??

At least... You don't want to answer...

(POINT Q/A 4):

''Q4: Doesn't Wikipedia's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment?

A4: Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not require that all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Wikipedia, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found in the relevant scholarly, academic, or otherwise expert community. If that community rejects an idea with unanimity or near-unanimity, due weight requires that that rejection be presented.''

(POINT Q/A 4): Won't waste my time, as I already talk about this before and recieved no logical answer but evasives and twisturns rather than a well based statement.

CONCLUSION: Yet, no one can explain me why my (and other editors) important contributions are considered "non-referential", "non-neutral", "non-objective" and even "deadly dangerous" and are continued to be deleted or ignored.

Milikguay (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, this is not an article about the causes of AIDs. Secondly, you haven't responded to my questions. To quote myself, "Specifics. You added words to a quote that aren't in the original source. You removed the term 'denialists', something discussed a number of times before. You added unsourced claims about the Internet and your personal opinion when you wrote ". Yet, the scientific basis of this studies are not utterly proven." Ok, denialists is dealt with. The quote "the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV " was changed to read "the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV and clear evidence that HIV causes AIDS" although the added words weren't in the source. The statement " Nevertheless, none of the scientists proved that HIV is the cause of AIDS." was added to sourced text to make it appear that the new statement was sourced to King, E (1996). "ISOLATED FACTS ABOUT HIV: A response to claims by AIDS dissidents that HIV doesn't exist". Why shouldn't those edits have been reverted? Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads-up, if this disregard for the talk page guidelines continues, I will archive, collapse, or remove this thread. Miliguay, editing Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor. If you expect to make headway, then you can either listen to people suggesting that you're on the wrong track (which has been the unanimous verdict so far), or try to change peoples' minds and garner support for your position. Right now, you're doing neither. MastCell Talk 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More specifically, we are here to write an encyclopedia article describing the topic, not debate it amongst ourselves. This page exists to facilitate discussion of specific proposed edits and specific sources; please stop using it as a general forum. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER 4
First of all, I respect all your positions, even if this discussion is not about that. We are arguing about the non-acceptance of very important new information about AIDS Denialism. But let's do this step by step.

DOUGWELLER: I think you haven't read entirely my previous answers. I already admited that I erased/added some terms or paragraphs which you and other editors concluded they are certain and correct. About the quotes you are mentioning, of course I do have references, even I gave you in previous answers some of them, incluiding MD James Chin, former director of statistics in the WHO, claiming that "AIDS statistics are manipulated..." and more stuff, if I'm not mistaken. Obviously, in the editing I never added that, since by every minute I was trying to upload new information, someone kept on deleting it. I have studies and interviews of world's leading people who admits and proves that statistics are manipulated. MD Gordon Stewart (I gave you one of his works before) is one of them. But of course, you may all think these are "non-referential sources" so...

By the way: you are saying "this is not an article about the causes of AIDS". Wrong! Terribly Wrong!. This IS an article about the causes of AIDS by the dissident scientists. NONE OF THEM ever said that "AIDS is not a pathology". What they discuss, ipso facto, is "which is the cause or causes of AIDS". So, once again (and I'm not insulting your intelligence or anything by saying this) you buried yourself. Nonetheless, I think you make this false steps by good faith, not because you want to be mean or something. And I really think we can collaborate each other improving this article, transform it into something reliable and neutral without taking any position. I have many references, plenty of them. But how would I know if you will or not will accept them?? That's the problem.

MASTCELL: It is a collaborative endeavor. Right! So, as I gave you referenced and important information about this subject, why the erasure?? Still no answer. You would have made a better, a more proper collaboration by erasing what you think sounds or look "non neutral" but keeping those critical and undeniable facts I gave you and I can still give you. You talk about a "disregard of guidelines", well, every defense mechanism is valid. But yet is another evasive maneuver, a diversionary action rather than a collaborative endeavor. I have a proposal, and is this :


 * Add critical new (and not so new) information about Dissident theories, like Montagnier/Barre-Sinoussi cofactor's theories.
 * Add the points of view of several scientifics who claim and reference by researches that AIDS statistics are manipulated.
 * Try to reduce the "non-neutral" language we can find all over the original article.
 * Add an updated list of Dissident Scientifics and Investigators or people who is sympathetic with them.
 * Erase full threads of this article, like "Denialists who died of AIDS": that's a nonsense! As anybody can present here full evidences of denialists who since the beggining of the epidemic were diagnosed as "HIV positive" and they are alive. Even Christine Maggiore's mention is a sophism, as she survived almost 20 years with HIV (quite more than most of the people) without using drugs.

This is, concretely, what I'm asking. And I think does not violate any term or rule. Is just logic.

Milikguay (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think he's actually made a serious reponse to my questions? If he has, can someone put it into language that makes it clearer? This is getting tiresome. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the responses have been intelligible - they are overly long, tangential, and don't show enough evidence of comprehension of what's gone before. My impression is that Milikguay is serious, but there's also a serious language problem (in both directions, reading and writing).  So, this "conversation" isn't resulting in much communication.  -- Scray (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Scray, for thinking that I'm serious. And I'm agree with you: this is a comunication problem. We've made many twisturns, much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare would say. There were mistakes. From me and from other editors as well. We should all admit this (I already did, I'm doing it again) and try to improve this article. That's all I'm asking. Read carefully answer 4. Those are my concrete proposals.

Milikguay (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK:
 * Adding new information to the article is simple: just present reliable sources containing the information, and we can work out its presentation amongst us.
 * Wikipedia represents views in proportion to their representation in reputable sources (see WP:WEIGHT). Points of view which are ignored or regarding as discredited or ridiculous by reputable sources thus, appropriately, receive less coverage here. Without specifics about which viewpoints you mean, and which sources you have in mind, it's impossible to be specific in response.
 * What examples of "non-neutral" language do you wish to "reduce"? Please be specific.
 * To add an "updated list" of denalists, we would need a reliable source containing such a list. Note that since we're dealing with biographical material about living people, and since AIDS denialism is generally regarded as fairly odious, we would need excellent sourcing to connect someone to this viewpoint. I'm not aware of any "list" meeting those criteria (this probably comes closest). If you are, please share.
 * "Denialists who died of AIDS" are relevant for at least two reasons, both of which should be fairly obvious. If HIV is in fact harmless, then no one should be dying of it. Yet, oddly, HIV-positive denialists tend to die of the exact sorts of opportunistic infections that a medically literate person would predict. The AIDS-denialist community has responded to this cognitive dissonance by blaming the deceased individuals for hidden drug use, or by constructing ludicrously far-fetched alternate hypotheses. This phenomenon has been noted and reported upon by reliable sources, making it appropriate for inclusion in this Wikipedia article.
 * Maybe we can go from there? MastCell Talk 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Milikguay - please note WP:TLDR and WP:TPG. Note that AIDS denialists don't tend to publish their views in the kinds of sources that wikipedia regards as reliable (see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS).  Within the mainstream literature on AIDS, there is no indication that HIV does not cause AIDS, or that AIDS is not, for the most part, deadly.  These key denialist points are supported, if at all, by misrepresentations of the scientific literature (due to misquotation, selective quotation, distortion, outright lies or by quoting only sources from before 2000 - often before 1990) or through unsupported assertions.  Wikipedia's policies can be confusing, particularly if you believe the terms used refer to day-to-day uses of the same words (i.e. "neutrality").  Please read the polices referred to very, very carefully.  Our bedrock starting point is a common understanding of these policies, and we build from that bedrock using reliable sources.  My only other comment is to provide my agreement with the other editors involved regarding their summary of the consensus position.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
I think the need for it is obvious. Let's discuss redirecting the term "AIDS Denialism" to a genuinely neutral title. I suggest "HIV/AIDS Countercultures". Anyone have any other suggestions? BruceSwanson (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The title has been discussed ad nauseum, and the current term has been favored because it's prominently used by reputable, independent sources to describe this particular fringe group. More generally, "neutrality" on Wikipedia is achieved by respecting the content of reliable sources rather than by interposing our editorial agendas on top of them. In that context, "AIDS denialism" is a neutral title, and "HIV/AIDS countercultures" (aside from being vague to the point of meaninglessness) is non-neutral - it's an editorial attempt to water down the content of actual reliable sources. MastCell Talk 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that there is some debate over the cause of AIDS is incorrect. It clearly falls within the purview of WP:FRINGE - a tiny minority opinion that does not reflect the actual debates within the scientific or popular culture.  Even articles that discuss Duesberg's theory in any substantive way indicate that it is a minority opinion, often termed "heretical" or something similar.  All the reliable sources that discuss AIDS denialism do so as a social phenomenon with no real-world significance.  All the AIDS denialists who would prefer an alternative title or name do so in privately published books, letters to the editor or other non-mainstream outlets.  "Neutral" does not mean "there is no correct opinion".  As NPOV clearly states, "neutral" means "discuss all prominent viewpoints as represented in reliable sources.  So if you want to demonstrate that "AIDS denialism" is not neutral, you need to present sources to substantiate this point.  As I've said many, many times, your opinion is worthless, my opinion is worthless, but sources are worthwhile.  Without sources you are wasting everyone's time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The AIDS denialist organization "Rethinking AIDS" is openly and specifically targeting Wikipedia, see their website here: and Swanson discussing how to go about it here:  NM1702 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, this has been brought up on Bruce's talk page and on Mastcell's as well. We know, we don't approve, and if more meatpuppet accounts or POV-pushers show up to revert, it'll just result in page protection.  It's a contemptible refusal to play by the rules on Bruce's part, and if it keeps up then there's a good chance he will lose his editing privileges.  However, since no AIDS denialist can muster an evidence-based, well-referenced approach, they basically don't stand a chance.  They'll still cheat, lie, misrepresent and waste our time, but that's pretty irrelevant as long as any dedicated contributor is watching the page - and there are several on this and related ones.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fully agree with Bruce. This article needs a change from the title itself. I suggest a different one:


 * "HIV/AIDS Dissident Theories"


 * Even if that won't be so necessary. We just need to give this article a different approach.


 * But we do have a problem. The sources. What happens is that ¿will you ever accept a source if it doesn't belong, let's say, to the NIH? It must be necessarily from this kind of institutions our sources, so we can call them "reliable"?


 * I've just read this "Rethinking AIDS" page and looks quite interesting. It's message does not look so neutral, but it is interesting, let's admit. And if their claims are real (the scientific denialist community is usually censored, and even Wikipedia is somehow controlled by officialists, that's why we can only find their investigations in websites like this one) we should really start to think that this sources should be accepted. We are all wikipedians, so something good for our web-encyclopedia would be to start reviewing our parameters in what's about sources. Please, do not misunderstand this. I'm not saying "let's accept everything denialist write in every page" but "let's accept that most of denialist investigations (very scientific ones, I can tell, as scientific as officialists) can only be found in this pages".


 * As I know some quite serious denialists sources, I know some others which are silly ones. But that's what we should discuss now. The "ARAS" page, for example, is very scientifical, filled with facts from both sides, officialists and denialists, and showing where are the "officialists mistakes" (as they claim).


 * This is quite important, friends. Even I would dare myself to upgrade this discussion to an "A-Class" state. We must update this article with all new information available and reduce the "non-neutral" terms. I think is quite possible and logical.


 * By the way, I'm not from "Rethinking AIDS" or stuff like that. But neither I am from the CDC. I'm just a neutral editor, as ¿most of you?... Let's do this, guys. Let's prove all them wrong. We are not working for Fauci neither for Duesberg. We are just wikipedians. Milikguay (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce is an active AIDS denialist, has this noted on his user page, and has his edits consistently challenged and turned back on essentially every AIDS-related page he has contributed to. If you want to read a book, read Denying AIDS by Seth Kalichman.  It represents the mainstream opinion on AIDS, which should be the POV adopted on this page.  It also addresses the nonsense spouted by Duesberg.  You may find the AIDS denlialist arguments personally convincing, but your opinion doesn't matter.  The scientific mainstream does.  Not all opinions are equal.  On Wikipedia, this is particularly so.  The NIH will essentially always be acceptable per WP:MEDRS, particularly since it agrees with and relies on the actual scientific research on the topic.  If you're more curious, you should read the policies and guidelines which have been cited (start with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG).  The rethinking AIDS page and its opinions are not "interesting".  They are wrong.  They are not based on science.  They are not reliable.  There are no "serious" denialist sources because denialists do not publish in mainstream journals.  They publish in news articles, magazines, self-published books, websites and the like.  I could go on, but basically you need to read the policies and guidelines pointed to in general, and on this topic you need to read the mainstream position.  Again, Kalichman is a good starting point.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Milikguay, you seem to be asking to put aside our guidelines on using reliable sources, as well as common sense. It's important to get medical content right; I'm sure you can imagine that people use this site to learn about health-related issues, and we owe it to readers not to mislead them or pretend that the worldwide scientific community is somehow on an even footing with an AIDS-denialist blog. If the ARAS page seems scientific to you, then that's because it's been designed to seem scientific. It's probably worth asking someone you know, whom you consider to be well-versed in critically assessing sciencey-sounding claims, to go over the site with you; doing so is outside the scope of this talkpage, but suffice to say that it does not meet this site's criteria for appropriate, reliable sourcing. MastCell Talk 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New lede and template-message
The issue has not been resolved. The lede itself subltly lacks a neutral point of view in its use of deny and denialists. The Duesberg reference is needed as he asserts that antitretroviral meds directly cause AIDS, not as a "side effect" as the lede stated; and that unprotected anal sex can also contribute. I have re-written accordingly.

Continued discussion of this issue will warrant the placement of the following tag at the top of the article:

POV title BruceSwanson (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Use of the word "deny" and "denialist" is well sourced and is clearly NPOV; see FAQ at the top of this page. It is a purported side effect because it is not the therapeutic goal of the medication to cause AIDS, but to treat HIV; if it were to cause immunodeficiency, it would by definition be a "side effect."  Note that tags are not to be used as a badge of shame.  Yobol (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed to death and has been the subject of at least one RfC, as noted in the talk-page header. There appear to be no new arguments, and certainly no attempt to follow dispute-resolution mechanisms here - just an effort to tag an article because one or a handful of agenda-driven editors dislike it. That's gamesmanship, not an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and it's an inappropriate use of the tag. MastCell Talk 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to call your opinion worthless before it sinks in Bruce? Your opinion, like mine, is worthless.  You need sources.  There are plenty of sources substantiating the fact that AIDS denialism exists, has no scientific merit, and is called "AIDS denialism".  On the other hand, we have you saying the page is biased without providing any sources.  So stop pushing your POV.  Also, if the page is subtle about AIDS denialism, the page should be edited to clearly indicate how stupid and pseudoscientific AIDS denialist claims are.
 * Also, we shouldn't be citing Duesberg's bullshit directly. Kalichman's book is a far better source as it properly contextualizes the "gay sex causes teh AIDZ" as bullshit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, exactly, all about sourcing not about our opinions. I have my opinions, and you could probably guess them, but we must, simply must rely on sources.  This is not just some person's blog, it is an encyclopedia.Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A real-name editor at last. I'll direct my remarks to you, Prof. Brodbeck. The present issue isn't sources alone. It's neutrality too.

