Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 2

Changing this Article is part of the problem
Orthodox AIDS proponents continually re-write paragraphs of this article to eliminate the actual claims of AIDS dissidents, substituting in claims dissidents don't actually make (often as a result of orthodox AIDSers not understanding dissident claims) and then refuting them with orthodox asssertions. This illustrates the hallmarks of the AIDS orthodoxy: 1) An open, neutral discussion is unacceptable, even on Wikipedia. And 2) Orthodox AIDS proponents often do not actually understand or truly investigate dissident claims. Thus, their rebuttals and re-writes aren't even to the point.


 * If you have studies that back up the dissident view with scientific evidence, and not just essays refuting actual studies, the add them in by all means. However, most dissident studies don't actually use experimental evidence to assert their claims. Also, the phrase those invested in the dominat HIV-causes-AIDS paradigm replacing most of the scientific community is hardly the correct way to put forward the dissident POV.--Bob 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To keep the "terminology" section related to terminology, I moved the claim of open debate suppression into a new "Claim: orthodoxy suppresses open debate" section. To try to move this article marginally closer to an encyclopedic tone, I removed references to "this article" and other Wikipedia edit discussion. Like with other controversial articles, we should be able to use this talk page to find NPOV language. The Rod 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with CJD risky
I would recommend not to mention Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) as an example of infectious disease that behaves abnormally (although it is most probably an infectious disease, and it does behave abnormally). Other examples, such as HTLV-1-associated myelopathy / tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP), which is also caused by a retrovirus, might be closer to AIDS and prehaps less controversial than CJD. pierremegevand

Article Problems
I'm creating this section, and promoting it above the Pre TOC section, to address problems raised with general article content and layout. I have created other sections below to address specific article sections that need to be discussed (I think). If anyone has any input please speak up now. I'll probably start editing the article in a couple of hours if no one objects. --Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This article could not possibly be considered of encyclopaedic nature. I doubt any other article's content is so widely in opposition to its heading. This is not an attempt to put forward the views of AIDS dissidents, its an attempt to rubbish them from start to finish. The point of this article should be to put forward the views of the dissidents not to decide whether they are right or wrong. As such the rebuttals ,if their should be any, should be more muted and not put at the end of each paragraph as if they were clinching some sort of deal. cardigan3000

I'm about ready to give up on this article. I have better ways of wasting my time. Revolver

Let me rephrase that. It appears that this topic is simply too religious to be developed as an article on wikipedia. When the different sides completely disagree not just upon facts, but upon basic ontological and epistemological viewpoints, it's impossible to say anything that anyone can agree upon. This is reflected in the constant debates over language and terminology. It's also reflected in the fact that dissidents and orthodox don't just disagree over "facts", they disagree over methods of thinking and methods of reaching conclusions. It often boils down to a "this is why; no, that's not a valid way of reasoning" argument. This is very difficult to reconcile to anyone's satisfaction. Also, the constant langauge of the orthodox ("denialism", "revisionism", etc.) reveals a clear POV that reflects the almost religious tone of the debate. Revolver

I've been spending a lot of time on non-Wikipedia activities lately, but I've kept an eye on what's happening here. I agree with Revolver that things are getting somewhat out of control, and am also tempted to forget I ever saw this article, but I strongly feel that we need this article, particularly because it is a matter of such near-religious proportions. Like the other controversial articles, the very nature of this subject makes it almost impossible to find a neutral treatment of it. Wikipedia is one of the only places that such a neutral treatment is conceivable (if not entirely feasible).

From what I can gather from a cursory inspection of the editing conflicts to date, the disagreements generally seem to be about (1) what terminology to use, (2) what constitutes fact, and (3) what constitutes a valid line of reasoning (essentially what Revolver has indicated above).

It seems to me that the matter of terminology can be most easily resolved by an introductory statement similar to what is already there under "Terminology", but more explicitly designed to explain the choice of terminology used in the article. There is probably no such thing as a totally neutral set of terminology, so we must make it neutral by stating at the outset that "We call it the HIV theory, but this should not be taken to imply the correctness of any particular viewpoint" or some such.

As for what constitutes fact, at least regarding the "facts" about how the disease is caused and develops, we could just stick with facts about viewpoints. Duesberg observed X, which he believes indicates Y, but Kary Mullis thinks Z. Making purportedly factual claims about the disease itself is where the trouble begins.

The third point, what constitutes a valid line of reasoning, is probably just as easily resolved. Again, the article should present information about those who hold these particular viewpoints; the article itself should not hold these viewpoints. Wikipedia articles can't hope to resolve the deeply philosophical matter of what approach to understanding "reality" is the most appropriate or valid. In general, science prevails around here, but since there is disagreement on what even qualifies as scientific, it's probably best to let the players speak for themselves, and let readers do their own reasoning.

All of the above is simply a re-statement of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, of course. We all gotta cooperate or we'll get nowhere. We know it can be done, since it has been done with so many other controversial topics.

My opinion is this: The first step towards getting this article into a worthwhile form is to begin mercilessly summarizing. There are a lot of tangential discussions, arguments and counterarguments, but nothing to really lead the reader along in understanding the significance of the debate itself. As a reader of this article, I feel as though I'm stuck in between two guys bickering with each other for an hour. I would much prefer brief, concise, and neutral-as-possible statements. Tell me the story of AIDS reappraisal. Don't make it a play-by-play. Take a cue from some of the fantastic journalists that have written on the subject, and let us in to walk around; don't ram it down our throats. Just my opinion :-) -- Wapcaplet 22:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not a debate, it's a scientific hypothesis capable of proof or disproof. I sympathize with your impatience: "reappraisers" need to do the science necessary to support their position, rather than debate it. Yours, the nuisance, Cheesemonkey 06:40, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * And many people would say it has been more than disproven. How are you to say they're wrong? By interpreting available data and evidence. This is called "argumentation" and "debate". I don't know what you mean by "do the science necessary". Typical orthodox nonsense reasoning. Revolver 08:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, clearly there is disagreement over how best to prove that hypothesis, and how to interpret the scientific (and non-scientific) data that we have. There certainly is some debate :-) But I don't think anyone is claiming that debate alone is enough to prove anything. -- Wapcaplet 11:12, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * My concern in reading this article is that I know nothing more about the AIDS reappraisal science then when I began. I have to agree with what cardigan3000 said, namely that this appears to be an attempt to rubbish the reappraisal side from the beginning. I'm not even overly opposed to the point/counterpoint form the article attempts. What occurs in practice here though is almost a bulletted list of reappraisers claims, followed by in-depth refutation. In the end I know the arguments against the reappraisal movement, but almost no explanation of the movement's own conclusions or how they arrived at them.--Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm not expert enough to fill in the data necessary. Revolver seems to be very knowledgable about the reappraisal arguments, and I hope he hasn't quit the article for good. I could help with formatting and other non-technical issues. Like what I've done here--Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Completely Refactor Page
I propose completely refactoring this page. Specifically, removing the "Arguments by dissidents" section. I think this is appropriate for the following reasons:


 * 1) The only argument that the AIDS reappraisal group agrees on is that HIV has not been proven to cause AIDS.
 * 2) Most of the arguments here are covered in the Duesberg_hypothesis page.
 * 3) We can create seperate pages for specific members of the movement. For instance, a page on the Perth_Group could describe their arguments, as well as contain the counter arguments by fellow AIDS reappraisal members and mainstream science.

Since the Duesberg page already exists, most of this format already exists and makes half the material on this page duplicative.--Herda05 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No need to do this Sci_guy. Reappraisal is about all the minority views on the scientific side of the argument. Conspiracy theories can be found elsewhere. This page gives details on the views, and also tells us why they are not universally held by the scientific community. Something any respectable and responsible article on this subject should do. Sure, Duesberg hypothesis goes into more details on his hypothesis, but that shouldn't impact this page, as he is just one man, and the reappraisal movement asks more than what Duesberg offers. They are not the same, and thus, should not be cut from this page IMO --Bob 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your conspiracy comment comment refers to. I disagree this page describes the movement's views very well. It certainly doesn't describe who are the members of the movement. Shouldn't this page be more about the movement itself, rather than their member's specific views? As far as I can tell, the AIDS reappraisal movement is made up of specific scientists like Duesberg, the Perth Group, etc. who are solely united by their general agreement that HIV has not been proven to cause AIDS. They are specifically seperated by their disagreement regarding HIV.--Herda05 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't read the history section then. That, or you didn't understand it. --Bob 22:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The page is called AIDS reappraisal, not AIDS reappraisal movement, thus the specific views should be talked about, as that is what this page is about. --Bob 22:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. Can we agree then that the article title does not fit well with the information within the article itself? If we can agree to that, then do you think I should create a second artcile titled AIDS reappraisal movment? That article would describe what I've outlined below? Would that be an ammicable situation? (Please note this makes what I've written below somewhat moot, but it was written earlier and we had a conflicting edit.)


 * the article is about AIDS reappraisal. If you would like to move and rewrite the history of the movement to its own little page, then do so, wiki is about this type of thing. However, the facts about the history of this minority are all there. --Bob 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The history section of the article, or the page history? I've been going through the page history since yesterday to try and build a better picture for myself. I'm not proposing, at least I don't think, a conspiracy theory or theories. I'm not suggesting that any of the dissident's views are being suppressed. What I am suggesting is this article, as it stands, is of very poor quality. It does little to enlighten the reader about its own page title. Most of the argument information I did get about the dissidents, I found by reading other pages, namely the Duesberg page and going to external links. Since any layman who comes here, like myself, to read and get informed about the topic will have to go elsewhere for the specific argument information anyway, why not make the article simpler? Let's take out the information that is controversial and leave it on the pages of the people who express those views. I don't think it's controversial to say that "the AIDS reappraisal movement argues that HIV is not proven to cause AIDS". Both sides can agree on this, no? I think the first and third paragraphs do this very well. We can then link to those pages involved. This page then would include the "history of the movement" section, then a section on the members. Relegate the arguments by both sides to the members espousing those arguments, rather then lumping the arguments together in a jumbled that sometimes contradict themselves (i.e. how can HIV testing be unreliable, yet at the same time it is argued that it doesn't exist?).


 * There is no need to have the appraisal movement scattered around here for no-one to find (although that would be the best thing for this irresponsible minority (in the views of many respected scientists and politicians). The claim:rebuttal layout is best for this type of thing. If you want to research there ideas more fully and present them here, then again, go ahead. And BTW, virtually everything they state is controversial. You cannot possibly expect this type of thing not to be. However, you can do what you like (but be prepared to see it all reversed by the denialists here).--Bob 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the swarming masses of us. Just look at the enormous work I've done on this article in the past 2 years. Revolver 06:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, please note I'm not Sci_guy. I've been a member for quite awhile, but have not contributed too much to this project specifically. I've contributed to WikiNews though, which is hoepfully enough to convince you of my identity. If not, ask an admin to check my ip address.


 * that's fine, he is one of the aforementioned denialists that makes stuff up and calls it science. --Bob 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As for reappraisal being about "all the minority views on the scientific side of the argument" I disagree. The "movement" has one specific view, that there is no proof for a causitive link between HIV and AIDS. Sepcific members of the movement have evidence and publsihed papers that are refeuted by mainstream scientists. The analogy I would use is the Anti-globalisation movement. Anarchists, communists, peace organizations, and others are part of the movement, but their arguments are not refuted directly on the page describing Anti-globalisation. That page treats its subject well in that it simply describes the movement. The other thing to note is that AIDS reappraisal movement is heterogeneous, a point that gets lost on this page due to the claim-counterclaim format. Not all of the movement's subscribers agree with the claims made on this page. Duesberg specifically refutes the non-existence of HIV, which seems to be the main argument of the Perth Group. I don't feel this page is the place for any of that discussion.--Herda05 00:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * again, this page is not about the movement, but about the pseudoscientific claims made by the people of the movement. --Bob 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for more interest from various editors so I could gather some consensus about any changes. It could be everyone agrees with you Bob and it's just my perception that the article is poorly organized and written. I'll wait a couple days and if no one else comments, I'll assume it's a dead issue.--Herda05 03:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Pre TOC discussions
I read this purely for interest. I note that the structure seems to be misleading: All the dissidents' claims are rebutted within the documentation of the claim, and then, afterward, the mainstream position gets its own section. There are a few topics in the latter not seen in the former, but this seems unbalanced. joeclark

I think this section needs to remove the bulleted list. Can't we summarize this to a simple one or two sentence statement? The reappraisers, from what I understand, are arguing that the theory of HIV as the cause of AIDS is incorrect. From this one or two sentence thesis, the rest of the article should flow.--Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments by Dissidents
I think this section needs more exposition on the data that support the arguments of Duesberg, Mullis, et. al. This is where the reader should get meat of what the reappraisers are arguing, and why.--Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * that would be good in theory, unfortunately, they have no real data that stands up to peer review --Bob 22:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing Duesberg_hypothesis most of these arguments and counter arguments appeared to be covered there. Could we simply remove this entire section?--Herda05 22:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you get rid of this entire section, you might as well scrap the entire article. --Bob 22:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bob I disagree. The article will solely focus on describing the history of the movement, and we could also list those that identify themselves as part of it. People like Duesberg, the Perth Group, Robert Root-Bernstein. Virus Myth has at least a starter list. Don't you think the claims are all duplicative to what's found on the Duesberg page?--Herda05 22:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. They are treated differently. --Bob 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotations
I think Wapcaplet is right about tangential information. My vote is the Quotations section gets axed. I'm not sure the Quotations section adds anything to the article whatsoever. --Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A brief history of the dissident movement
The History section is informative, but needs some editing (and probably prunning).--Herda05 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the point?
I don't understand the motivation of denying that HIV causes AIDS. Is it to make people feel safe while engaging in homosexual acts?

Like:
 * Moralists oppose homosexuality.
 * Moralists promote the thesis that HIV causes AIDS, not because it's true but because they hope to scare people out of the homosexual lifestyle.
 * Gay rights activists counter the thesis that HIV causes AIDS, not because they believe the thesis is false but because they hope to assure people that the homosexual lifestyle is safe (see: slogan:Living with AIDS).