Let's look at the current lede paragraph:

AIDS denialism is the view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[1] Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication.

And now here's the revision I posted:

AIDS denialism is the view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who assert that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is not the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).[1] Some adherents reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as they acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, it is attributed to some combination of recreational drug use, unprotected anal intercourse, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and the direct effect of antiretroviral medication.[2]

What I first did was replace deny with assert; and replace denialists with adherents and they.

My first question to you is: which version now best reflects Wikipedia's principle of neutrality?

What I did next was place the phrase unprotected anal intercourse in the list of factors thought by "denialists" to be the true cause of AIDS. I then added the Duesberg reference. Duesberg describes how homosexual men use poppers as both a way of getting high and to relax their sphincter muscles to facilitate anal intercourse. The consequences of this kind of unprotected intercourse results in tearing of tissue, through which the recipient's circulatory system is contaminated with semen and fecal matter, a practiced guaranteed to stress the immune system -- or so the "denialists" believe.

Finally, I changed side effects to direct effect, as "denialists" assert that there is no other effect to be had from taking antiretrovirals save that of a universal antibacterial -- the drugs slay all DNA in dividing cells they interact with, HIV-infected or not, with a fine impartiality -- or so the "denialists" believe.

It's my perception that the point of the lede is to report what "denialists" believe and assert, not what is necessarily true. Thus the use of Duesberg's book as a reference, a source currently deemed unreliable for any other purpose.

Prof. Brodbeck, do you agree? If so, comparing the two versions now, which one sounds more like a blog and less like an encyclopedia?

Addressing myself now to the other editors as well, the popular use of the term "AIDS Denialism" doesn't necessarily make it neutral and non-POV here. It does make it acceptable as a search criteria with an automatic re-direct to a genuinely neutral term. I suggested "HIV/AIDS Countercultures". Editor MastCell, above, says that it is "meaningless". I submit that "AIDS Denialism" is itself meaningless, given that in practice it refers to the relevance of HIV, not the reality of the clinical condition known as AIDS. Perhaps Prof. Brodbeck and his students could suggest something better. BruceSwanson (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of my students edit wikipedia, they just often copy and paste bits into what they call 'essays' and 'term papers' but that is neither here nor there. They (PD et al) do seem to be called denialists, so I think the word itself is fine.  If people think the other wording is better, then I would suggest 'adherents to the denilaist position' but that is clumsy.  As an aside, I use the username everywhere, so i can get it before my brother Dan Brodbeck gets it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrodbeck (talk • contribs) 02:38, 6 February 2011


 * Our role is not to replace labels with whatever we'd prefer or consider "neutral" - it's to be neutral in representing reliable sources. The term "AIDS denialist" is used in reliable sources, so that's what we use here.  -- Scray (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Bruce, now that a "named editor" has said your position is crap, will you drop it? Just wondering.  Also, I see you've moved the goalposts already.
 * Can we close this section now, since this is merely an extension of the incorrect, POV-pushing beliefs of AIDS denialists who are attempting to use wikipedia as a soapbox? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Clear consensus against any of the changes requested, and some WP:IDHT thrown in for good measure as well. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing Comments
As I pointed out to Prof. Brodbeck, the issue is neutrality and sources. I'm not suggesting that the term AIDS Denialist itself be banned. It can certainly be reported in the article that PD et al have been called AIDS denialists. What I questioned on semantic grounds is 1) its neutrality as an article-title; and 2) the repeated use of denialists in the lede when adherent and they would do better in the obvious interest of neutrality.

As for sources, opposing editors appear to have forgotten the issue of the Duesberg footnote, which I placed to reference inclusion of unprotected anal intercourse in the list of non-HIV factors; and the replacement of side effects with direct effect. In the lede, we have to state what the "denialists" believe and assert, and if necessary provide a reference. "Denialists" assert that unprotected anal intercourse contributes to AIDS, and that antiretroviral drugs simply kill dividing cells, infected or not, and thus the consequences of that process are necessarily a direct effect of taking the drugs. I have provided the source in the footnote. Yet it was deleted. I realize that Duesberg's book is considered by some editors to be unreliable as a source of facts, but it is surely reliable as a source of what "denialists" believe and assert to be true. Right?

Perhaps this point has simply been momentarily overlooked in the confusion. In fact I think my replacements of denialists in the lede with adherents and they has also been lost in the noise over my suggestion that the title itself be change. Understand that I'm no longer arguing for that because as opposing editors have pointed out, consensus favors retaining the present title and further discussion on this point -- as of now -- would be futile.

Let me summarize my view: the lede should be semantically neutral, state frankly what the "denialists" believe and assert, and then if necessary provide a reference. I think my version did just that. If anyone wants to state clearly why they think denialists should be used twice in the lede in favor of adherents and they; and why the Duesberg reference can't be used to support inclusion of unprotected anal intercourse and direct effect, I will not shun them, but it's my prediction that the above points will not specifically be addressed by opposing editors. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce, you haven't provided any reliable sources, you've only provided your opinion. As I've said many times - your opinion is worthless, just like any other editor's.  You could argue that Inventing is a source - were it not for the fact that it is now 15 years old, and was thoroughly debunked essentially the day it was published.  Even if it weren't the result of an egregious torturing of the sources it cites, it would still be 15 years old and it's the rare medical publication that is 15 years old and still cited.  That, of course, takes seriously the idea that there is any merit to even discussing it were it current.  Of course, there is not, since the Duesberg hypothesis has been discredited for what, two decades now?
 * Any editors using their "real names" want to repeat this for Bruce? There is apparently some sort of selective illiteracy happening.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why using my real name helps in any fashion is beyond me, but, yeah that sums it up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that Scray, MastCell or WLU need any help, but I just wanted to stick my nose in the conversation and emphasize to follow WP:MEDRS and worry less about bruising semantics. Wikipedia isn't censored. Interests appear to be yours Bruce, not that of neutrality. JoeSmack Talk 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So far my prediction is holding up.

Prof. Brodbeck, in agreeing with WLU, are you arguing that in the interval since the publication of Duesberg's book, the loosely connected group of people commonly known as "AIDS Denialists" no longer believe that semen and fecal matter in the bloodstream is immunosuppressive and conducive to AIDS as a clinical condition? And that they now accept that antiretroviral drugs (so called) have "side effects" instead of one direct effect? Is this what your objection is to Duesberg's book as a reference -- that "AIDS Denialists" no longer agree with Duesberg on the importance of these two factors, and thus his book is obsolete as a footnote as I have used it?

Remember now, my point is that the lede should state clearly and without a POV what "denialists" believe and assert, not what is necessarily true. Thus the Duesberg footnote, which I offer as a reliable source of what "AIDS Denialists" think. It seems that you might be arguing that the book represents what "AIDS Denialists" thought.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

To the other editors as well: you have not addressed my objection that denialists as a term should not be used twice in the lede, and that replacing them with adherents and they improves neutrality with no loss of clarity. BruceSwanson (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply want to follow policy. That is all I, and I think the rest of us, are asking you to do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the mainstream scientific community calls them denialists, not adherents. The they or them or whatever afterward is simply reiterating adherents. It muddies the wording, and is also something that has been discussed over and over again in the talk page archives. JoeSmack Talk 04:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce, some of your suggestions are arguably reasonable. The problem is that it's glaringly obvious to everyone that your agenda here is diametrically opposed to this site's goals and policies. That makes it hard for people to take you seriously, or to engage you in any sort of productive discussion. MastCell Talk 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I normally just scan his posts for reference to some sort of source. Since I almost never see one, I never bother reading in detail.  Bruce has yet to learn that sources trump opinion despite this being pointed out to him nearly every post he makes.
 * As I said above, if we want a summary of what AIDS denialists believe, we're better off citing a mainstream scholar with experience in the area, like Seth Kalichman. Since Denying AIDS was published in 2010, we have a recent source, published by a social scientist on the subject, by a scholarly publisher, that summarizes the main proponents and their arguments about AIDS.  That's a far better source because it provides context and debunking simultaneously and we do not have to rely on our own opinions to distill what primary sources of AIDS denialist thought looks like.  So we still shouldn't be citing anything by Duesberg.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Prof. Brodbeck, you wrote, above, ''I simply want to follow policy. That is all I, and I think the rest of us, are asking you to do.'' I'm going to state that it is your opinion that the current wording of the lede is in conformity with NPOV; and that Peter Duesberg's Inventing the AIDS Virus is not a reliable source for what "AIDS Denialists" believe and assert.

With that, I offer to end this discussion. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am fine with it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce, you should note that Duesberg's book would never be a reliable source for any page except those of AIDS denialism. Even then a mainstream, reliable source like Denying AIDS, which gives an independent overview and context of the movement, would always be preferable.  Again, AIDS denialism is a fringe theory that carries no actual mainstream weight, is based on bad science and conspiracy-mongering, and a neutral presentation of it will always be one that portrays it in the appropriate, disparaging light.  Please abandon any home of achieving a version of the page that portrays AIDS denialism as anything but nonsense, unless there is an obvious sea-change in how AIDS is perceived in mainstream publications.  An unlikely possibility given the tens of thousands of articles published that converge on a single conclusion - HIV causes a deadly disease known as AIDS that is treated through antiretroviral drugs.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Another try
The original wording was unsourced. The additional two factors now listed (discussed above) are both standard elements in the "AIDS Denialist" canon, so their addition should not be a problem. I can't believe that Kalichman would assert otherwise. If he does, then WLU, who has apparently read Denying AIDS, should provide page numbers and contextual quotes. Note that the lede doesn't assert that the two added claims are true as scientific facts, merely that "AIDS Denialists" assert them as such. BruceSwanson (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is unsourced in the lead? There are now thirteen sources, the sole sentence that was unsourced ("Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication.") is now sourced to Kalichman.  I could attribute it to a chapter if other editors think this is necessary, but frankly I can't see your point as the lead, what we've been discussing so far, is both fully sourced and completely uncontroversial.  If you wish to verify this yourself, I would suggest reading the whole book but probably the most targetted section is "AIDS pseudoscience" starting on page 57.  Frankly, I don't feel like typing out contextual quotes and I don't feel like continuing an argument you are inevitably going to lose.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're going to criticize my edits or efforts to close a section based on clear consensus, you better stop claiming only "named editors" can rebut your points. It's bullshit, you have never had any support for that belief, and if you continue to insist upon it, I'm just going to start deleting your comments for civility, ]trolling, talk page guideline, soapbox, civil POV pushing and I didn't hear that issues.  Either play by our rules, or leave, but don't waste time selectively ignoring editors that don't play by your made up rules.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm reading what you're saying and, even If I'm not agree completely with Bruce, I think we must rewrite this article and add important info. Montagnier's and Barre Sinoussi's alternative theories(Cofactors like Oxidative Stress, Malnutrition, Mycoplasmas, Mycobacteria and Drug Abuse) are not present in this article and they should have an importance. Also, we can update the scientists/investigators list who claims themselves as "Denialists" and we can add some critical documents about the manipulation of statistics in AIDS pandemic. I do have several sources for this, the thing is: ¿will you accept them? ¿will you consider them as reliable, or will you just use your magic words like "soapboxing", "POV", "Trolling" and that stuff?? That's the real matter here...Milikguay (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to put "pro-AIDS denialism" information. There is no place on wikipedia for that.  Wikipedia takes the mainstream position that HIV causes AIDS, and there may be cofactors that accelerate or slow its progression.  Other theories are only noted according to their prominence within mainstream sources - this is not the page to comprehensively list every nutjob theory ever held by someone who denies AIDS.  Duesberg and others have claimed that these cofactors are causative of AIDS - that is why they are AIDS deniers.  The most important thing to note here is that they are wrong, and no we are not going to have a comprehensive list of all AIDS denialists.
 * A reliable source is one published by a body with a reputation for fact checking. There are specific guidelines for medically reliable sources, as well as fringe articles like this one.  If you are interested in what a reliable source is, you should read those articles.  We report the mainstream view of AIDS denialism - that it is dangerous pseudoscience.  The AIDS denialists do not get to air their views or tell there side on wikipedia.  You may list the sources you wish to use and what you wish to say with them, but the best sources are books like Seth Kalichman's who reviews the topic from a mainstream, critical perspective with an aim of demonstrating that it is fundamentally not based on science.  My "magic words" are the policies and guidelines that form the backbone and framework of community consensus on wikipedia, and are not something to be dismissed.  If anyone wants to edit wikipedia, they have to adhere to them.  Bruce has been systematically ignoring the ones he feels are inconvenient to his point of view, and this should stop.  If you have an axe to grind or a truth to express or a wrong to right, you are in the wrong spot.  Wikipedia reports the scientific consensus and specifically stands against giving unscientific minority opinions undue weight.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well stated. The article should reflect the mainstream sources with emphasis on academic treatments like Max Essex's review and Seth Kalichman's book. There is no room for apologetics and activism here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone specifically arguing here that the two phrases unprotected anal intercourse and direct effect of antiretroviral drugs should not be allowed a place in the lede-paragraph list of factors (recreational drug use, malnutrition, and poor sanitation) believed by "AIDS Denialists" to be non-HIV causes of AIDS? If so, please explain your reasoning so we can end this discussion once and for all. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * AIDS denialists believe many things. The lede is not a repository for all of them. For whichever of the main ideas we list, a reliable source is needed. Seth Kalichman is that reliable source. As to these two specific points, it doesn't seem that the anal intercourse theory of AIDS has many adherents anywhere, even amongst denialists. And "direct effect of antiretroviral drugs" is a contradiction in terms. Anything other than the main or intended result of a pharmacological treatment is a "side effect". These drugs are "antiretroviral". Hence, causing AIDS would be (would be) a side effect by definition, as currently stated in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added "sexual behaviour", aside from that it is fine. We shouldn't be putting in elaborate lists of what AIDS denialists believe.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU:

Please, stop believing that everyone who tries to improve this article is an AIDS denialist. At least, is not my case. Whilst you've mentioned Seth Kalichman's book, I was reading the french (original) version of this one: "Oxidative Stress in Cancer, AIDS and Other Neurodegenerative Diseases". You can find it in English in Amazon. This was written by Jean Luc Montagnier et al. There explains loud and clear (in a full chapter dedicated to AIDS) that HIV infection WILL NEVER HAPPEN with a reduced state of oxidative stress and biochemical malfunction (malnutrition and other factors) in the human organism. In few words, HIV itself does not causes AIDS and the human body can eliminate naturally the inmune deficiencies.

Between Kalichman's book (a sociological/political vision of AIDS Denialism, which almost considers every theory that regards that HIV is the only and necessary cause for AIDS as "pseudoscience" -what a misused word by the americans, by the way-) and Montagnier's book (a biochemical/medical "new" -for not saying dissident- vision on AIDS and other pathologies)... I'll keep Montagnier's!

(The only missing thing here would be that someone now will answer me saying "Jean Luc Montagnier, (the-real-discoverer-of-HIV-and-the-guy-who-since-the-begining-was-saying-in-several-researches-that-HIV-needs-cofactors-for-being-dangerous-and-by-itself-does-nothing) is not a reliable source". That would be magnifficent!!

You wrote that "...there may be cofactors that accelerate or slow its progression..." but that's another misconception. Denialists argues that "CoFactors are needed and they are even as Important as HIV. Without them, THERE IS NO INFECTION". Is completely different. I haven't read neither here or in AIDS official article this statement, so? What happens? Why can't we include this important information here or in AIDS official page, since many investigators are claiming this? (Now another guy will appear and say "you are against Wikipedia's Guidelines..." "This is a POV problem...")

This is one of many investigations I have (and believe me, I have several ones, both denialists and officialists). Made by Marco Ruggiero MD. PhD. in Molecular Biology. Awarded in the European Union for "Brilliant Medical Researches". Emeritus and Full Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, University of Firenze, Italy (such a stupid guy, isn't he?) where he claims that HIV is harmless (by logic deductions, he is a denialist).

(Now, someone will claim that I'm just soapboxing and that this is an unreliable source. And even someone will say "we can't put every nutjob believe of AIDS denialsts. This is not a "pro denialist" article because they are all mistaken)

So, once again I will ask this: ¿can we make critical improvements on this article, which is right now, non neutral and non updated?

Milikguay (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times does it need to be said that we use independent secondary sources as the backbone of our articles? If Marco Ruggiero's theories are so prominent, someone independent of the denialist movement will have addressed them. Present those sources, and we have something to talk about. List a bunch of websites from denialist, and you do not understand the concept of reliable source or due weight.Yobol (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Milikguay the argument from authority will get you absolutely nowhere. Yobol is indeed correct, secondary sources are the key. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When the effort to "improve the page" consists of efforts to portray AIDS denialists are correct, it doesn't really matter if the person is an AIDS denialist or not. Their efforts are misguided and should be corrected.  Citing a book from 1998 won't really help, and citing the opinion of one scientist also won't help when that scientist is a lone voice.  Oxidative stress seems to be problematic after HIV infection, but is not causitive of AIDS, .  And unless Dr. Ruggiero has published any papers on HIV/AIDS in peer reviewed journals, they are not worth discussing.  Medical Hypotheses doesn't count.  Incidentally, we can't use pro-denialist articles because they are mistaken.  But anyway, this is repetitive, you've got your answer, and we're done.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruggiero has published at least one commentary on HIV/AIDS, and it was in fact in Medical Hypotheses. It was later retracted by that journal, in response to "serious expressions of concern" about its quality; see . To put it gently, if a paper is withdrawn because it's not good enough for Medical Hypotheses, then we probably shouldn't use it as a source here. MastCell Talk 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just add that, per our talk page guidelines, AIDS denialism advocacy and attempts to debate the subject are inappropriate. Also, nowhere does Montagnier say that HIV does not have a role in AIDS; implying otherwise is unacceptable per the living persons guidelines. Please know that in future I will delete violations like this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ANSWERS TO SOME EDITORS
YOBOL AND DBRODBECK

I think it would be quite better if you tell me which sources are independent and reliable, as til this day nothing that I'm presenting you is good enough. I don't know why, indeed, but seems to me that you always find an excuse or an argument for not accepting this important independent investigations. Ruggiero's work is available in the official page of the University of Firenze (same where Galileo Galilei taught). That seems to me quite independent. But, as you've said "if they were important, some dissident would have adressed them", well, I can tell you, he is referenced. You can find links of his works everywhere. By the way, Ruggiero's work earned an PhD and many regards in Europe, look for it!
 * I cannot speak for Yobol, but I can say that 1) I don't care who else taught there in the past, or now, or if Wayne Gretzky played for their hockey team. 2) Secondary, peer reviewed sources as well, are the key, please read WP:MEDRS. The 'reference' you provided is hardly a WP:MEDRS  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MASTCELL

I've read about it in AIDSTruth. About Ruggiero and Duesberg works being withdrawn from MedHypo/Elsevier. ¿Does that really matters? I mean, for more than twenty years I've been reading and regarding scientifical papers, so I can make conclusions on my own and my understanding tells me that the withdrawal has nothing to do with "scientifical quality" as alleged and until this day I still can't figure out the reasons of the removal. I have those papers, if you want to read them. In Europe is quite easy to find them (published and uncensored), no need for looking into Elsevier or those places. At least, I do not use those sites.

KEEPCALMANDCARRYON

Montagnier has been claiming since 1992 that HIV is necessary but insufficient by itself for causing AIDS and, instead of using ARV HAART treatments, other measures can be applied. I gave several links before and I do have researches as well in many languages. Look for them (there are many more) and make yourself an opinion about it. Many books and papers have been published. And we don't need those "erasing" threats. You sound like a Grand Inquisitor of the Wikipedia Order like that. We are all rational and neutral (at least most of us) guys who are discussing this important subject for the sake of science. Don't worry. Nothing evil will happen here. We promise.

WLU

Have you read this 1998 book? Which conclusions did you take from it? Being an re-edited book (you can find the 2009 version in Amazon) means nothing? Anyway.

I'll offer you this new file. Published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2010 (and in other important scientific sources, right now I can't recall them). Is made by Etienne de Harven MD, PhD. Expert in electronic microscopy and Emeritus Professor of Pathology and Cells Biology in the Universities of Bruxelles and Toronto. States that HIV is not an exogenous pathological virus but an harmless HERV, acording to the New German Medicine Journal (in spanish, because I don't know why the heck is impossible to find this article in English, it's so weird...). And in a large abstract he resumes most of the dissident positions and why AIDS theories should be rediscussed. You can find the full investigation at J.A.P.S. Is this wrong without any doubt? Is this an unreliable and depicable investigation, once again? Is this Etienne de Harven, the first guy that produced the world's first description of a retrovirus budding on the surface of infected cells, so stupidly wrong? Why this hypothesis and theories cannot be accepted, as I read lots of hypothesis and theories in the official AIDS page?

Believe me, none, I repeat, none of any editors here gave me an undisputable answer, but evasives and evasives.

Milikguay (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but if you believe that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is worth discussing as a reliable source, then you should really follow the wikilink you provided. Take some time and look through this site's guidelines on appropriate sources (at WP:RS and WP:MEDRS). Do you think that the sources you're citing meet the bar set there? MastCell Talk 05:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shunning
Since BruceSwanson and Milkguy aren't interested in adhering to the scientific consensus or wikipedia's policies, I propose a single notification to the FAQ at the top of this page, shunning them and reverting their contributions to mainspace (unless somehow there is a worthwhile edit involved). We have been treating this talk page discussion as if it were a rational one and we convince people. Bruce is not changing his mind and I'm sick of playing word games, Milkguy hasn't come up with a real reliable source and is either not reading or not understanding the policies referred to. They have wasted enough editors' time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

KeepCalm, above, wrote ''And "direct effect of antiretroviral drugs" is a contradiction in terms. Anything other than the main or intended result of a pharmacological treatment is a "side effect". These drugs are "antiretroviral". Hence, causing AIDS would be (would be) a side effect by definition, as currently stated in the article. However, as I wrote earlier above, "denialists" assert that there is no other effect to be had from taking antiretrovirals save that of a universal antibacterial -- the drugs slay all DNA in dividing cells they interact with, HIV-infected or not, with a fine impartiality -- or so the "denialists" believe.'' In other words, "denialists" assert that "antiretroviral" drugs are not antiretroviral. There is only one effect: Peter Duesberg's "Death by prescription." Again, this is what the "denialists" themselves assert. WLU wrote above, There is apparently some sort of selective illiteracy happening. There is indeed. Try to understand this: the lede should state what the "denialists" themselves assert and believe, not what is necessarily true or false.

I suspect that KeepCalm, WLU, and MastCell are afraid that the changes I have posted will resonate with readers as reflecting common sense.

In the absence of any coherent reply to these comments, I will again post the changes in the lede I have discussed here. BruceSwanson (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on Bruce, that's not what going on at all. After about the sixth or seventh time around at the same thing, it gets a little tiring, thus the WP:SHUN concept. If you put nearly as much energy into reviewing the talk page archives where this kind of stuff is rehashed again and again, this wouldn't have to be so protracted. JoeSmack Talk 17:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, your posts reflect nothing but your inability to think critically about HIV/AIDS. So far the single source you have cited is Peter Duesberg - a discredited denialist whose views will not be given equal weight with well-established and reproducible research. And with that, I also shun you. Skinwalker (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * JoeSmack, the reason it keeps going around is because it has never been resolved. Consider Skinwalker's comment above (in which he sounds distinctly like WLU). He calls Duesberg a discredited denialist. But since when does that make Duesberg's own book an unreliable source for what he (and by implication, other "denialists") believe? Are "denialists" to be denied even their own beliefs in their own words? Apparently so. But I'd like to hear a real-name editor actually defend that position in print. BruceSwanson (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All anyone is asking is that you follow Identifying reliable sources (medicine). JoeSmack Talk 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead
I've modified the lead to say "Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they resort to special pleading to explain different causes in different locations; in North America it is attributed to sexual behaviour and the use of recreational drugs while in Africa AIDS denialists claim that malnutrition and poor sanitation cause AIDS, and in HIV positive individuals with none of these factors, AIDS is attributed to the side effects of antiretroviral drugs. In each case, the denialists cherry pick scientific results that support their arguments and ignore data that contradicts it, while downplaying or ignoring unifying factor of HIV in all patients."  That's fairly heavy on detail and acknowledges many of the specific special pleading undertaken by denialists. Is it too much detail? Is it repetitive, particularly given the following section? It could easily be shortened by removing everything between "in North America" and "that contradicts it" inclusive. This would read: "Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they resort to special pleading to explain different causes in different locations while downplaying or ignoring unifying factor of HIV in all patients." Alternatively: "Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they resort to special pleading to explain different causes in different locations. In each case, the denialists cherry pick scientific results that support their arguments and ignore data that contradicts it, while downplaying or ignoring unifying factor of HIV in all patients." Any opinions? My concern with including the individual examples is that it gives the appearance of an actual argument, but emphasizing that it requires a different argument (special pleading) for each location is also quite absurd given the contortions needed to fit the line to each data point. It's bad science, it's not even great PR, and it may still give the impression that denialists have a point when they don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to use the term "special pleading" - it's a bit heavy-handed and obscure. I think it will be obvious to the reader (at least any reader familiar with Occam's razor or common sense) that invoking so many disparate and far-fetched etiologies is a bit desperate, but we don't need to beat people over the head with it. I actually prefer the older language - that is, "insofar as AIDS denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to..." I'd also prefer to attribute the rejection of AIDS denialism (and the charge of cherry-picking) to the scientific community, rather than pronouncing it in the editorial voice. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 00:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mastcell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. BruceSwanson (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've removed hemophilia from the lead, has there been any instances of a hemophiliac getting AIDS since they implemented screening?  It's not a significant population in which HIV is a problem anymore.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hemophiliacs are significant as one of the more obvious disproofs of Duesberg's claims. Because these patients didn't fall into Duesberg's "risk groups" (gay men, drug users), they provided a clear test of his claims. As it turned out, HIV-positive hemophiliacs developed AIDS while those who were HIV-negative did not. This was regarded as a fairly clear disproof of Duesberg's "risk-AIDS" claims. See, for example, ("Duesberg and critics agree: hemophilia is the best test", Science 1994). I don't think we need to mention this in the lead, necessarily, but if we get into a detailed description of why the scientific community thinks Duesberg's claims are nonsense, then the hemophilia issue might come up. MastCell Talk 05:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, but that turd needs some polishing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hemophilia
Apparently the basics of HIV/AIDS can trip up even professionals in the medical field. Regarding the 1994 Science article, MastCell wrote, above, HIV-positive hemophiliacs developed AIDS while those who were HIV-negative did not. But as Duesberg points out in the same article (now a footnote in the lede), HIV-negative hemophiliacs can and do come down with and die from the same diseases that HIV-positive hemophiliacs do. But since they are HIV-negative, their conditions are not defined as AIDS. Duesberg makes the further point that HIV, being rare anyway, is actually just a marker for the quantity of blood or factor VIII transfused into a patient. Some of the clinicians mentioned in the article dispute that, but in 1994 when the article was published, there wasn't enough data to prove a conclusion. Seventeen years later, that's still the case -- which is rather curious. One would have thought otherwise. Or perhaps it isn't so curious. BruceSwanson (talk)
 * No, actually Duesberg was wrong in those assertions, which were a rather sad attempt to salvage his claims when they didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. To address only one aspect, the mortality rate in hemophiliacs strongly correlates with HIV seropositivity even within cohorts with the same degree of hemophilia, and thus the same blood-product requirements. If you're honestly interested in understanding why Duesberg was wrong about hemophiliacs, you can start with and . If you're not honestly interested, then at least recognize that this talk page isn't a place to expound, or correct, editorial ignorance about HIV/AIDS. MastCell Talk 04:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, you appear to have read over the studies. I direct this question to you: does either study specify whether the HIV+ hemophiliacs studied were also on AZT after it was approved in 1987? If they don't, what is the value of the studies? BruceSwanson (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If you want to discuss this, I want you to read the studies. In an ideal world, you would also think critically about your own assumptions. Let's suppose - for the sake of argument - that the mortality rate among HIV-positive hemophiliacs began rising significantly in the years before AZT was introduced. Let's assume it also fell off dramatically after the introduction of modern combination antiretroviral therapy in 1996. In that case, you tell me - what is the value of the studies? MastCell Talk 05:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Studies are always valid, dudes. Nothing can be taken as a truth religiously. Everything must be tested and proved. This is for both of you, MastCell and Bruce. Milikguay (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the studies. They do not indicate whether the HIV+ hemophiliacs were or weren't taking AZT after 1987. That blitzes the studies' validity completely because after 1987, HIV+ hemophiliacs in studies were almost certainly taking AZT in the high dosages used at the time. It would have been considered unethical (and possibly illegal) to require them to not take it for the purposes of the study.

As for your scenario above, the mortality rate for HIV- hemophiliacs rose too. The cause for both negatives and positives is known: contaminated Factor VIII. (And remember Duesberg's -- he's an "AIDS Denialist" and this article is about "AIDS Denialism" -- argument that HIV, being rare anyway, was just a marker for quantity of transfusions, thus the higher mortality for HIV+ hemophiliacs even without AZT.) According to, AIDS deaths declined among HIV+ hemophiliacs after 1996, (the antiretroviral dosages were lower by then, weren't they?) but their deaths from liver disease remained high (dosages still not low enough). Most of the subjects, HIV-positive or not, had livers diseased with hepatitis, but of course the HIV+ were on "modern" combination antiretroviral therapy, known to impact liver function to the point of death -- depending on the dose, of course.