The whole thing puzzles me: doesn't anyone care about avoiding death? --Uncle Ed 18:52, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is backwards, Mr. Ed. The gay community supports the notion that HIV causes AIDS, which leads to presumptions that gay lifestyles are practicable if approached with due caution. The idea that HIV is not the primary cause attributes immunodifficiency to lifestyle related causes. The latter view was quickly deemed not to be politically correct by advocacy groups, funded by pharamceutical manufacturers, who lobbied for legalization of anti-viral drugs intended to stop replication not only of HIV but of other viruses which had grown resistant to common treatments due to repeated reinfection and retreatment that often followed continued practice of risky behaviors. However, motivation is irrelevant when weighing scientific evidence. Resting an argument on questions about motivation is ad hominum and does address the topic at hand. All the same, the short answer to your question about motivation is that those who would reappraise the science are motivated by an interest in precise science.


 * Discovery of the supposedly new HIV virus closely followed advent of technology (PCR DNA replication) able to reveal the tiny strip of RNA. The questions advanced by those advocating reappraisal often involve recognition of the lack of extensive testing of samples prior to the current generation. Subsequent tests of such samples revealed older examples of HIV in corpses and in stored tissue samples, which bolstered the curiosity of scientists who were sceptical of the 1984 U.S. government declaration that HIV is the cause behind a newly recognized epedimic.


 * However, I'm not about to touch this article. Any quality work I do will be submitted to a publisher who rewards quality. This article is a fine example of a rhetorical environment in which the biggest bully with the best reputation can control factual representations. Sandlawould 20:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think is a matter of denying anything; those who doubt that HIV causes AIDS do so because they do not believe there is sufficient evidence to show that it does. There are some who feel that falsely (in their eyes) attributing the syndrome to HIV may direct attention away from the real causes.


 * Excuse me for interrupting, but that sounds like O. J. Simpson searching for the "real killers" of his ex-wife. --Uncle Ed 14:35, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * In other words, if we have spent two decades under the assumption that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, and it hasn't gotten us anywhere in terms of finding a cure or even treating it, it may be wise to consider other possible causes.


 * This doesn't make sense. We also know that malaria is spread by mosquito bites, and that knowledge has not led to the disease's eradication. Does that mean we should look for an alternate cause in this case, too? --Uncle Ed 14:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that everyone involved is trying to avoid death, but there are many differing perspectives on how to do that. If HIV is indeed the sole cause, then we should follow the standard procedure of avoiding infection with it; but if HIV is not the sole cause, or even a contributing cause, then avoiding HIV isn't going to save any lives.


 * Studies testing this point have already been conducted: hardly anyone without HIV has AIDS, and most people with HIV get AIDS and then die from it. What more proof do you need? --Uncle Ed 14:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Peter Duesberg, for a while anyway, believed that AIDS was caused predominantly (even exclusively) by long-term IV drug abuse. If he were right, then making sure you have clean needles isn't going to help you, and having safer sex is irrelevant.


 * Ditto for this point: long-term IV drug abuse has been around for over a century, and no one ever get AIDS before HIV showed up. It's easy to check whether it's the drug abuse itself or transmission of HIV via contaminated needles is the cause of AIDS. --Uncle Ed 14:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Duesberg and many others do not think that there is enough evidence to establish, without question, that HIV is the sole cause, and that if we are not certain about HIV being the sole cause, then it may be dangerous and even lethal to proceed as though it were. The known toxic effects of AZT (see above) are just one example of this.


 * If there is any motivation in denying, or questioning, that HIV causes AIDS, I think it is simply scientific investigation at work. When a theory fails to adequately explain our observations, we tend to look for a better theory. Those who are doing this questioning do not think that the HIV theory is doing a very good job of explaining their observations, and a better theory may lead us towards better treatment, or a cure.


 * That's how I see it, anyway. -- Wapcaplet 21:38, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wapcaplet, I would be interested in seeing a condensed article here. It seems like some points are reiterated and it seems more like a Usenet thread than an article. I would be interested in what the HIV thesis critics think about the reduction in AIDS rates in certain African countries after safe sex campaigns. If that is in the article I missed it. Rmhermen 15:05, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Me, too. My own church claims credit for helping to reduce AIDS in Uganda via a campaign involving chastity or sexual abstinence. I hesitate to add anything about these claims until someone else corroborates them. --Uncle Ed 17:00, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regarding comments above by Ed Poor: I personally do not have good answers to your questions. This very debate has been going on for somewhere around ten years, and very few compromises or agreements have been reached among the varying parties involved. But the fact remains: Many people have questioned how much we really know about how AIDS is caused. I don't know what causes AIDS, and I am certainly not interested in getting in a debate over it :-) But I would like to see this article happen. The problem with it thus far is that it tends to degenerate into a series of diatribes and internal debates. I don't think there's room in a single Wikipedia article to detail all the claims, counter-claims, and counter-counter-claims of each camp.

I agree with Rmhermen that the article could use some merciless summarizing, and possibly even a complete rewrite (no offense to Revolver who wrote the original framework, but I don't think this format is going to work out after all). Other than the comments I've already made above, I am not sure how best to approach this problem, or even that I'm the person to initiate it, but I will give it a shot when I have the time. -- Wapcaplet 19:21, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your mild and reasoned response. Sorry if I seemed strident; I don't want to pick a fight. I really am interested in serious alternatives to the conventional 'HIV causes AIDS' theory. An article about that, without diatribes, sounds good to me. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just read the article without having been involved in any editing before. It was an interesting read but as this is a minority opinion, I don't quite understand why the article is longer than the AIDS and HIV articles taken together. A short summary of maybe 2 or 3 paragraphs should be enough; I don't think the arguments of the debate should be stated here in any breadth. I am not going to do this though as I don't want to hurt the feelings of some of the people that are very involved here. SmilingBoy 01:00, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with length in and of itself (since Wikipedia is not paper). It's a minority opinion, but very inflammatory and controversial, and I don't think a short summary can really provide the necessary explanation. There is no doubt that this article needs a lot of work, though. As I stated above, the point-by-point description of the various sides of the argument is probably not the best way to do it, so I agree with you that the arguments should be summarized if possible. Please feel free to do some rewriting - you won't hurt my feelings! If you plan to do a complete rewrite, perhaps it'd be good to work on it in a temporary location like Talk:AIDS reappraisal/temp. -- Wapcaplet 16:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's the most interesting part:

> (This was the public position in 1991 of Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo the co-discoverers of HIV, who were both active in the search for cofactors.)

Obviously we need to know what their opinion is TODAY, 14 YEARS AFTER THE ABOVE REMARK!

Why not ask them what their opinion of HIV/AIDS was in 1980?

Inconsistent numbers
Mainstream scientists reply that this suggests only that the number of new infections are approximately equal to the number of deaths; thus, the level of infection remains consistent.