The conventional HIV/AIDS hypothesis contends that AZT was a critical lifesaver. I think you're trying to back out of that argument for hemophiliacs by citing the reduction in their AIDS rates (if not liver disease) after 1996 instead of 1987, and attributing the change to "modern" (i.e., lower-dose) treatments. Most of the subjects had hepatitis, but the HIV+ hemophiliacs took either high-dose, single-drug AZT, or relatively lower-dose HAART. Quitting the former and starting the latter apparently resulted in fewer AIDS cases (or AIDS-by-prescription cases, as the "denialists" would say). Doesn't that reveal the earlier higher-dosage AZT, formerly seen as a life-saver, to be a killer from 1987 to 1996? And isn't that what Duesberg argues in the Science reference? And so, shouldn't that argument have a place in this article? BruceSwanson (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, frankly, too concentrated a collection of misstatements and ignorance for me to address concisely; nearly every sentence is deserving of detailed correction. I forgot that you also deny the existence of hepatitis C. Although I suppose should thank you, since I am a bit closer to bingo; you've given me #53 and #54. MastCell Talk 04:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Bruce. Perhaps it reveals it. "PERHAPS". But it is just an hypothesis, as most of AIDS research. How funny, by the way, that some guys take this discussions as a game. Milikguay (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell, that was totally unfair. I didn't even know we were playing.  Not only that, but no one ever wins that game.  -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Gish gallop is a tried, tested and true way to give the impression of having an argument when you don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for teaching me another useful term! -- Scray (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't link to unreliable sources, particuarly when there are reliable sources available that not only lay out the claims, they point out where they are wrong.
 * Bruce, you keep citing Peter Duesberg as if his opinion on HIV-AIDS mattered. It doesn't.  We're not here to debate whether HIV causes AIDS and pointing to Duesberg as a source hinders your argument, it doesn't help it.  We realize you are convinced that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or whatever.  We don't care.  The scientific consensus is clear - HIV causes AIDS and Peter Duesberg doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to either topic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep on disregarding and demeriting opinions and well based studies of a World Renown researcher as Peter Duesberg (at least, here in the European Union he is highly regarded). He is not a "saint" for me, but his words should be taken in count, as he is risking his career and prestige by exposing his opinions. And what's funny is that he is not the only one. Of course, Bruce should start to find other guys investigations, so we can read and conclude that Duesberg is not the only one in the Denialist Research. But you all should remember this: "The best propaganda, after a funeral, is demerit and censorship". Milikguay (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, Wikipedia is not censored. We're just following content guidelines as spelled out in length at WP:MEDRS. JoeSmack Talk 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Duesberg is not an AIDS researcher. That's why.  It's a commonality to essentially all AIDS denialists - none actually work with AIDS.  This is actually referenced in the page itself.  Would you go to Peter Duesberg for advice about computer security?  Or how to send a man to the moon?  That's why no-one listens to Peter Duesberg about AIDS - in addition to grossly misrepresenting the evidence available.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly where the guys who defend the official AIDS theory make their mistakes. They use sophisms to uphold their answers when something "dangerous" appear. For instance (and this is something NO ONE ANSWERS ME PROPERLY), why the opinions of a PhD. in Biochemistry, postdoctored in Virology and Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology like Peter Duesberg are not relevant?? Because he has not a postdoctorate degree in HIV?? Where should you go to study or investigate for becoming a Grand Lord of the HIV research?? That's what annoys me the most about this matter. This "Godlike HIV-ists or HIV experts" behavior as Grand Inquisitors, as if the only important opinion of the subject is what they propose.


 * So, I will answer WLU question. No, I won't take advise from Duesberg because he is not an expert in computers or space aeronautics. But as he is a world renown investigator in Cell Biology, Postdoctored in Virology and PhD in Biochemistry, his opinions on this subject should be taken in count. I repeat, I'm not saying "he is right". I'm just saying "should be taken in count".


 * Another point (and this is so funny, because at the beginning of this page, you find the "FAQ" and that stuff, but even from that place the sophisms camperly take place) on which every guy with enough knowledge (and I mean REAL KNOWLEDGE, because many people here are probably philosophers, historians, sociologists, but few are scientific editors, I know this) of science will laugh, for the statement that "Kary Mullis opinions are irrelevant, as he is the inventor of PCR but not an AIDS researcher". Paradox!!


 * Kary Mullis's PCR is used for the modern diagnose of AIDS (I believe you are all awared of that, don't you?) But himself claims that "it does not work for doing that, it is not for detecting HIV".


 * So, as WLU made some rhetorical questions and I took some time for answering them, as a gentleman (using my own logic, not shielding me in external links or Wiki Guidelines), I ask this question for every random editor who wants to answer it: ¿who will you believe, Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR method, who claims that his creation is not able to detect HIV (for several reasons which he explains, look for them if you like); or you will believe the guys who make money by manufacturing/selling/using PCR? Milikguay (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to debate the question. Suffice to say that Duesberg's views have been taken quite seriously, and investigated and tested quite rigorously by HIV/AIDS researchers. In the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, though, piece after piece of evidence became available refuting each of Duesberg's claims. Today, in 2011, no one takes Duesberg's claims seriously, but that's not "censorship" - it's a function of the fact that they've been investigated and systematically shown to be incorrect. The fact that Duesberg and others persist in advancing these claims in the face of overwhelming evidence of their falsity is probably what has led to use of the term "denialism". MastCell Talk 04:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Milikguay, I have answered your question - Duesberg isn't an AIDS researcher (he's at best an "informed" armchair theorist who is now grinding an axe) whose opinions are flat-out rejected by the scientific community. So why should we care about his opinion when there are thousands of researchers with specific expertise and active research programs on HIV who say he is wrong, repeatedly? We shouldn't. For you to claim I'm hiding behind guidelines means you don't understand the purpose of wikipedia. We are not a forum for debating, nor are we a place to publish original research. We cite the real experts, we don't shout "BIG PHARMA" then ignore everything we disagree with. Milikguay, you've had your questions answered repeatedly - through reference to sources and the extremely important policies and guidelines. If you don't like the answers, you are in the wrong online venue and should leave. The P&G are ways of ensuring wikipedia maintains a high standard of scholarship and keeping the nutters away. This tends to piss off people who embrace nonsense and pseudoscience, but frankly we're not really interested in what they have to say.

You have your answer. Accept it or leave. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Membership of Perth Group
The following information in this article, "AIDS Denialism", has no source and is factually incorrect: 'Organizations of AIDS denialists include the "Perth Group", composed of two Australian hospital workers.'

The Perth Group states at its website, http://www.theperthgroup.com/aboutpg.html, that it originally had three members and that its membership has varied over the years. There is no statement anywhere that it has two members or ever had. Since the incorrect information in the article has no source, I will remove it. I have no problem with other aspects of the article, but it cannot retain this mistaken and unsourced claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.117.135 (talk)
 * Tagging to allow for archiving. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My edit reverted
Orangemarlin, please explain what about my edit you don't like, and also, you put "Reverted good faith edits" as your edit summary, you shouldn't go rant on my talk page as if you thought I was vandalizing. Thank you for discussing. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and failure to come to explain will mean your revert will be temporarily undone until you discuss. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I'm not the only one who finds you a difficult editor. I've never seen a page with more warnings.  My rejection of your edits was more than adequately explained in the edit summary.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the edit summary does a fine job of explaining my objections as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Orange, What changes are incorrect? What changes "are WP:WEASEl." You need to specify. And you also need to stop with your ad hominem logic, because the only reason your talkpage isn't filled with discussions starting with a warning sign is because you delete anything you consider derogatory on your talk page.
 * Dbrod, you had no edit summaries. Actually, no edits. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to OM's edit summary reverting what you added, sorry for the confusion. If you look a little harder, I have edited here before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, sorry I thought you were talking about your own summary. Whoops. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a while now, and Orange still haven't specified what parts of my edits he did not like. I'll temporarily redo the edit just so that he'll come back to discuss, because he's gone right now. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And your edits got reverted again. It's your job to provide a reason to keep them.  Sorry dude.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, stating something on talk without getting anything close to a consensus is not de facto support for your edits. No wonder you've been warned a huge number of times on your talk page.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude. I told you to specify what parts of my edits you don't like nearly a week ago, and you never answered. I temporarily redid the edit just so you'll come back. I didn't hurt you so calm down, nothing to get angry about. Please just say what parts of my edits you didn't like, so I'll know you reasons instead of just vague comments like "it's not good" or "it breaks policies" with out stating what change does what you don't like. It's like saying, "I don't like the bible because it is unmoral." Those reasons are too vague. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And don't pretend you forgot to look at what I said, because it says as clear as day on your talkpage that your discussions are watchlisted. Seriously, your lack of explanation wont disappear on its own regardless of how long you're ignoring it. Please just come and discuss... what can you possibly lose from it? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to provide a reason as to why your edits improve the page. I am sure they do not, and so is OM.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I don't like the bible because it is immoral" "It is the bible's job to explain why it isn't immoral, not my job to explain why"
 * But I will explain anyway. The "completely" in "some denialists completely reject the existence of HIV" is meant to clarify how they are denying more than other denialists. The "generally" in "they generally attribute it to some combination" is meant to clarify that not all of them use all of those excuses. The "overwhelming majority of the" in "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive," is added, because without it the sentence sounds like as if the scientific community is some small organization to readers who are new to the subject. The comma is there to improve grammar. The "improbable" in "AIDS-denialist claims as improbable pseudoscience " is simply true, for the scientists who do reject the denialism do see it as improbable, if you check the sources. The "fringe theories" in "based on fringe theories " is put there because the denial is unlikely and only motivated by religion, but generally doesn't claim for the existence of any kind of conspiracy. The "misinterpretation" in "misinterpretation of mainly outdated scientific data" is put to clarify that the data was never ever meant to say what denialist think they say. The "outside of the scientific community" in "AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet outside of the scientific community" is added to clarify that it isn't spread in the part of the internet within the realm of the scientific community. The "evidence" in "Despite its lack of scientific evidence" clarifies that it is evidence, and not merely acceptance, as denialists never literally made any evidence. I'll get to the others later. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mate, stop trying to add important info or grammar/semantic improvements to this article, as they will just accept info THEY LIKE AND ADMIT. Months ago I tried to add critical new facts and related info about this subject (at least, in Europe is considered CRITICAL information), but they just simply ignored them, bypassed them... So, you are wasting your time. This place is more for defending a cause rather than accepting that worldwide recognized scientists are taking new ideas about AIDS. Some weeks ago, I added new points of view (mostly dissident ones) presented in peer reviewed journals of Europe, accepted by several important societies... But no! So, there are two possible conclusions for this: Or the European scientists and their journals are pointless and stupid... Or in this page can only be accepted "selected kinds" of info... Is up to you, mate, to figure out which one... By the way, it would be nice to know, at least, your nickname. Regards to all of you, from Edinburgh, UK. Milikguay (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean this? Let's review.  No reliable sources.  Giving undue weight to something not confirmed by anyone.  I could go on.  I don't like or not like anything.  I want exquisitely reliable sources that support any statement in a medical article.  You brought what could be generously called crap references.  You gave links to a variety of medical societies and journals, but not one single article or statement.  Except the thoroughly debunked (and by thoroughly, I mean 99.99% of the research debunks it) Duesberg denialism.  And frankly, the strawman that we hate European science is laughable.  We hate bad science.  The fact is that almost every European virologist (and when I mean almost, I mean something around 99.99%) are not AIDS denialists.  You tried to edit in your opinion supported by not one bit of evidence.  So, I would suggest you take your conspiracies and bad faith to the Society of Science Denialism, Homeopathy and Creationism.  You'll find a good audience there!   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual, OM has crystallized my thoughts perfectly. Try reading some policy boys, rather than claiming conspiracies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And where is, can you enlight me, Orangemarlin, the source upon which you base that the 99.99% of the European Virologists are not AIDS denialists and that the 99.99% of the research debunks Duesberg's works??


 * I gave you these abstracts: Results of Epidemiological Surveillance of AIDS Cases in Tuscany by Branca, Pacini and Ruggiero. 1, Meta-Analysis and Update on the General AIDS Epidemics Predicted for Africa by Duesberg, Mandrioli, McCormack, Nicholson, Del Popolo, Rasnick, Fiala, Koehnlein and Bauer.2 (an updated work which confirms many of Duesberg's predictions), Effects of Cadmium and Gc-Macrophage Activating Factor (GcMAF) on Intracellular HIV Targets in Normal and Transformed Human Breast Cells by Gabriele Morucci and Tiziana Punzi.  3 and Toward Improvements in HIV Epidemiology by Galletti, Pacini, Moracci and Bauer. 4, all of them peer reviewed, published in several European Science Magazines. Peer Reviewed Journal "Infection" (sponsored by the German Society for Infectious Diseases, Paul Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy, German Sepsis Society, Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, with the cooperation, among several important societies, of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, European Society of Chemotherapy Infectious Diseases, Swiss Society for Infectious Diseases) was the first one to publish this information; you can read the abstracts or the magazine itself [Infection, March 2011 http://www.springer.com/medicine/internal/journal/15010] if you wish. Do you consider this "bad science"? Under which criteria? Because, according to the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (by citing a name) it is not... Enlightme, please! I'm just a Biotech Engineer from Edinburgh. Regards to all of you. Milikguay (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say, those are abstracts - they are definitely not reliable sources, not peer-reviewed publications. Presentation of an abstract at a meeting (and publication in a "proceedings" from the meeting) involves neither full peer-review nor endorsement by the society sponsoring the meeting.  Financial support by a foundation or other entity does not indicate endorsement of results, either.  As OrangeMarlin has said, you really need to review the criteria for reliable sources; it is clear you don't understand them.  -- Scray (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, what do all of the authors listed above have in common? They are not HIV researchers. Theirs could not possibly be considered expert opinions by encyclopaedia editors. There are certain standards for scholarship in the scientific community and on Wikipedia. The work these people produce does not meet them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Milikguay, you really don't even know what you're talking about if you consider meeting abstracts/posters "peer reviewed" literature that meets WP:MEDRS. These are commonplace in publications associated with specific meetings and the threshold for inclusion is almost always extraordinarily minimal. I've never known anyone that had an abstract denied for a meeting... This edit was not appropriate per long-standing editing policies/guidelines/consensuses. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of your comments, in particular that abstract acceptance at a meeting is a very low bar (and not sufficient for reliable source status. In the interest of accuracy, some meetings are pretty selective; apropos this topic, less than half of the abstracts submitted to CROI are accepted (here is a comment on the 47% acceptance rate in 2001; thus, hundreds were declined).  -- Scray (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken--there is certainly wide variance between scientific fields and within a given field's array of meetings. Just to clarify, for Milikguay if nobody else: the process of abstract selection is fundamentally different from peer review. Even for selective meetings there is almost never substantive reviews of methodologies and data interpretations that approach those of submitted publications. This is because meeting presentations play a different (though important) role than peer reviewed manuscripts: providing a format for presenting in-progress unpublished data to stimulate discussions and collaborations. The abstracts presented at meetings run by societies with their own journals are often collated into the published journal; I know of no case in which any peer review occurs in this publishing process beyond the permissive initial meeting approval. &mdash; Scientizzle 13:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, guys... you know that "expertise" is defined differently in the AIDS-denialist world. After all, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos was described as an expert on HIV/AIDS because she studied mathematics as an undergraduate - and all science, including biology and virology, is based on mathematics. Also, she has an undergraduate degree in physics, and "physics" and "physician" come from the same Greek root, so she's an expert on HIV/AIDS. QED. (Note: these are actual claims to expertise made in court; see, sections 45 and 77). MastCell Talk 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great point, MastCell. Consider, too, that anyone can get a grant and do some epidemiology or mass spectrometry; it takes a great mind to disprove the virus-disease association using Jacques Derrida. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bloody Hell! I'm not intending to offend someone here, but I can't figure out how will you be able to understand a scientific text if you don't find out the point of a simple wiki-discussion post?? I've wrote those abstracts (that were presented, by the way, with the allowance of the International AIDS Society were published for the first time by the peer reviewed European Magazine "Infection". Whether you like it or not, it is a renown peer reviewed source (at least here, in Europe) sponsored by important science entities I've cited above. So, I don't know why can't we add here some important epidemiology new data that proves many of Duesberg's Hypothesis to be correct, making a direct challenge to the official hypo... Is not "misrepresenting" or "cherry picking". Is just to accept the truth...


 * Potential WP:BLP violations removed.


 * Please, I beg of you... I've done this question a long time ago, no one gives me a clear answer. Must he/she be american, from the CDC or the NIH and a supporter of the AIDS official theory to be considered a reliable investigator? The peer reviewed journal must contain officialist theories to be considered reliable?


 * I'm not accusing anybody of conspiracies here (fringe, the american word). But I'm only asking a little bit of honesty and open-minded non-biased criteria (as required in everything related to science subjects) in this important matter. That's all, fellows. Greetings from Edinburgh.Milikguay (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell yourself. ← this is the link to the PubMed citation of the ICAR2011 abstracts. They are meeting communications. As discussed above, clearly & repeatedly, this is not the same thing as peer reviewed manuscripts. A comparison might be a letter to the editor published in a similar journal. For some of the open-access journals the bar for a letter to be published is very low, others set it higher. In all cases, however, letters to the editor are not "peer reviewed" in the understood sense of the term, colloquially, professionally, and on Wikipedia. How do you not understand this? &mdash; Scientizzle 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the end of this discussion. Milikguay clearly refuses to understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements and is attempting to promote denialism on the talk page. Further plaidoyers will be removed in accordance with WP:TALK. I would also advise Milikguay to consult WP:BLP and take care when comparing living persons to fascist dictators, denialists or not, sarcastically or not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

edits
This is getting frustrating. The editor keeps bringing the same poorly sourced commentary, synthesizes new conclusions, and makes rash edits. This has been discussed for a couple of weeks, and we're not getting anywhere. There is no consensus to use unreliable sources to make those edits, in fact, there is a strong consensus that the edits are not acceptable. All we get is strawman arguments about Ph.D.'s in virology, employees of the CDC and FDA, or Americans (gulp, Americans???? Didn't a French team find the HIV virus?). This is tendentious editing. If Milikquay as something to bring that we can all agree is notable, reliable, and informative, then bring it. But these pathetically unreliable sources....stop. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Well, if you refer, Orange, to that previous discussion... Yes, alright. My fault. The only thing happening is that, sometimes, I can't understand some criteria used. I always asked from the elder editors of this page to create a list of which sources can we consider "good ones" and which others "bad ones"...


 * Anyway, now I'm presenting new info. Is something presented by the denialists. Is Etienne de Harven's position of HIV as an HERV. It was published last year and caused some disrupt among them, specially with the Perth Group. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons presented it. Well, they are not the most reliable source of the world, but it is a somehow acceptable source from the denialist guys. We should remember that is quite difficult to find published works/hypothesis from them, so even if it was presented by the jpands, not the brightest peer reviewed publication, makes it a little bit more respectable than what's usual.


 * What I'm intending to add in the "history" section of the article is Etienne de Harven's hypo, presented by the jpands last year. De Harven is one of the few known scientists of the denialist world (he is a pioneer in retrovirus research, worked alongside Charlotte Friend and many of his investigations were published by the National Institutes of Health), and he states that HIV, rather than an exogenous virus, could be an non-pathogenous-by-itself HERV (human endogenous retroviruses), according to the available data. Besides, his name should be included between the denialist community, as he is the president of Rethinking AIDS nowadays...


 * By the way, in that paragraph related to Lynn Margulis, well, three points into the brackets are missing. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a discredited journal that hardly qualifies as a reliable source; the journal's sole purpose is to push a right wing agenda, including publishing AIDS denialism.. Don't even try to use it, unless you get consensus.  Speaking of which, stating "what I'm intending to add.." implies that you still don't understand or appreciate WP:CONSENSUS.  You seem to think that putting a statement here, that gives you permission to put in the AIDS denialism POV.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If de Harven is such an important role in the denialist community, there should be plenty of actual RS that document so. We should not and cannot rely on poor sources such as JPandS. Yobol (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Milikguay, it would really help if when you're not sure if a source meets Wikipedia criteria that you post in an article's talk page before you add information from it. When it comes to controversial articles such as this one, it would be helpful if you discussed any changes you plan to make (beyond grammar/spelling) on the talk page before you edit the article. To be really straight with you, if you keep trying to force things into the article without discussion it is likely that non of what you contribute will stick. I know you feel passionate about this subject and I hope that you can find a way to contribute, but you have to follow the proper channels. Noformation (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advises, guys. I'll try to learn from you and do my best. I think we should accept De Harven's hypothesis into the "History" section. Is recent, interesting and in the history of the denialism, is important because caused a greater disrupt between denialists groups. I know that the jpands is not the finest source, but is somehow "acceptable" considering that, most of the times, denialists hypos never reach publication not even in the most biased and bizarre scientific magazines nowadays. In French Wiki, his hypothesis are present in the main article. And we should add his name between "the denialists" as he is the most important european denialist (considering that Duesberg lives in USA). He is the honorary president in Rethinking AIDS, I've just read it. Milikguay (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikguay (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Find an acceptable source, and it can go in. JPandS is not acceptable. Certainly if he is such as prominent as you make him out to be, then he will be identified as such by independent reliable sources. What appears in the French wiki is not really of our concern. Yobol (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll try to find something better. But I disagree with you in this point, Yobol: we really should care about the worldwide vision about the subject, as Wiki intends to be a global encyclopedic reference, specially because of this: English is by far the most spoken language worldwide, so the English Wiki Portal should contain a wider spectrum of the matter, not just the American or British vision of this. In Europe, for example, the term of reference is mostly "HIV Denialism" rather than "AIDS Denialism". But I think you've discussed this before, I won't go into that. What I'm just saying is that there are important denialists in Europe, too, not just in America. Etienne de Harven is one of them. Anyway, I'll look forward for best information. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? AIDS denialism is rejected in Europe and Asia too.  You look at it from a Euro point of view and think that somehow Euros have miraculously discovered that AIDS is not caused by HIV?  That is blatantly untrue.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * AIDS denialism has been exported to other countries too. With tragic results. bobrayner (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a horseshit waste of time. AIDS denialism is simple quackery and rank nonsense.  There is essentially no evidence that can be presented to support it without massive change in the research community's understanding of AIDS, which is unlikely given how damned successful it has been.  Until that unlikely event happens, we should only treat AIDS denialism as a discredited fringe theory with no weight in the scholarly community, promoted only by the ignorant, malicious or ideologically lost.  We should not encourage Milkguay to edit the page with anything but a critical eye.  It wastes our time and will do nothing but prolong a worthless discussion.  Milkguay, you will not find any credible support for AIDS denialism, and you should not post further on the talk page unless it is to suggest minor changes or to acknowledge information from the scholarly consensus that HIV causes AIDS is missing.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Orange, I don't know what happens in Asia, I'll investigate it as soon as I can. But in Europe there are some appraisements about HIV AIDS. Look for the statements of the Euro Parliament, at Strasbourg, what thinks most recently the Italian, Russian and Low Countries Parliaments about it, the Göttingen Trial at Germany... Look for that by yourself, if you like. And if you can't find that, let me know and I'll give you some links ('cause sometimes is hard to find this kind of AIDS-related news in the web, so weird).


 * WLU, science was never about consensus. Never. The only moment when I really get pissed off is when you use that word "consensus" or "scientific consensus". Consensus is where science goes to die. Consensus is what kept Galileo in prison. Consensus is what prevented Isaac Newton for more than 25 years to publish his Principia Mathematica, consensus discredited Ignaz Semmelweis even if he was right. And even if Wiki is based on "consensus" and that, please, if I can ask you a favor, let's try to avoid that word "consensus" in such an important matter as HIV-AIDS. If you don't like my links, my editings; if you don't mind to take just a single minute of your time to think about them, regardless of your POV or "wiki shields", great! (now someone will accuse me of vandalism or something related), but please, stop using that dreadful word for science "consensus". By the way, in my euro mind, the idea of success is quite different... If the world's governments invested trillions of dollars and euros (the greatest science investment ever) during the last 30 years in this hypothesis of a deadly virus and not a single patient can be oficially considered "cured" of AIDS by traditional medication, not a single vaccine proved to be effective, we all know that the famous "german patients" were more like medical miracles rather than a scientific achievement; not a single scientist from the "consensus" can explain correctly and undeniably the pathology, aetiology of HIV, no one knows exactly what this virus does to the cells... My euro mind can't process that concept of "success"


 * The only thing I've asked is to add Etienne de Harven's name among the denialists as he is the most important one from Europe, he was president of Rethinking AIDS! You just have to write his name in the Browser of Google and you will know... Anyway, excuse me all of you if I'm so... Disturbing... Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is business of politics [...] Science requires only one investigator who happens to be right [...] In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible and UNDENIABLE results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus" Michael Crichton, MD, writer. (If Seth Kalichman can be quoted, why not with Crichton). Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because Crichton never, you know, did any science? You might as well quote Dan Brown as an authority on art history. MastCell Talk 03:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You continue to talk about these dark mysteries and conspiracies. Maybe Dan Brown is an appropriate authority for this story too.  So, let's look at your logic.  Something is wrong with the HIV theory because we can't cure AIDS.  I'm sorry, but we can't cure a bunch of diseases.  Herpes zoster can't be cured.  So I guess Varicella zoster, the virus that causes it, cannot possibly be the cause of it.  Google isn't a reliable source.  Oh wait, you haven't provided a single reliable source.  None.  This conversation is silly.  Time to shut it down?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Close it. This is going no where.  This always goes no where.  N o f o rmation  Talk  05:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who has the superpower ring to close it? Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Orange, there is a difference between Herpes Zoster and AIDS. Viral relation is UNDENIABLE in the first one, no one challenges it because truth jumps itself. The second one... Well, by scientific consensus is a retrovirus related disease. They don't know what does this piece of RNA do to the CD4 lymphocytes, but they are quite sure it destroys them. Consensus, buddy!!. Don't know how, but it does. How funny, they cannot UNDENIABLY prove this, but HIV causes AIDS. You know, even before the discovery and characterization of HIV Reverse Transcriptase (http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1HMV) in 1994-1995, scientific consensus KNEW that it was a retrovirus disease (Gallo made his famous press conference in 1984, if my scot mind fails not). Consensus, buddy!


 * Another difference between HZ and AIDS... Well... Electron Microscopy! Around the web you can find several photographs, claimed to be HIV. But, can you give me a link which contains the abstracts, methods and procedures and conditions of the taken EM's of HIV?? You know, PURE electron micrographs, without cutie computer corrections and graphics. Can you link me one, please, with the full abstract, methods and procedures, the budding environment, the laboratory where the EMs were taken, the electron microscopist/microscopists who took the photograph, the media conditions of the EM and the reproduced/reproducible results?? (Reliable peer reviewed sources, please, and they must fulfill those conditions I've given). According Discovery Health Magazine (spanish version, obviously, because in English is quite impossible to find this) "no one EVER took a reliable EM of HIV" (http://www.dsalud.com/index.php?pagina=sumario_136). I think there was a related french article too, I'll look for it.


 * Please, don't try to fool me about that, I'm a Chemical Engineer, phD in Biotech (I don't have a reliable source to prove that. Maybe my Facebook account, If you like, let me know, we can have nice chats about science and pseudoscience). And about my logic, please, success by saving no one after spending trillions of dollars, that's something beyond logic, mate. Leads us to the third difference between Herpes Zoster and AIDS: as far as I know, no one died because of the first illness, while the second one claims 35 million DEATHS 'til this date and we don't even know the pathology and aetiology of HIV (if any)... Success?? Consensus!!


 * MastCell, Crichton never did science. Did Kalichman?? Why Kalichman can be REFERENCED here, in the main article, while you mock about a little quotiation from Crichton?? Wait, I know... Consensus!! I don't like Dan Brown's works. ¿Do you?. I prefer Marcel Proust. I've learnt french with his masterpieces.


 * The only thing I've asked from you all is to add Etienne de Harven's name among the Denialist community. I gave you good reasons and sources, there are plenty of them in the web. In my humble opinion, no need for a peer reviewed source, as this is something quite biographical. I'm not talking about De Harven's discoveries or anything like that, just his link to AIDS denialism. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we're going to continue this discussion, it needs to be based on reality. HIV reverse transcriptase was sequenced and characterized in the mid-1980s, shortly after the discovery of HIV (,, , etc). I don't know why you assert (authoritatively but incorrectly) that it was not "discovered" until 1995. Does it bother you that your basic assertions are incorrect? This error seems to undercut a lot of your subsequent reasoning. I'm not familiar with "Discovery Health" magazine, but a quick glance leads me to believe that it's a cross between the National Enquirer and a late-night vitamin infomercial. In other words, not exactly in the same league as the sort of sources you're demanding from us. Why the double standard? If you think that AIDS research has been fruitless, then I don't think you know anyone with HIV/AIDS. The differences between the disease course in 1985 and the disease course today are a testament to the success of the research investment. Usually AIDS denialists avoid that argument, or else they focus solely on AZT and ignore everything that's been done with protease inhibitors and combination antiretroviral therapy in the past 15 years. Malaria has been understood and studied for far longer than HIV/AIDS, and yet it still causes millions of deaths every year and a vaccine (or even reliable treatments) remain elusive. By your logic, Plasmodium must not be the cause of the disease, right? Kalichman is a social scientist. He works in that capacity for a major university. Crichton was a novelist with a good imagination and an ability to write page-turning if technically unimpressive prose. One is a legitimate authority on AIDS denialism and one is not; I'll leave it to you to work out which is which. MastCell Talk 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Milikguay, I took up your 13th June invitation to look up the Göttingen Trial, and found the wikipedia article you wrote on 15th June. I don't think that its references (French and Spanish language AIDS denialist blogs and youtube videos by Stefan Lanka) meet wikipedia's reliable sources criteria, and furthermore the article appears to be grossly inaccurate. For example, your article reports that "the court decided to sentence Gunther Ekkart as innocent", whereas according to the German national daily Die Welt 24th June 1997, Eckert (spelling) was found guilty and sentenced to six and a half years' prison. (See: "Geiz im Labor hatte tödliche Folgen"). Similarly, the article's claims that "German government censored any kind of public information available about this trial. Though many activists and AIDS Denialism groups requested public share of the information, until this date full data remains secret." This does not appear to be accurate, as this case appears to have been extensively covered in the German and international media. On A Leash (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Denialism research
Hello. I found this in researching cognitive linguistic analyses of health care issues. Not sure if this is relevant here or somewhere else:


 * Link. How the growth of denialism undermines public health  BMJ 2010; 341:c6950 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6950 (Published 14 December 2010)

Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) ---

Among denialists there has recently been a schism, in which the Perth Group has distanced itself from ReThinking AIDS.