This doesn't make sense according to expert figures. The CDC estimates that between 15-20,000 people die in the U.S. each year of AIDS (between 1998-2002), while experts believe  that about 40,000 or more new infections are occuring each year. Revolver 01:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sex in U.S.
They also note that sexual practices in the U.S. may be different from those in Africa.

Indeed, they are. The U.S. is the most sexually active and promiscuous country in the world. So, this does little to bolster the ridiculous "heterosexual AIDS in Africa because Africans are promiscuous and truck drivers screw with prostitutes a lot" argument. Revolver 01:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Revolver, even if you had evidence for the assertion that "the U.S. is the most sexually active and promiscuous country in the world", I think you'd still be attacking a straw man, since "promiscuous... screw with prostitutes" etc. does not appear in the article. I think this is just an unnecessarily vague summary sentence; what it is most likely referring to is the idea that heterosexual anal sex is relatively common in Africa, as well as the use of astringent substances for "dry sex", and that both of these practices increase the risk of HIV transmission. I can't be sure that that's what the author of the above sentence was talking about, but it is an accurate characterization of arguments that have been made against AIDS skeptics, and more well founded than your caricature suggests. --Hob 04:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can give you a reference for the "most sexually active nation" claim, if you want. It's a survey done once every few years by some research institute. The way I related the mainstream argument is the way it has been described to me again and again by mainstream "scientists" or doctors. (i.e. YES, they really say, "Well, Africans have more sex, esp. the truck drivers and the prostitution problem.", of course not quite that way in publications, but in communications) This is apparently supposed to be taken on faith, as rarely is any evidence given to support this. I find it really hard to believe that some difference in heterosexual anal sex behaviour can account for the massive qualitative difference between the two epidemics. Heterosexual anal sex is relatively common in the U.S. I have never seen any kind of accurate numbers on sexual behaviour that would account for the difference in the epidemics. Revolver 04:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here ya go: U.S. has lots of sex Look under "number of sexual partners": Revolver 04:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some "truck drivers screwing prostitutes drives AIDS" arguments:   That's what I'm talking about. Revolver 04:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Its not the amount of sex that's necessarily relevant, its the use of contraceptives. There are well documented studies showing that contraceptive use in developing countries if far below than that in the U.S. Nrets 14:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Drugs cause AIDS claim removed?
I noticed that in the history the dissident claim of drugs causing AIDS was removed due to POV problems. Below is a section that I was going to add but then realized that I could not find a comprehensive "mainstream" view as well. If someone would be kind enough to write that up I'll (or you can) add this to the article. Thanks. --codepoet Jun 21, 2004

Claim: Drugs cause AIDS
Some dissidents claim that nitrites ("poppers"; a drug commonly used to enhance the sexual experience, principally among homosexual men) were the initial cause of AIDS in the early 1980s. They further claim that since nitrites weaken the immune system enough that opportunistic diseases take over and kill the patient and since HIV spreads through sex more easily through anal intercourse that analisys of the cause of AIDS was misled into following the trail of HIV rather than the drug use that caused its transmission. This theory of AIDS thus claims that drug users using nitrites were the first wave of AIDS patients as the nitirites caused AIDS symptoms.

Dissidents further claim that azidothymidine (AZT) was the primary cause of AIDS symptoms for modern patients diagnosed with HIV. After diagnosis the patient would be prescribed AZT as a preventative drug. AZT works by inhibiting DNA synthesis, thus preventing the creation of new cells. It was hoped that in small amounts this would work on HIV alone. Dissidents claim that in small amounts the drug never reached HIV and affected normal cells, including T-cells, which then caused AIDS symptoms. Since it was prescribed to patients already diagnosed with HIV and has itself caused AIDS, it is considered by dissidents to be a self-fullfilling prophecy. Dissidents commonly site that when AZT fell out of favor as the principal treatment around 1995 that deaths associated with AIDS dropped dramatically CDC. But some reappraisers think that this drop is mainly due to the use of lamivudine.

"Although many questions remain about the role of HIV in AIDS causation..." If backing is wanted, try Stevenson "HIV-1 Pathogenesis" Nature Medicine July 2003:
 * Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated...considerable efforts [>G$100 worth] have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been forwarded...There is a general misconception that more is known about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important issues regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the contrary, what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface of what needs to be known.

142.177.124.178 22:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an important topic It is a paradigm that HIV causes AIDS. Most people are unaware that there are well credentialed scientists who have their doubts and the points they bring up are valid. To suggest that HIV is not equal to AIDS usually results in the speaker being treated like a flat earther.

However if the skeptics are right then our approach to AIDS is wrong! The money being spent on AIDS research and programs in AFRICA could be diverted to providing Clean water and sanitation which may well result in huge advances in the health of Africans.

Furthermore large sums may be spent on drugs which are worse than useless and potentially cause more harm than good. The skeptics need to be heard, they may be wrong, but they could well be right.

''There are many people who are HIV-positive and remain healthy 15 or 20 years after testing positive for HIV. Conversely, some HIV-seronegative people develop what would have been considered AIDS-defining diseases had they tested positive.''

Can anyone cite statistics for this? How frequent is this?

HIV has remained prevalent at a relatively constant rate in the United States population the past 20 years, suggesting that it has existed long before the outbreak of AIDS.

Maybe I don't get English well, but remaining prevalent at a constant rate sounds meaningless to me. Can't anyone elaborate on the subject?
 * It just means that the percentage of people has been more or less constant. Revolver 08:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Group is a separate thing
I strongly object to the Group given such prominence. The AIDS reappraisal movement is not the same thing as the Group. The Group is PART of the movement, but the article makes it sound like they're identical. HEAL should have just as much right. I'm changing the introduction back. Revolver 08:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

recent changes
Some of the recent changes to the article are good. Some are not so good. For example, there are whole sections of the article which are obviously written from the orthodox POV which are stated as is they are simple statements of fact. The section on the changing "definition" of AIDS is an awful example of this. Revolver 08:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

weasel terms
I understand avoiding weasel terms, but the guidelines did NOT say, "avoid 'some people say that' by erasing 'some people say that'", they said such statements should be thrown out altogether! What has happened is that those statements which are really the position of the orthodoxy are now stripped to sound like unbiased fact. And the same for dissident positions. I don't think it's a use of weasel terms to say, "Dissidents assert that" or "The mainstream scientific community asserts that". These are fairly specific. As it stands now, there is little mention of who is saying what of anything!, and consequently, the article is more of a mess now. Revolver 08:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Although HIV cannot be found in the blood of people with AIDS, a range of antibody, antigen, RNA tests and cell culture techniques provide indirect evidence of HIV activity that cannot be ignored.
 * This is an example of a statement that is clearly POV but presented as neutral fact. There are many other examples. Revolver 08:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