Is this worth covering in this wikipedia entry? Briancady413 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christine-maggiore24-2005sep24,0,7927684.story
 * In Eliza Jane Scovill on 2011-03-18 03:18:57, 404 Not Found
 * In AIDS denialism on 2011-06-20 00:34:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The LA Times article "A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death" is currently available here:
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/24/local/me-eliza24
 * Perhaps one of the more experienced editors could fix the link in both articles.On A Leash (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Former Aids Denialists
Under the Former Denialists section, it states: "Walter Gilbert, winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, once expressed skepticism about the role of HIV in AIDS. Like Sonnabend, he has since changed his mind in response to the effectiveness of antiretroviral treatment." This is supported only by an internal citation to a blogspot, this is blatantly in violation of WP:BLP as a blog is certainly not a reliable source especially to such a debatable claim.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been told that virusmyth.com is not a reliable source, meaning that another large chunk of this section should be removed.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RS, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"... We can cite someone's published article on virusmyth.com for the opinions of that author as well as the content and editorial focus of virusmyth.com. The other paragraph you deleted had nothing to do with virusmyth. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * agree with Scientizzle. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Calling people "Denialists" just sounds like schoolyard name-calling to me, and not particularly helpful IMHO. Create an insulting term, (ab)use it as a put down, and throw it around here and there.. Zarkme (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dbrodbeck that is the perfect quote summing up the philosophy of wikipedia. It should be etched into the top of every talk page.  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dbrodbeck, yep that makes sense to me. This page exists to explain the state of things as they are, not how we believe they should be or how they could be improved Zarkme (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

David Rasnick
I am curious about what people have to debunk the many unusual assertions that David makes here. eg: Very interested to hear info both for and against - no juvenile flaming please. Zarkme (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * that retroviruses (such as AIDS) aren't sexually transmitted
 * he seems to be saying that HIV counts go up as a result of the immune function declining (progression of AIDS), rather than HIV being the cause. He reckons the cause of AIDS is something else like drug use messing up the immune system
 * says that the HIV tests are very inaccurate, with lots of false negatives and false positives. ie. that you can retake the test again and again until you get the result you want
 * .. and any other interesting claims I missed?
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article contains several links that outline AIDS-denialist claims (like those you list) and explains why they're incorrect and misguided. You might find that those sources help answer your questions. As Harizotoh9 mentioned, this talk page isn't the place for us to debate the claims (see the talk page guidelines for more). MastCell Talk 18:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

scientific reference of HIV AIDS
Dr Karry Mullis, virologist has never found one scientific reference to back up the origonal discovery of HIV. Can anyone explain this. There is a financial reward for anyone who can find just one scientific reference for the discovery of HIV. Normally a virus would have many confirmations. Why is HIV an exception. Anyone explain. We would benefit from scientists who actually believe in replying first. Please be honest with any vested interest. I am interested in the facts: not humbug from either the scentific mainstream, or the complimentary sector. Just honest science please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.212.176 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this at the article about Kary Mullis. He is not a virologist he is a biochemist. Here is a quote from the article "Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’ and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon ‘was some sort of holographic projection and … that multidimensional physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible’. Mullis denies LSD having anything at all to do with this.[31]" Kind of makes you think..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.135.74 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazing how you were able to thoroughly document Kary's racoon experience in the woods, but still the primary reference on the "discovery" of HIV as a new virus remains unseen, let alone the primary reference of HIV causing a single AIDS-relabeled disease in the 30+ list.

Dr Harold Manners was concerned that HIV is sexually transmissable is entirely false statement that he conducted an experiment on television with doctors monitoring the whole thing to disprove this. He allowed himself to be injected with a syringe full of blood from a confirmed HIV positive patient. He did it more than onece and he failed to develop AIDS. Now a syringe full directly into the bloodstream has to be more succesful way of contracting HIV than having sex? So why no symptons, ever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.212.176 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dr Harold Manners is best known for his promotion during the 1970s of laetrile for the treatment of various cancers. The wikipedia article on this nostrum describes laetrile as "ineffective, dangerously toxic due to its cyanide content, and potentially lethal.[4][5][6][7][8] The promotion of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the medical literature as a canonical example of quackery,[9][10][11] and as "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history."
 * I was unaware that Dr Manners ever claimed to have conducted any experiments on HIV's transmissibility - on TV or elsewhere. Could you provide a reference for this assertion, please? On A Leash (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Fairness
I came to this article to see what the basis of HIV denialism was, but this entire page seems devoted to disputing it rather than outlining the theory. Are the editors/writers that sensitive about the subject that they can't give an objective summary of the points? For example, there was no discussion about people who test positive for HIV yet never develop AIDS. And that people who have had serious diseases will test false positive for HIV. I've also known people who were told they had HIV, took the cocktail of drugs for years, then were told they didn't have HIV. Seems one-sided. Perhaps the page should be titled "Arguments Against HIV denialism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpetitpas (talk • contribs) 01:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is one-sided because reliable sources are one-sided on this subject. The policy you're looking for, neutrality, is about properly representing reliable sources, rather than being "fair". When a subject has two major points of view - one held by prestigious peer-reviewed journals, and the other held by people who know how to maintain a blog - the article will be slanted toward the most significant viewpoint. Since no reliable sources have taken AIDS denialism seriously in almost 20 years, that slant is going to be extreme. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Put another way, our fairness is that which is owed to our readers, not to advocates of disproven viewpoints who seek to mislead them, and we fulfill that duty by not treating anecdotes as though they were data. - Nunh-huh 02:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Put it another way then: "Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing." --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone I know once said that..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Objective vs. Subjective
I find the opening paragraphs of this article to be more subjective than objective, both in the facts referenced as well as the language and tone being used. "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now targeted at less scientifically sophisticated audiences and spread mainly through the internet." This statement in the second opening paragraph is not an objective or unbiased fact. I would like to refer to the documentary film House of Numbers produced by Brent W. Leung in 2009. This film gives a very in-depth look into AIDS denialism and he interviews a number of accredited experts who share legitimate information that speaks against the commonly held knowledge of HIV and AIDS which should be considered by anyone researching this subject. For example, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the man who found HIV, has been recorded on film saying that HIV is very difficult to spread and any healthy human immune system can easily overcome it. You can find this film at http://www.houseofnumbers.com/site/.

AIDS denialism should not be unfairly associated with "less scientifically sophisticated audiences". That statement has a very biased tone and the entire scientific community has not unanimously rejected AIDS denialism. Peraino (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the FAQ at the top of the talk page as well as other messages on the talk page asking similar questions:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:AIDS_denialism
 * Talk:AIDS_denialism


 * Your argument against a sentence regarding less scientifically sophisticated audiences is supported by documentary that received absolutely zero consideration from the scientific community and was instead made for the public, AKA a less scientifically sophisticated audience... If you wanted to contradict the sentence you would need to provide evidence in the form of peer reviewed journals, literature published by reputable scientific publishers, etc, not a non-peer reviewed documentary. You essentially proved the point you were attempting to argue against.   S Æ don talk  22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. House of Numbers is a good example of modern AIDS-denialist material aimed at scientifically unsophisticated audiences. Or, as the New York Times put it, the film is a "pseudo-investigation that should raise the hackles of anyone with even a glancing knowledge of the basic rules of reasoning." I think you're actually confirming the text in our article. MastCell Talk 22:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The scientific community is interested in data, not anecdotes or what someone said. No scientist who has generated data on HIV and AIDS questions the link between the two. SpectraValor (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A Serious Misquote
With regards to this statement and reference:  "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now targeted at less scientifically sophisticated audiences and spread mainly through the Internet.[8][9]"

I have reviewed both of these materials thoroughly and neither one seem to postulate that the AIDS-denialist material has been redirected at a less scientifically astute audiences due to it's rejection by the scientific community. They do question the publics ability to understand the science in question, and acknowledge that most of the AIDS denialist activity happens outside the scientific community, but nowhere do they claim that the material is "targeted" at less scientifically able audiences, nor that this happened due to rejection of the scientific community.

These references are therefore being used inappropriately and contributing the articles unbalanced nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephleeesl (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think we're clearly conveying the sources' content. The sentence you quote is essentially a one-sentence summary of "HIV Denial in the Internet Era". That source makes clear that a) AIDS-denialist claims have been rejected by scientists, and b) they are now spread primarily through the Internet to less scientifically sophisticated audiences. For example, the authors state: ... most of the HIV deniers' arguments were answered long ago by scientists. However, many members of the general public do not have the scientific background to critique the assertions put forth by these groups, and not only accept them but continue to propagate them. MastCell Talk 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't do balance, we reflect mainstream views. That is how it works here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You just proved my point. Let me be clear again. The above quoted sentence says: "WITH THE REJECTION OF THESE ARGUMENTS by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is NOW TARGETED at less scientifically sophisticated audiences. Your above arguments regarding the cited material merely show that the author claims that yes, the scientific community rejects the arguments of AIDS-denialists, and also that many members of the general public do not have the scientific background to critique the assertions.  However, the "summarizing " sentence as you call it, claims that AIDS-denialist material has switched it's focus to target less scientific people as a result of the rejection of the scientific community.  Therefore you are misrepresenting the words of the author, and both of those references are misrepresenting the assertions of the authors and material cited.

That is, unless you can provide another quotation from the cited references which actually supports your assertion that the author makes any comment regarding the shifting focus of AIDS-denialists due to, or correlating to the rejection of their arguments by the scientific community.

Furthermore, can you provide any evidence that the second citation "AIDS denial: A lethal delusion" is related to your "summary" in any way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephleeesl (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be doing some other "cleaning up" of this article in the near future as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephleeesl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC) --Josephleeesl (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing the "misrepresentation". I think you can get from the source to our article text very simply and easily, although I'll wait to let others weigh in. MastCell Talk 19:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am with MasCell on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Does your language not assert that the AIDS-denialists changed their focus due to the rejection of their arguments by the scientific community by using the words "WITH the rejection..." implying that the incidents are correlated, and "material is NOW TARGETED" implying that the target has changed? You have misrepresented the article you referenced completely.

That is, unless you can provide another quotation from the cited references which actually supports your assertion that the author makes any comment regarding the shifting focus of AIDS-denialists due to, or correlating to the rejection of their arguments by the scientific community. --Josephleeesl (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that your language implies that the authors assert that the AIDS-denialists are acting predatorily. Whether or not that's true, it's NOT the ASSERTION of the authors you have cited.--Josephleeesl (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC and redundant information
This history section starts by presenting the history of HIV discovery. Infact this is well-covered in the actual HIV wiki.

I feel that the history section would be better organized and concise to the topic of "AIDS-denialists" by starting with the history of the topic "AIDS-denialists" rather than the history of "HIV". Therefore, the entire first paragraph, and first sentence of the second paragraph should be excluded and the history section should begin with the following sentence:

In 1987 Peter Duesberg questioned the link between HIV and AIDS in the journal Cancer Research.[21] Duesberg's publication coincided with the start of major public health campaigns and the development of zidovudine (AZT) as a treatment for HIV/AIDS.

Instead, a link to HIV and AIDS can be used to direct users to the relevant HIV/AIDS pages. --Josephleeesl (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.aidstruth.org as a credible reference????
I would like to question the validity of aidstruth.org as a credible reference. It's basically a blog. Blogs are not acceptable references for Wikipedia except as references to themselves. --Josephleeesl (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:PARITY. When writing about fringe points that are wholly unsupported by reliable sources, it is acceptable to use expert-published blogs to present the mainstream point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest the Reliable sources/Noticeboard could be a venue for broader discussion. aidstruth.org has some bona fides as a reliable source: legit academics, coverage in Science, & plenty of notice within published scientific literature. In my opinion, it passes WP:RS generally and its use in a specific citation case is highly dependent upon WP:PARITY. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What Someguy said was almost exactly what I was going to type...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The "AIDS Denialist's Claims" section is unbalanced and incorrect
Instead of stating that there are various subgroups of AIDS-denialists who have differing opinions, the topic is presented as follows:

"Denialists claim many incompatible things: HIV does not exist; HIV has not been adequately isolated,[71] HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates,[72] HIV testing is inaccurate,[73] and that antibodies to HIV neutralize the virus and render it harmless.[74]"

By simply stating that denialists "claim incompatible things" you imply that denialists individually hold conflicting beliefs, when in fact the truth is that there are several subgroups of AIDS denialists who have separate sets of beliefs regarding the shortcomings of the mainstream scientific evidence of HIV/AIDS. The language you use is simply an inaccurate depiction of the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephleeesl (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC) --Josephleeesl (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have completely ignored the preceding sentence, which clearly establishes that this is the case. Poorly worded? Maybe. Unbalanced and incorrect? Not at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying something does not exist and that it has not been isolated are obviously incompatible. There is no problem here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just to be clear, you said above, that having the stance that something has not been identified (or isolated), and that it may not exist are INCOMPATIBLE viewpoints? Obviously? So what would be compatible with a viewpoint that something has not been isolated then? That is obviously must exists? Can you please read you statement above and explain it to me because it seems totally illogical to me. In my logical progression, saying that something has not been identified (isolated) and therefore may not exist are very compatible viewpoints indeed. Indeed.--Josephleeesl (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the 'adequately' part says to me that it exists, but it has not been isolated well enough yet. Oh and please do not throw in new comments in the middle of old comments if someone has commented below them, it makes the conversation hard to follow.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck you seem to have a poor understanding and low quality standard for this article regarding the English language and how it works. Definetely agreed with Someguy that this is poorly worded and deserves to be improved. Dbrodbeck I hope it's not your pride that is repeatedly standing behind obviously low quality offer on this article. You also seem to be supporting the blatently improperly cited references above in this same article.--Josephleeesl (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall, your coverage of the fringe in this article is grossly unbalanced and deprived of effort. Whether or not AIDS-deniers are fringe, or completely wrong, your offer here is low quality.--Josephleeesl (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My coverage of the fringe? This is a collaborative work.  I have poor understanding do I?  (Saying HIV is nonexistent and saying it has not been adequately isolated are clearly incompatible).  You might want to read WP:AGF.  It is not just me that is posting here, it is many people.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell has been repeatedly referring to this article as "ours" and "my" and since you seem be jumping to support him, I have assumed that you are the main co-author. When I come in and sees the type of attitude you present regarding the accuracy of this page, I'm have a tendency to sympathize with the AIDS-denialists who are the topic of this very article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephleeesl (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, start signing your posts. Anyway, 'ours' means all of ours.  Feel free to sympathize with people who believe in pseudoscience.  If you have an issue about how this pseudoscientific, fringe topic is dealt with here, and would like to bring it to a wider audience feel free to post at the Fringe Theory noticeboard WP:FTN. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Joseph, please don't edit war, it is very bad form, and can get you blocked. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ddrodbeck says: "We don't do balance, we reflect mainstream views. That is how it works here."
I find this comment regarding the policies of the administrators of this page negligent towards the policies of Wikipedia. I have screen captured this page and saved versions locally to validate anything that is deleted in the future. Here is the

Included in the Wikipedia standards guide for parity of sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PARITY#Parity_of_sources

'''Independent sources The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.'''