false positives
It is a well-known fact that when conducting binary tests for which prevalence is extremely low (such as the prevalence of testing positive for HIV), that the raw rate of false positives, or even the specificity and sensitivity of the test are not always enough to determine how useful the test is. This is why we use the positive/negative predictive values. If prevalence is very low, the specificity and sensitivity may be very good, while the positive predictive value not so good. It is the latter that is important to patients -- you want to know the conditional probability, the probability that you actually have the disease, given that you test positive. Imagine a disease in a population of 1,000,000, where 1,000 have the disease, and all test positive, but another 1,000 who don't have the disease also test positive. The specificity (Sp = P [ Test is negative | Patient is healthy ]) is very good, namely 998,000/999,000 or roughly 99.9%. The sensitivity (Sn = P [ Test is positive | Patient has the disease ]) is also very good, namely 1,000/1,000 or 100%. Yet the test is worse than useless from a patient's perspective, since the positive predictive value (PPV = P [ Patient has the disease | Test is positive ]) is only 1,000/2,000 or 50%. In other words, although the specificity and sensitivity are very high, and the rate of false positives (1,000/1,000,000 = .1%) quite low, if you are a patient, and you are told that you have tested positive, you only have a 50% of actually having the disease. The study given in the article had a population of about 130,000, with only 15 reporting positive, and a single false positive. It's ridiculous to draw such conclusions from such a small number of actual positive results, esp. in a population in which prevalence is very rare. The fact that the WB test is itself questioned as a gold standard only adds to the confusion. The conclusion of the paper is basically, "it's okay to thumb your nose at Bayes' Theorem", which coming from HIV researchers, doesn't surprise me. Revolver 23:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we all know there are many measures of the usefulness of a test. This 1988 paper was accepted and published by the New England Journal of Medicine, whose reviewers clearly did not share your opinion of the paper. Other studies in blood donors (confirming positivity with HIV RNA specific tests) found rates of false positivity of 4.8% of Western blot positive donors and 0.0004% for all donors. Surely you don't prefer the blatantly deceptive version of this article that falsely claimed the study cited demonstrated an 84% false positive rate? - Nunh-huh 23:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, did I put that back in? (No.) I'm not sure where that came from. Regardless of what the reviewers thought, the statement in the abstract shows a misunderstanding of the use of these terms. The whole point of positive predictive value is that it is supposed to give a more accurate value of usefulness when the prevalence is extremely low. If the purpose of the study was to "determine the usefulness of the test in low-prevalence populations", then the raw false positive rate per patient tested is not the right measure to use, esp. in a population where prevalence is on the order of 1 in 10,000! Whether or not the reviewers chose to ignore this fact out of stupidity or political reasons is not my place to say -- the fact remains, and simply quoting the 1 out of 130,000 number and saying "that proves it's good" without giving the actual number of positives is misleading. Revolver 23:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, the fact that something got by peer review in the HIV literature doesn't say much...this example only adds credence to my claim that HIV research itself has almost no scientific standards and is corrupt and incompetent. Revolver 23:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No you didn't put it back in. Neither did you take it out. Which says little for the standards of the reappraisalists. You may want to read the paper if you are unsure as to its purpose. - Nunh-huh 23:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't taken it out because I hadn't read it yet. Which says little for the standards of your presumptions. Revolver 15:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading a specific paper isn't necessary to know that an 83% false positive rate is ludicrous. My "standard" is that someone writing about false positives ought to recognize that, and that people should have read the references they add. Quite evidently reappraisalists don't come up to such standards. I think if you stack up my presumptions against your diligence, I'd come out ahead. - Nunh-huh 22:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, an 83% false positive rate *is* ludicruous. Whether it's ludicruous or not has little bearing on whether it's true, though: Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner and J. M. Papadimitriou, 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Biotechnology 11: 696-707. And if you want to talk about really *ludicrous* things, you should read the 1996 Ho papers. Talk about the emperor. Revolver 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A few POV statements?
"Moreover, many of the AIDS-defining diseases, such as cervical cancer, have nothing to do with immune deficiency, and should not be considered part of the definition of AIDS." - "should not be considered" is POV, surely?

"It is for these reasons that the changing AIDS definition is merely a reflection of a broadened understanding of the disease, rather than a "circular" definition requiring a specific etiology." - this is the corresponding counter-POV.

But shouldn't these POVs be atrributed?


 * Yes, I think so. Whig 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Koch Postulates
The first half of postulate 1, and all of postulates 2,3, 4 have been drectly verified. There does seem to be a weird thing that HIV does not always cause AIDS (some genetic link probably).
 * I have updated this section with verified reviews. --Grcampbell 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Constant Rate
"HIV has remained prevalent at a relatively constant rate in the United States population the past 20 years" Evidence please. "suggesting that it has existed long before the outbreak of AIDS." Drive me through the logic here.Hipocrite
 * It seems obvious -- there's a discrepancy if AIDS ballooned as an epidemic while the HIV rate remained constant. The explanation that it existed long before the outbreak of AIDS makes more sense than the discrepancy. Revolver 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I intend to modify the sentence in question to:
 * "Measured HIV infection rates have remained relatively constant in the United States population the past 20 years, suggesting that it has existed long before the outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s. This could also, however, mean only that the number of new infections were approximately equal to the number of deaths; and thus, the level of infection remained consistent."Hipocrite 17:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be a nice fantasy, if the number of new infections actually were about equal to the number of new deaths. Unfortunately, that's not the case, so that explanation makes no sense. Revolver 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplication of Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis
This article is duplicated almost word for word Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis

That is because editors have been copying tihs article across to Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, I will correct this problem. Sci guy 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I had to go back to 7 April to find a version of this article free of merged material and relatively NPOV. Sci guy 16:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the current version of the group's article is IMO, better --Grcampbell 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Many incorrect statements
Such as articles in Genetica in 1996. Do a pubmed search and you will find none... Some were published in 1998 in Genetica and in 1996 but it was hardly a flurry, with 7 articles coming from just three authors...
 * There were more than 3 authors...look for the Genetica book (if you can find it...) And besides, who cares how many papers were written?? Almost none of the questions raised by Duesberg in his 1992 paper "AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and other Noncontagious Risk Factors" have been addressed or answered sufficiently. Most of the people who both (a) realised what was wrong and (b) were in a position to say something and (c) had the guts to say it, have already said their piece. I'll take a dozen articles that make sense over 100,000 pieces of jibberish. Revolver 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Also the statement:

"In 1991, several dozen scientists, researchers, and doctors submitted a short letter to the editor of several scientific journals. It read:

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken. 6 June 1991"

All the journals refused to publish it."

'''It was published in Science, and there were only 12 signaturies! Look it up. '''

Also, the members of this group hasn't grown to the thousands. Many are now dead...