This means that fringe theories should be given "relative space" devoted to different aspects based on "consideration primarily of the independent sources". Ddrodbeck. That implies balance. For you to state so blatently that "we don't DO balance" clearly shows that your standard is inappropriate.--Josephleeesl (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go read WP:NPOV. As well, go read WP:FRINGE.  You have been here all of six hours, you might want to do some reading before you continue.  Oh and I am not 'an administrator of this page' (there is no such thing).  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually referenced the links you advised me to read right above where you told me to go read them and included the relevant text for your convenience. Look up about two inches and read it. Go ahead and defend your statement with regards to it instead of sending me another link to it. I learn quick enough to know that your comment about not "doing" balance, and "that's how it works here" is just bullying and actually contrary to the Wikipedia policy. Just so you know I'll be adding things to this article over the next few weeks and I will be supporting any changes with valid references and according to Wikipedia policy. Please feel free to check me on that and try to remain within the responsible bounds of truth.--Josephleeesl (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment about truth is regarding your support for the obviously mis-cited references that I have pointed out in the post above entitled "A Serious Misquote". --Josephleeesl (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone sees it as a mis cite, as can be seen above. You really should take a breath.  This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND.  Might I suggest you edit some other article for a bit, something less controversial, in order to get your feet wet.  This could help you out. Oh and about your idea about the necessity of a screen cap is off base.  It is against policy to delete others' talk page comments (except under very specific circumstances) and I would not do such a thing.  I encourage you as well to take your concerns beyond here, the the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, mentioned above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not a battleground issue regarding this topic. I came here for information and was shocked at the poor use of language, lack of information, wrongly cited information, and attitude of the other contributors on this page.--Josephleeesl (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The synonyms of "with" are "because of", "due to", "owing to". The authors do not propose that idea. You have misquoted. Indeed~ --Josephleeesl (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality on WP isn't equivalent to "unbiased" nor to the balance sought by news organizations (tell both sides and let the reader decide); neutrality on WP means a bias towards reliable sources, giving due WP:WEIGHT to publications in proportion to their prominence. This means that fringe and pseudoscience sources can be used in certain circumstances but not in others and never juxtaposed with a mainstream scientific sources. Nor is it guaranteed that simply because something has been published it can be integrated into WP, which again falls back on weight. While WP:V is necessary for inclusion, it is not always per se sufficient. As a new editor I recommend heeding the advice of well established editors as it's more likely that someone like Dbrodbeck, who has been here for 5 years, knows his way around the place more than someone who has been here for 6 hours. Indeed, that is good advice for any social group in the world when you're a newbie. Sædon talk 02:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In oh so many ways even the title of this page is pov -- "denialism" when in fact it should be called "criticism" -- at least, as i understand it - in good science anybody especially scientists who have everything to loose should be allowed to "criticize" and not be called / derogated as deniers Ebricca (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what they are called in sources though, and we go by sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Scientific Community
Regarding:

"The scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive[4][5] and rejects AIDS-denialist claims as pseudoscience based on conspiracy theories,[6] "

By using the term "The scientific community" you are including both mainstream and fringe groups together.

In fact, this above statement only refers to the mainstream scientific community. Since this article is directly about the fringe community, it is important to distinguish between the two groups clearly when possible.--Josephleeesl (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Joseph, if it is your goal on Wikipedia to make this article more kind to the denialist viewpoint, you are going to be extremely disappointed. WP:NPOV dictates that we treat any viewpoint with the same respect it receives in reliable sources. Since 1995, the mainstream scientific community has deemed this viewpoint to be of such insignificance it can no longer be published in respectable journals. If you think that's a problem, then go forth and change the scientific consensus. But Wikipedia is going to be uncontroversial and simply reflect this monolithic viewpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We need not qualify the term 'scientific community' with 'mainstream'. It is redundant.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not redundant at all in an article which concerns itself with conflicting opinions between a mainstream and fringe groups. It's specific, and clear. --Josephleeesl (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On this question there is the scientific community, and some batshit crazy conspiracy theorists (some of whom have scientific credentials). There is no controversy.  This is about as much in doubt as evolution by Natural Selection.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's my goal to clean up the poor quality of this article regarding a) use of the English language, b) the blatantly incorrectly cited references used in this article b) the accuracy of the viewpoints of the fringe group.--Josephleeesl (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "cleaning up" you mean to portray AIDS denialism in a favorable light...well, as Someguy said, you are going to be extremely disappointed. Take a look through this talk page's archives to get an idea of what awaits the end of that tunnel.   Sædon talk  02:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How About This: Kotch Postulates
HIV has never filled Kocj Postulates as claimed by the Dec. 1994 Science article. In this respect, the Science article is misleading. In fact, Jon Cohen in the same issue of the same periodical seems to have admitted that AIDS does not fulfill Kotch Postulates, but basically claims that All the Cool Kids say that HIV causes AIDS, so it doesn't matter.

This is a good illustration of the problems with this assumption of Reliable Sources. In this case, there is a flat-out contradiction. In any case, even in Science Dec. 1994, Duesberg's fraternity is said to be growing, not shrinking, a far cry from claiming that he is a kook and a conspiracy theorist. The implication that AIDS "denialism" is aptly named and that Duesberg et al is such a kook is thus in editorial invention of the Wikipedians. Even your own sources contradict this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.205.69 (talk)
 * The article presents a number of sources which detail how HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. MastCell Talk 19:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Misnomer in title
AIDS denialism is a misnomer, HIV denialism is accurate (NPOV). Will change it now.

Jinx69 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources used in this article (such as #1, #7, etc) seem to use "AIDS denialism" as the preferred term. You will need to show that reliable sources prefer one over the other to change terminology like this. It is likely that these terms can be used synonymously; however, in that case, we should not be changing the first instance of its use as different from the title of the article. Yobol (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is horribly horribly erroneous no ones denies AIDS. Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg deny HIV, if one can find an article saying HIV denialists themselves deny the existence of AIDS then the title can stay, until then i will make it accurate in that it is HIV denialism, i cant help but think this is intentionally biased and NOT NPOV.

Jinx69 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How can the title of the actual article be changed then?

Jinx69 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We follow what our reliable sources say, not what you personally believe to be "erroneous". A quick review of the sources used in this article suggests the current title is the correct one. Again, you need to provide WP:RS to dispute this, not just make arguments from your own personal opinion. Yobol (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd consider a move to HIV/AIDS denialism...it's used by Kalichman and other scholarly sources, it would put it in line with other articles that are now at HIV/AIDS (1, 2, 3, etc.), it's consistent with the intro stating that denialists of many stripes exist, and it side-steps this stupid issue of "I don't deny this only that" that comes up every blue moon or so. Thoughts? &mdash; Scientizzle 19:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this idea; the terms seem to be used synonymously anyways, and it does reflect our recent change in terminology to use both in the title. Yobol (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done &mdash; Scientizzle 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

External Link addition
An IP editor has added this link a couple of times. I don't see that it adds anything, but I thought I would bring it here as (s)he is unwilling to discuss it it seems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The link falls under WP:ELNO#2, as a link to a site that presents factually inaccurate research, or at least in this case ludicrously insignificant research. If Healtoronto or its opinion of the NIH is notable or significant, then it should be included in the body of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In the 'External Links' section, can you at least list links to the 'aids denialists' who are being discussed, like Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis? Because they even have their own pages on Wikipedia. Or are you not allowed to link to them either? - MrSativa

HIV causes AIDS is simply a tautology
A friend of mine is an "HIV/AIDS denier". He is a highly skilled mathematician and software developer. Part of his analysis is that AIDS cannot be diagnosed when HIV and/or HIV antibodies have not been found. HIV is always present for an AIDS diagnosis. There is no independent AIDS test. HIV will therefore always be present when it's AIDS, and always be absent when it's not AIDS. There is therefore no separate question as to whether HIV causes AIDS - it's simply a tautology. And it says nothing about the pathogenicity of HIV. The first Koch Postulate (that HIV is strongly associated with AIDS) is not a scientific question resolved by experiment, but a semantic question resolved by examining the definitions - AIDS is never present when HIV is missing. So HIV "causes" AIDS by definition, and the exclusive research focus on HIV's role in acquired immune deficiencies is totally misplaced.

One view of the problem is that AIDS is simply not a distinct [disease]. The diagnostic criteria do not describe a medical condition characterised solely by specific symptoms and signs []. It's a whole bunch of diseases and/or conditions with HIV present. It's unreasonable to say it "has a cause" any more than swollen lymph nodes does. Surely we can find "denialist" sources which express this viewpoint?

It seems to me pretty clear that simply by starting out with a defective definition of AIDS, the whole scientific field studying the disease is misdirected and paradoxical. But nothing in the article here mentions the definitional problems and the resulting tautology of the statement that HIV "causes" AIDS. 212.194.48.112 (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss the topic, and talk pages are to be used to suggest improvements in the article based on sources. In this case, we need sources that comply with our guideline for reliable sources for medical claims. If you can find such a source that suggests a problem with the definition of AIDS, then bring it forward and we can discuss it further.  What you or your friend feels is appropriate or not is completely immaterial here. Yobol (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The term AIDS is outdated: it is no longer a syndrome because its cause is pretty well understood. It remains in use, however, as a convenient label to describe the collapse of the immune system from HIV and the resulting onset of opportunistic infections. That is to say, HIV doesn't "cause" AIDS; AIDS is late-stage HIV disease. This cause-and-effect relationship is very well established. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 03:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that HIV causes AIDS is no more a "tautology" than saying that Mycobacterium tuberculosis causes tuberculosis. These are clinical syndromes caused by specific microbes. If you have a fever, cough, and weight loss caused by something besides M.tb complex, then you don't have tuberculosis. Likewise, if you have an immunodeficiency caused by something besides HIV, then you don't have AIDS. Most elementary-school-age kids are able to grasp these concepts, so when a "skilled mathematician and software developer" has trouble with them, then I wonder whether they're just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. MastCell Talk 22:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Where your analogy fails is that HIV/AIDS is supposed to lead to a very wide range of symptoms, whereas tuberculosis leads to a very limited range of symptoms. TB is not a 'syndrome', and unlike aids, does not supposedly lead to kaposi sarcoma (whatever happened to that), cancer, lipodystrophy, weight loss, out of control infections of various kinds, etc. There are immune suppression issues like Primary Immune Deficiency which do not involve HIV, but have all the symptoms of HIV/AIDS.

What irritates me most, is your attitude that we already know everything that is to be known, and all we need to do is follow 'authoritative sources', even though everyone agrees that no one has found a cure, which would be the ultimate authoritative source. - MrSativa

Discretionary sanctions link at top of Talk page
The link to discretionary sanctions above leads to a page that is largely striken through. Following some of links there suggests that the sanctions remain in effect but have been relocated, but it's not obvious where the definitive statements can be found. This link should be updated or removed. -- Scray (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the more specific line items were obsoleted. The relevant one is still there, unstricken (#14). It links to the standard discretionary sanctions page. I edited the template to link to both locations. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

New foundation for the HIV/AIDS Denialism?
Not only is HIV/AIDS theory struggling to get a self-help kit on the market, but why can't HIV be a ordinary virus (from bacteria) as every other virus? And why can't blood cancer simply remain blood cancer? So to say that HIV is simply an ordinary virus infection like with the other viruses and that being struck with blood cancer makes you a cancer-patient? Not true? (I also support the above "HIV/AIDS as tautology" accusation because of the lack of real, demonstrative results by real imaging now that the stellar telescopes have turned its power into ever more powerful microscopes.) 109.189.210.119 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see from the article that this particular angle isn't covered. Thus not "Forum-talkin'"? 109.189.210.119 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see from the article that this particular angle isn't covered. Thus not "Forum-talkin'"? 109.189.210.119 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see from the article that this particular angle isn't covered. Thus not "Forum-talkin'"? 109.189.210.119 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Listing of the Best HIV/AIDS Advocates - Or new article?
Here is David Crowe speaking out on YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoJanKCVDw, should the article accommodate a "leading advocates against HIV/AIDS list"? I suggest that the article improves by this. Do you agree, please? 82.164.5.154 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So you are proposing a list of HIV/AIDS denialists? TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 14:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. 95.34.151.166 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a (partial) list of prominent AIDS denialists here. The same site also hosts a list of AIDS denialists who have gone on to die of AIDS-related complications . MastCell Talk 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think such a list or lists would be better stand-alone rather than in-article. I am rather unconvinced that such a list is a great idea though. In any case, please make certain that any such lists meets the criteria listed at WP:BLP - each person identified would need a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

FAQ; Q3
Q3 of the FAQ section states that:

''The scientists most often cited by the AIDS denialism movements are usually speaking outside their field of expertise. For instance, Peter Duesberg is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and Kary Mullis invented PCR. Within the HIV-AIDS research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS.''

However, Peter Duesberg's area of expertise is Molecular and Cell Biology. HIV and retroviruses are hardly outside his 'area of expertise' as claimed in Q3. If fact, retroviruses as pathogens of disease is specifically his area of expertise, not just 'cancer researcher'. To imply that he is not an expert in this subject is wrong.

This article in Science Magazine is a reference that Duesburg is a retrovirologist. Contrary to the claim that HIV must be outside of his area of expertise because he is a 'cancer researcher' as claimed in FAQ Q3.

203.69.10.69 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that article describes him as a virologist and some of his later work involves viruses. His most famous work is in cancer. "Molecular and cell biology" is much too general of field to indicate expertise on HIV/AIDS. Feel free to suggest an alternate phrasing, though my guess is that you might have difficulty achieving a consensus for any change that softens the language of that FAQ answer. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Matters for the Article - What do you think, please?
Suggestion (previously deleted from the article): Under Goertzel, dissent and evidence are not contradictory as such and that the movement, with fairness in hand, is a scientifically reliable one, or one that builds on scientific reliability. This suggestion removes some of the impression that the HIV/AIDS Denialists are suffering from some kind of scientific weakness when I believe they do not! And one crucial question is pending on the HIV/AIDS believers from the HIV/AIDS Denialists: How can the HIV/AIDS theorists tell the difference between Leukemia and HIV/AIDS? Is it not true that cancer patients too suffer decrease in CD4 counts? For these other psychiatric issues, that some patients must see their cancer/illness as something "special", i.e., receiving some kind of "medical mixture" only for them, that the patient has never been allowed to direct the physician in the medical science, true? Cheers! 82.164.5.106 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any references? The 'dissent' in this case is against overwhelming scientific consensus.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity: why do you believe that leukemia and HIV/AIDS are indistinguishable? That's a new one for me, and the diagnoses are so dissimilar that I can't even imagine the thought process behind your question. Please enlighten me. MastCell Talk 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To MastCell: Leukemia lacks the presence of virus (because it's cancer) and does inflict lower CD4 number on the cancer-struck patient. In addition, the images "supporting" HIV/AIDS may be added to leukemia research in totality because the images are either way indeterminate in these ways, by plain science. Also, it can be interesting to add that Soviet Union, despite its many flaws, has objected to HIV/AIDS on scientific grounds, giving heavier side along with parts of Africa and so on. Should we? 46.9.43.225 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To MastCell: Leukemia lacks the presence of virus (because it's cancer) and does inflict lower CD4 number on the cancer-struck patient. In addition, the images "supporting" HIV/AIDS may be added to leukemia research in totality because the images are either way indeterminate in these ways, by plain science. Also, it can be interesting to add that Soviet Union, despite its many flaws, has objected to HIV/AIDS on scientific grounds, giving heavier side along with parts of Africa and so on. Should we? 46.9.43.225 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, could you explain why the Perth Group, or Duesberg, does not belong to the "scientific community"?
-- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC) In this article (HIV/AIDS denialism) I read :

The scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive

So nobody belonging to the scientific community claims HIV does not cause AIDS. So somebody claiming HIV does not cause AIDS does not belong to the scientific community. So, for example, the Perth Group or Duesberg (both HIV dissidents or "denialists") does not belong to the scientific community

Then please, could somebody tell me what the criteria are for anybody to be labeled as a scientist or belonging to the scientific community? And why the Perth Group or Duesberg would not satisfy those criteria?

For example, both the Perth Group (Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos) and Duesberg have quite a few articles registered in PubMed ( http://pubmed.gov )

Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that "scientific community" is ambiguous, as some denialists are part of the scientific community. So, I rephrased the sentence: The scientific consensus is that the evidence showing HIV to be the cause of AIDS is conclusive. The supporting references to the original sentence were retained, as they better support "scientific consensus." TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 19:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. Now, if you agree some "denialists" are part of the scientific community then, in my view, the next phrase in the article remains incorrect:


 * In 2000, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki invited several HIV/AIDS denialists to join his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. The scientific community responded with the Durban Declaration ...


 * as the scientific community did not respond to itself. (The Perth Group and Duesberg were part of Mbeki's Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel). Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The denialists are such a small, fringy group that I really have no problem with the term scientific community. This all strikes me as an attempt to whitewash their bullshit, or, at least that could be the effect.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The scientific community was responding to Mbeki's invitation and panel, not to itself. A 'community' can express a consensus opinion, even if a miniscule fringe within it disagrees.  Since the Durban Declaration is wikilinked and Wikipedia has a separate article specifically covering that topic, I don't think there is any confusion about who said what.
 * Honestly, though, I have the same concern as Dbrodbeck about the constructiveness of continuing to entertain this sort of wordsmithing. If we can't talk about the position of the 'scientific community' as long as there exists even one scientist who hold a poorly-supported contrary opinion, then we might as well just give up on ever acknowledging that anything is true at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dbrodbeck and TenOfAllTrades. See Scientific consensus an essay which cites these sections of the FAQ on the NPOV policy; NPOV FAQ:Giving equal validity and NPOV FAQ:Pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it true or not true that if you say The scientific community responded with then it is clearly understood that the destination of the response does not belong to that scientific community, and so incorrect, because the Perth Group and Duesberg do belong to the scientific community? Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The denialists are not part of the HIV/AIDS scientific community. Of the few that are actual scientists, none have done any actual research on HIV/AIDS. Simply being involved in science doesn't lend you scientific credibility to pronounce on any topic. MastCell Talk 04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We could discuss later, if you desire, if the Perth Group, or Duesberg, belongs or not to the "HIV/AIDS scientific community". I mentioned the "scientific community" that is what it's reflected in the article. Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE as well as the above mentioned NPOV FAQ:Giving equal validity and NPOV FAQ:Pseudoscience. The phrase "the scientific community" refers to the community and represents the consensus, it also includes theories outside the consensus which are the subject of significant academic debate but not those which are obvious pseudoscience. Duesberg and Perth Group may have some vague connection to science however it is clear that the community has rejected their stance. Fringe theories should not be portrayed as having some validity based on association. A community is not just all persons associated in some way with a subject but a group sharing common interests, attitudes and goals. The Durban Declaration makes clear that the community has very different attitudes and goals. The tedious debate on Duesberg and Perth Group being part of the scientific community is vastly trumped for the purposes of WP by the above mentioned policies and guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that "The tedious debate on Duesberg and Perth Group being part of the scientific community is vastly trumped", but it doesn't seem that way. Above TechBear said that "some denialists are part of the scientific community". Your response now seems to indicate the opposite. In this case, if the Perth Group or Duesberg are not part of the scientific community, I repeat my initial question: could you, or somebody else, tell me what the criteria are for anybody to be labeled as a scientist or belonging to the scientific community? And why the Perth Group or Duesberg would not satisfy those criteria? Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it doesn't seem that way to you because you have not read the policies and guidelines. The opinion of editors about criteria for being part of the scientific community or scientists is secondary to the policies and guidelines.
 * Being an individual or group associated in some way with a community does not mean that the community as a whole cannot respond to those individuals or groups. Nor does it mean the community accepts such individuals or groups as members of the community. The Durban Declaration makes clear that the scientific community rejects HIV/AIDS denialism. This makes clear the mainstream consensus which is pertinent to the application of WP policies and guidelines. The Durban Declaration also makes clear what the scientific community itself considers to be the view of the community. The view of a community can exclude the views of those that some consider marginally to be a part of the community.
 * A community can respond to a faction, sub-group, member or marginally associated entity in addition to responding to outside entities. Contrary to what you have said a community can respond to itself in position papers etc. A community can consider associated individuals not part of the community.
 * However as I have said for WP the policies make quite clear the inappropriateness of giving undue weight to fringe theories and the individuals and groups that espouse them.
 * You are confusing mainstream community consensus with fringe elements and appear to be asserting that all fringe elements are representative of a community. This is especially invalid when the community has spoken in a consensus. The scientific community has expressed consensus opinions that exclude theories and the individuals and groups espousing them on many occasions. It is through acceptance of consensus that membership in a community is defined. As stated before alternate theories which are still the subject of significant academic debate are also included. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems now that you accept the Perth Group and Duesberg do belong to the scientific community. Then I return to the phrase:
 * In 2000, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki invited several HIV/AIDS denialists to join his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. The scientific community responded with the Durban Declaration ...
 * And I repeat my question:
 * Is it true or not true that, as it is written, it is clearly understood that the destination of the response does not belong to that scientific community?
 * Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will go further, although I'm convinced I'm perfectly understood. What I'm saying is that you could say, for example, "a great number of scientists responded with the Durban Declaration", but no "the scientific community responded with the Durban Declaration", as it's understood that includes all its members. We are in a pure axiomatic thinking. Are we going to discuss axioms?
 * Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I established that the Duesberg and Perth Group are do NOT belong to the scientific community. They do not share the attitudes, interests and goals of the scientific community as clearly expressed in the Durban Declaration. I also established that a response of a community does not create a clear understanding that the destination of such a response is not necessarily a part of the community. Please READ the appropriate policies and you will see that placing Duesberg and Perth Group outside the scientific community is appropriate for WP articles. Further discourse should be based on WP policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your finally clear position: "Duesberg and Perth Group are do NOT belong to the scientific community". You disagree with TeachBear who said "some denialists are part of the scientific community". In any case, then, could you tell me, in your view, what the requierments are to belong to that community?.
 * It is clear those requirements can't be, for example, to have some articles published in PubMed, as, I repeat, the Perth Group and Duesberg have quite a few. You mentioned "They do not share the attitudes, interests and goals of the scientific community as clearly expressed in the Durban Declaration".
 * The Durban Declaration is here:
 * http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406015a0.html
 * Please, could you extract from that document those "attitudes, interests and goals", that is, those requirements?
 * Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Again discussion should be based on WP policy. To answer your question about attitudes, interests and goals from the Durban Declaration:

"current controversy in South Africa about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS (see, for example, Nature 404, 911; 2000 and Nature 405, 105; 2000). This has caused massive consternation among all scientists, doctors"

"widespread anxiety that denying or doubting the cause of AIDS will cost countless lives"

"HIV causes AIDS. Curbing the spread of this virus must remain the first step towards eliminating this devastating disease."

"AIDS spreads by infection"

"The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science"

"In this global emergency, prevention of HIV infection must be our greatest worldwide public-health priority"

"It is crucial to develop new antiviral drugs"

"by working together, we have the power to reverse its tide"

"solidarity, political will and courage must be our partners"

These statements published in highly reputed reliable sources and signed on to by a great number of notable individuals and organizations clearly show attitudes (consternation, anxiety, evidence unambiguous), interests and goals. It even asserts universality amongst the community. If you wish to represent another position as coming from the scientific community you must provide a reliable source that states this. If you wish to propose that others are members of this community you must find reliable sources that state this not merely the assertion of an editors opinion or interpretation. The interpretation, analysis and opinion of an editor is original research WP:OR and has no place in WP. Again see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as well as WP:NOT. Your assertion that a communication implies direction to non members has been shown erroneous. The attempt to place these denialists in the scientific community clearly violates the mentioned policies in addition to contradicting the consensus statement of the community itself. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see above any requirement, except perhaps the obligation to affirm that HIV causes AIDS.
 * Do you agree that if you group certain people, not in an arbitrary mode, there must be certain common characteristics in those people?
 * Then, my question is what are the characteristics of that group named "the scientific community" that make the difference between them and everybody else, including the Perth Group and Duesberg?
 * For example, should they have, each one, a minimum of articles published in Pubmed? Or should they be "tall"? or "blond"?
 * Or is it one of those characteristics the simply obligation to affirm that HIV causes AIDS? In this case, are we talking of a "scientific community" or of a fascist community?
 * Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The acceptance of evidence that is "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science" is one of the characteristics that establishes the scientific community. It is not fascist but an inherent aspect of science. Sharing the attitudes, interests and goals of a community is the definition of community. Again your and or my definition of the scientific community is secondary to opinions based on reliable sources and these denialists are fringe not worthy of undue weight. This is WP not a soapbox, constrain your input to issues relating to editing WP and refer to established policy first. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing more to say to MrBill. He considers no dissident or "denialist" belongs to the scientific community, but I want to remember that TechBear opinion was the opposite, and if that is the case, the phrase:
 * In 2000, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki invited several HIV/AIDS denialists to join his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. The scientific community responded with the Durban Declaration ... is incorrect. I proposed "a great number of scientists" instead. The decision is in your hand, I don't know what the conditions are, or who decide, to change or not the article after this discussion.
 * Peter the Roman. --2.136.95.135 (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing to MrBill3 or those in agreement with him, then for example Kary Mullis, despite to be a Nobel Prize, does not belong to the scientific community just because he doesn't accept that HIV causes AIDS? A Nobel Prize is not a sufficient condition to enter your "scientific club"? This sounds too bizarre, don't you think?
 * Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter, let's move this forward or end it. If we accept your premise and define "scientific community" as including every single person with a degree in medicine or science, no matter how stupid or incompetent, and even if their presence in the community is comparable to a homeopathic dose, then we're stretching the common use of language beyond what is normally allowed. The reason we even have this article is not because the numbers of activist denialists who have such degrees is significant enough to bother to turn our heads, but because they have been vocal enough to become notable. Their views have cost hundreds of thousands of lives! Seriously, you are defending murderers.

I suggest you are being quite unreasonable. Since you are so hung up on a technicality that weighs less than an atom, you need to stop this disruption or propose some wording we can accept. It's either put up or shut up, because you are wasting editors' valuable time.

What wording would satisfy you, without leaving the impression that anything but the overwhelmingly vast majority of the scientific community soundly rejects the claims of HIV/AIDS denialism activists? Maybe you can come up with a solution, or use wording which does not even use the words "scientific community". I suspect it might be possible, so I'm giving you a chance here. Most editors in your position bow to the overwhelming consensus evident here and drop the stick and back away, so decide whether this is really important enough for you to risk a topic ban or block for disruption. Use this chance wisely. We don't want to waste more time. (BTW, ALWAYS use edit summaries. You haven't done it a single time, and that violates our norms here.) -- Brangifer (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not using edit summaries, I didn't know were necessary in the discussion too.
 * I wrote above my proposal: "a great number of scientists" instead of "the scientific community". In the Durban declaration we can read "The declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people". My first question then would be: are there only 5,000 (or even 10,000) people in the "scientific community"??. My initial idea is that there are many many more, in many many disciplines: HIV/AIDS, virology, medicine, biology, physics, chemistry. I can't imagine the figure, but I would not be surprised if that number were 100 times that 5,000.
 * Besides, on the other side, we have "Rethinking AIDS" (the main HIV/AIDS dissident organization). They have had, during many years, a list of people having signed a petition to reappraise the "HIV cause AIDS" hypothesis, and the number was over 2,600 people. It's too bad I can't now find the list to see the qualification of those people, it seems it has been withdrawn from its web, but if necessary I could contact with them to facilitate me the list.
 * Peter the Roman,--2.136.95.135 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently we were working at the same time, me with a revision of the article and you with your reply above. It really comes down to whether the scientific consensus is for or against the HIV/AIDS connection, and you know full well that reliable sources are affirmative that there is a connection. AIDS denialists are a small fringe without any influence in scientific circles, similar to the fringe who advocate Climate change denial, who are up against 97% of published climate scientists. If you are in doubt, read the HIV/AIDS articles here and the references in them.
 * We have adequately described the POV of denialists in this article, and the mainstream scientific response. I don't see anything else to do at this point. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for modifying that part in the article. I still disagree with the content, but at least we get rid of that "scientific community". I have no more petitions for the moment. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Let's mark this as -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)