I have corrected these and others, and I have posted references for the changes. --Grcampbell 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, ignorance knows no bounds. There were 12 in the Science article, yes, but these were total at first; only those 12 were published in the journal:


 * 1) Charles A. Thomas, Jr. Ph.D. (Mol. Biologist, Pres. Helicon Fnd., San Diego, CA)
 * 2) Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. (Editor Bio/Technology, New York, NY)
 * 3) Harry Rubin, D.V.M. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
 * 4) Richard C. Strohman, Ph.D. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
 * 5) Phillip E. Johnson (Prof. Law, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
 * 6) Gordon J. Edlin, Ph.D. (Prof. Biochem. & Physics, Univ. Hawaii, HI)
 * 7) Beverly E. Griffin, Ph.D. (Dir. Dept. Virology, Royal Postgrad. Med. School, London, UK)
 * 8) Robert S. Root-Bernstein (Prof. Physiology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI)
 * 9) Gordon Stewart, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Public Health, Epidemiologist, Isle of Wight, UK)
 * 10) Carlos Sonnenschein, M.D. (Tufts Univ., Medicine, Boston, MA)
 * 11) Richard L. Pitter, Ph.D. (Dessert Research Inst., Univ. Nevada System, Reno NV)
 * 12) Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. (Psychiatrist, Roslyn, NY)
 * 13) John Lauritsen (Author 'Poison by Prescription', New York, NY)
 * 14) William Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
 * 15) Claudia Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
 * 16) Frank R. Buianouckas Ph.D. (Prof. Mathematics, Cuny, Bronx, NY)
 * 17) Philip Rosen, Ph.D. (Prof. Physics, Univ. Mass. Amherst, MA)
 * 18) Steven Jonas, M.D. (Prof. Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook, NY)
 * 19) Bernard K. Forscher, Ph.D (Ret. Editor Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Santa Fe, NM)
 * 20) Kary B. Mullis, Ph.D. (Biochemist, PCR inventor, Consultant, La Jolla, CA.)
 * 21) Jeffrey A. Fisher, M.D. (Pathologist, Mendham, NJ)
 * 22) Hansueli Albonico, M.D. (General Practitioner, Langnau, Switzerland)
 * 23) Robert Hoffman, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Pediatrics Univ. Cal. Med. School, San Diego, CA)
 * 24) Timothy H. Hand, Ph.D. (Dept. Psychology, Oglethorpe Univ. Atlanta, GA)
 * 25) Eleni Eleopulos, M.D. (Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, West Australia)
 * 26) Robert W. Maver, F.S.A., M.A.A. (Dir. Research, Mutual Benefit Life, Kansas City, MO)
 * 27) Ken N. Matsumura, M.D. (Chairman Alin Foundation & Research Inst., Berkeley, CA.)
 * 28) David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
 * 29) Theodor Wieland, Ph.D. (Max Planck Institut, Heidelberg, Germany)
 * 30) Joan Shenton, M.A. (Meditel, London, UK)
 * 31) John Anthony Morris, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Bell of Atari College Park, MD)
 * 32) Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (Prof. Pharmacology & Toxicology, Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ)

If you go to Signatories and More you will find the thousands of signatories. Contrary to your claim, almost all of these people are not "dead", and there are hundreds of Ph.D., M.D.,s and scientists. Revolver 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

link problem
this url was just added. it has embedded square brackets, so wikimedia software is confused by it. How to fix?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?orig_db=PubMed&db=PubMed&cmd=Search&term=Genetica[Jour]+AND+95[volume]+AND+1-3[issue] Genetica GangofOne 22:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I know, I was wanting to add that in directly, so we have a link to the articles in question, but Wiki doesn't like it due to the square brackets... Genetica 1995, Vol. 95 Issue 1-3 --Grcampbell 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No mention of biowarfare allegations?
I find it extremely curious this article does not mention any allegations of AIDS and biowarfare? Surely any true AIDS "reappraisal" and any accurate desciption of the AIDS dissident movement would include them, right? Do you honestly expect people not to notice this highly engineered discrepancy? zen master T 17:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As you may have guessed most editors of Wikipedia are employees of the CIA and we are prohibited from mentioning information damaging to our organization, or anything true for that matter. If you'd like to edit the article, do so at your own risk, don't blame us when our Dissapearing Squad shows up at your door to take you to one of our many lovely concentration camps to use you in studies. You've been duley warned. --Brentt 11:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha, finally some comedy. How would this info damage the CIA specifically unless they were complicit? zen master T 15:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D.
I noticed this researcher wasn't mentioned in this article although he has a few papers on this exact topic. The following is a quote from one such paper called AIDS: More Convincingly A Metabolic Disorder (pdf):

"Although the total attention of AIDS research is directed toward its predicated viral etiology, the intestinal stress and tissue cortisone release factor induced physiology of the body, over a long period of time, and dependent on the mode and frequency of homosexual practice, can possibly be the precipitating cause of this condition. It is proposed that in homosexuals, AIDS is an intestinal stress induced metabolic disorder and, opioid peptides being markers of stress to regulatory systems of the body, excessive use of opiates can possibly cause an indirect promotion of stress physiology that can bring about the associated immune system inhibition and disturbance."

I submit this author for inclusion as he holds distinguished creditials and has work done. I haven't made changes to the article, and it would be nice if we could find a way to include his work into this article. Does anyone find his relation to this article irrelevant?

"Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D., an internationally renowned researcher, author (...) attended Fettes College in Scotland and was a graduate of St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School of London University, where he studied under Sir Alexander Fleming, who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of penicillin."

glocks out 18:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You didn't bother to mention what his "distinguished credentials" are; in fact he was rather famous, but as a crank who claimed most diseases could be cured with water. I'm sure you know that, since you took the biographical paragraph above from this obituary without attribution.


 * But just supposing the water cure stuff is irrelevant; the article you linked to is still terrible. First, it's 16 years old; even Peter Duesberg has taken the trouble to update his arguments slightly in that time as more information has emerged. Second, it's full of suppositions and wild leaps (e.g. that recreational drugs "possibly" have "antihistaminic properties"), repeats some common and easily disproven arguments (e.g. if you have antibodies, the disease can't be progressing), and relies heavily on a rather bizarre notion of what the average gay man does in bed ("severe and unceasing [injury] to the intestinal tract"). Was this really published in a peer-reviewed journal? Amazing.  &#8592;Hob 21:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "AIDS 'conspiracy theories'" here
I propose that we merge the content of "AIDS 'conspiracy theories'" here, basically we could add another possibility to the list "biowarfare allegations". What do people think? zen master T 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Any regular editors of this article care to comment on this proposal? zen master T 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think it would add and not detract from the scientific ideas outlined here, go ahead, but maybe it would be better to integrate them better into the story line of the AIDS reappraisal, instead of a list, or list them under Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. --Bob 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I ask about merging the "conspiracy theories" here because I am still surprised that the "AIDS reappraisal" movement (or just this article) doesn't seem to mention any AIDS biowarfare allegations at all? From what I know of the "AIDS reappraisal" movement allegations that AIDS is biowarfare are prevalent. zen master T 22:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think a merge is appropriate. Better to remove the redundant material from AIDS conspiracy theories that isn't really about conspiracies - e.g. Mbeki and Duesberg, who believe AIDS is caused by something other than HIV, but not deliberately, and Hooper, who just proposed a mechanism by which HIV could have been accidentally spread (which is already described in OPV AIDS hypothesis). The rest of the conspiracy article is about people who believe HIV was created deliberately, but unlike most of the people discussed in "AIDS reappraisal", they pretty much agree with mainstream science on the disease-causing properties of the virus.  &#8592;Hob 22:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Where should cited allegations from scientists that AIDS is biowarfare be put so they can be presented neutrally? zen master T 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of very few scientists, dissident or orthodox, who actually believe this. And I was a member of a dissident mailing list for a couple years, back in 1996-98, where John Lauritsen, Celia Farber, Fred Cline, Paul Philpott, and many others were regular contributors. I don't remember any of them claiming the kind of "AIDS as biowarfare" that you're talking about. It's true that Lauritsen often uses the term "AIDS War", but I don't think he means it in the sense of "biowarfare". He's referring to the psychological and sociological aspects of the phenomenon. As far as a conscious conspiracy to create a biological agent to cause AIDS, this actually makes little sense, since most dissidents don't think AIDS is caused by a biological agent, so the whole "biowarfare" claim would strike them as strange. Revolver 05:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

state of article
Well, what can I say? The article is a joke. It's about 90% orthodox and 10% dissident viewpoint. Some portions are so over-the-top POV it buggers the imagination (e.g. "dissident scientists preaching to the laymen and relying on their scientific illiteracy", etc.) And then the orthodox contributors claim the place is being plundered by "denialists"! Anyway, at least all this is being stored in hard drives somewhere for future generations to gawk at. Revolver 07:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So, it portrays the actual facts and not fantasy as dreamt up by denialists? An article like this should counter fantasy as put forward by denialists, which it does well. It is the only responsible thing to do. --Bob 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion, not a fact. Although I believe HIV causes AIDS, and there is a lot of evidence pointing towards this, it still remains that their theories cannot be completely discounted, no matter how much you disagree with them. As has been pointed out, these people have credentials and have written papers, they may have made mistakes in those papers or they may not, but that doesn't give you reason to offhandedly dismiss them as denialists. They've taken time to think about this, they haven't leapt forward with no reasoning, so they deserve to be listened to. Wikipedia is neutral, and as such does not take sides in a debate. It can show both sides of an argument, but I have to say that this article has a lot of bias towards the people who propose the link between HIV and AIDS. Regardless of your personal opinions, Wikipedia's rules outlaw this style of writing. These people are citing opinion mixed in with fact, but so are the other side, so the debate deserves to be presented neutrally.Humpelfluch 20:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
I added the disputed tag because of this, looks like some random pov pushing that slipped past the net:

"A recent (2005) review of all published results of HIV tests concludes that HIV is not a sexually transmitted infection: http://hivnotaids.homestead.com/Abstracts.html"

If not, it might want to be reworded maybe? Or clarified? - FrancisTyers 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The offending rubbish has been removed, and the tag removed. --Bob 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

General Bias
I have noticed a general bias running throughout this article. The format of reappraisal claims consist of a short paragraphs explaining this alternative view and is followed by multiple, in-depth paragraphs explaining why this viewpoint is wrong. Maybe this cannot be avoided, but it seems to me that a lot of the information provided and claims made against the "AIDS reappraisal" theory are stated as proven scientific fact instead of merely an opposing opinion.

The article is very thurough, very well cited, very well researched. But it is told from a biased point of view and structured in what seems like a very deliberate manner in order to provide a concise argument debunking this alternative theory on AIDS. Again it isnt an argument that I necessarily disagree with, and the support it has could be why this article has taken on this structure, but it should be presented with the appropriate diction and format to let the reader make their own decisions from unbiased information. Not to be just shuffled into one camp or another by an eloquant argument.

Arjunsi 01:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The bias you note is bias towards fact. Facts involve evidence, not argument. Presenting misinformation eloquently would be a service to none. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arjunsi, it could be argued that mainstream views on AIDS are already covered in the AIDS article so redundantly and excessively criticizing alternative views here is exponentially prejudicial. In this article we should state reappraiser views and compare and contrast them with the mainstream scientific view but not pass judgement nor advocate a conclusion either way. zen master T 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Any adequate treatement would leave no doubt that "reappraisers" lack evidence, though they have a surfeit of argument. - Nunh-huh 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia should encourage an investigation and examination of alternative theories rather than merely being a vehicle for dismissing them. Independent AIDS researchers actually have a good deal of evidence. zen master T 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's simply wrong. An encyclopedia should not falsely suggest that "AIDS reappraisal" is propelled by evidence rather than ideology, because it isn't.- Nunh-huh 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobel peace prize winning scientists have alleged many of the alternative theories about AIDS, to dismissively discount them as you do is your own personal point of view. An encyclopedia should never "suggest" anything, it should simply report the facts and cite exactly who is arguing, advocating or counter criticizing what. zen master T 09:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Every collection of facts, every collection of words, "suggests something" by their very nature. That's the purpose of writing. Winning a Nobel prize recognizes an accomplishment in a given field. It doesn't make the winner's opinion about a particularl subject to be higher in importance than the consensus of actual experts in a given field. As far as I can see, there are no important facts or arguments left out of the article. - Nunh-huh 10:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is bias in any direction we should fix and re-word. An article should include all relevant facts and viewpoints and should not dismiss a subject needlessly. zen master T 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A bias toward facts is a bias an encyclopedia must embrace wholeheartedly. - Nunh-huh 22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Science is about interpreting what is often incomplete information not conclusive fact, especially not in the case of AIDS. Find a scientist, mainstream or other, that can definitively prove how AIDS works. zen master T 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobel prize winning doesn't lend any credence to your knowledge on a different subject matter. Also, Duesberg and cronies say that HIV doesn't fulfill Koch's postulates, thus doesn't cause AIDS. It does fulfill them. Also, other viruses and bacteria that do indeed cause illness, and has been proven to do so do not fulfill these postulates. Now, when we state in this article that AIDS denialists believe that HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates, and when the evidence for this is undeniable, then we must state this. Anything else is wrong. Even if HIV does not fulfill these postulates, it would still not mean that HIV does not lead to AIDS, for the abovementioned reasons. --Bob 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia's job is not to judge "credence" it is to neutrally report the cited allegations of nobel peace prize winners and report any cited counter criticisms and arguments. zen master T 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly me. I thought the role of an encyclopedia was to state fact, not opinion. It is the opinion of these people that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Unfortunately, they produce no evidence to prove this POV, whereas the mainstream scientific community has produced evidence in such substantial quantities that it is now fact. --Bob 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a ton of evidence if you look for it. An encyclopedia is still required to neutrally report someone's relevant opinion and accusations (and cite it to that person and not dismiss it). The mainstream scientific community itself doesn't even have a firm grasp on the mechanics of AIDS so there isn't much conclusive "evidence" either way. zen master T 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We more than adequately cover all the erroneous points of view here. - Nunh-huh 22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your point of view, and it's very interesting you and Grcampbell are both so adamant on this subject and psychologically manipulative at the same time. Instead of trying to dismiss the critics view in absolute terms why don't you simply attempt to scientifically butress the mainstream view? Despite your insistence on scientific fact you haven't actually gone into any details, factual or other. The issue is neutral reporting that includes all viewpoints, it's not about some absolute conclusion. Though, I am actually completely disinterested in continuing this conversation and/or test. The evil cabal's days are numbered and/or the cabal behind the cabal to expose the evil cabal has a master plan of exposure in motion, it appears as if my work (if any) is done or is inapplicable and I will mostly just sit back and watch I guess. zen master T 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you have mentioned no specific complaints about the article. Enjoy watching. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually a while ago I noticed the absence of biowarfare allegations in this article and more recently I noticed the presentation dichotomy between AIDS conspiracy theories and this article. At one point I assumed AIDS reappraisal covered the "conspiracy theory" angle but boy was I wrong, perhaps I errantly assumed a more neutral portrayal would begin from this article. I think this article should be retitled to AIDS Truth Movement and include all allegations, there is an 9/11 Truth Movement article and that subject and this one are equivalently controversial in my interpretation. zen master T 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We generally refer to things by their common names rather than make up names for them. Google: "Your search - "AIDS truth movement" - did not match any documents." - Nunh-huh 04:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "AIDS conspiracy theories" is not the common name for accusations by nobel peace prize winning scientists yet that is what some of Wikipedia have given them. An AIDS truth movement exists just as a 9/11 Truth Movement exists, regardless of differing titles or labels. zen master T 05:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That appears to have nothing to do with this article. - Nunh-huh 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Appearances can be deceiving. zen master T 05:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some people are more easily deceived than others. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey I am all for disassociating the "conspiracy theory" angle out from controversial allegations but when that separation completely fails to mention relevant facts and accusations it raises red flags. Why do you so adamantly defend the mainstream view on AIDS? Please explain exactly how I have been deceived. zen master T 05:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * [1] because it's demonstrated by evoking the evidence, instead of by waving away the evidence, and [2] I'm not sure how you've been deceived, but I suspect it's by confusing arguments and debate with facts. - Nunh-huh 05:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no justification to present any subject with the "conspiracy theory" label, see Title Neutrality. Why are you so adamant that I have somehow been deceived? "confusing arguments and debate with facts" does not make sense, I am not saying any AIDS "conspiracy theories" are necessarily true, I only know that biased and unscientific presentation is wrong. Any discouragement of investigation and iterative testing perpetuates mental slavery and errant or incomplete belief and conclusion. zen master T 06:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The "conspiracy theory" has nothing to do with this article, and it is you, not I, who said you had been deceived. And I agree with you that a presentation which ignores fact in favor of theory is biased.- Nunh-huh 07:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is incorrect, I stated above that the appearances you cling to apparently have deceived you. Whatever it is that you claim to have "agreed" to is befuddle inducing but I should expect no less. Any method of presentation that discourages an investigation and iterative testing of both "fact" and "theory" is biased and taints pristine mental clarity. This article omits the fact that some AIDS "reappraisers" have made biowarfare accusations, how do you explain that? The word "reappraisal" insufficiently conveys the vastness of error should the purported mainstream understanding of AIDS be intentionally or even inadvertently incorrect. zen master T 09:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * plonk! - Nunh-huh 21:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the page Title Neutrality that Zen refers to was written by him and soundly rejected by the rest of the community. It should not be considered a basis for decisionmaking. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an errant interpretation for multiple reasons. For starters a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in titles, I believe it was Adhib, just updated the counter argument within Title Neutrality so other editors are actively working on it. Secondly, a week or two ago there were half a dozen users on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories that agreed "conspiracy theory" is pejorative for a proposed subsection split to a sub article (6 other editors or so disagreed so there was no consensus). Thirdly and fourthly, title neutrality is drastically different and updated compared to the original conspiracy theory proposal but even it it wasn't the vote closed over 6 months ago which is more than enough time to have elapsed before proposal resubmittal. Feel free to vote against it but don't censor it. zen master T 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Plonk! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What a terrible article
Why is every bit of conspiracy nonsense on Wikipedia? I'm not even going to get involved as that would inevitably lead to an edit war with the wingnutters, which I frankly don't have the time for. So, you guys win by default! Congratulations! --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE  14:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy?
The statement: ''A observation of AIDS dissidents is that orthodox AIDS proponents prevent an open discussion or presentation of AIDS reappraiser or dissident positions. To AIDS dissidents, that observation illustrates the hallmarks of the AIDS orthodoxy: that an open, neutral discussion is unacceptable; and that orthodox AIDS proponents often do not actually understand or truly investigate dissident claims.'' is highly POV. Do you have an actual source that confirms this or is this just your opinion? Unsourced material does not belong in WIkipedia, and if you can find a source that actually makes this claim, then you should include it, otherwise this material will be deleted.

To call a mainstream scientific view as "orthodox" is highly POV terminology as well, but again, if you can find a source then cite it. Otherwise this terminolgy has to be changed. Nrets 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Language is inherently subjective. Read the definition of orthodox, learn a little about AIDS, and you will realize that AIDS dissidents are NOT orthodox and HIV-promoters are. It's simple. If YOU think orthodoxy is an insult, then it is a comment on your metaphysical views, not on whether dissident are in fact orthodox or not. Sgactorny 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some language is less subjective than others. "Orthodox" is a bad word to use in this context. Please keep [WP:NPOV in mind. Thanks. -- Cyde Weys 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny, Wikipedia is not a place to "promote views", that's where "point-of-view" comes from. What you are doing is adding slanted, unsourced and uncited material to an article and claiming you are being censored. Nrets 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the article is written from the orthodox POV. DIssident positions aren't even accurately stated on most of this page. I agree it could use more sourcing. But you are repeatedly choosing to censor the DISSIDENT part, instead of trying to cut out the nonsense written by the orthodox people. Ask yourself why you are doing that? I am a dissident, who has worked quite prominently in the dissident community. Why not calm down and let me, over time, try and clean up the mess in this page? It is a COMPLETE mess. I'm going to contact other eloquent dissidents, perhaps they will be interested in editing it too. But for now, please stop censoring dissident positions while selectively leaving in orthodox positions. That's just wrong. Sgactorny 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a reason the "orthodox" views are called "orthodox" and a reason the "dissident" views are called "dissident". Here's a hint: it has something to do with the relative amount of evidence between the two.  -- Cyde Weys  20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your admission in your latest message. You are making my case for me. All you are doing is stating that you are a member of the orthodox by arguing in a circle that you are right and we're not, saying you have more evidence and we don't. Of course, having spent ten years reading AIDS research, I think you're insane. And you think I'm insane. That's fine, but just leave our page alone so people can read for themselves without your censorship. Sgactorny 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny, This is not your page, first of all. It is not a platform to espouse views. It is very convenient to portray yourself as a victim of censorship, to justify you putting out your own point of view. This is basically what creationists do in order to put out a view under the auspices of so-called sacientific evidence. The reason there is so much more mainstream science on the page is basically due to the fact, that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence out there suggesting HIV causes AIDS. That being said, perhaps this page could be shortened dramatically, to simply state something like: 1) Some people disagree that HIV causes AIDS, say who they are. 2) This is why they think so, cite your sources. 3) This is what their critics say. And all this could be done in 3 paragraphs with no POV terms like orthodoxy or whatever. There is no need to have such a lengthy article on such a fringe movement. Nrets 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some sources can be found in the pejoratively titled AIDS conspiracy theories article, there is more than a little subject overlap between that article and this one. zen master T 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainstream scientists and dissidents should be used IMHO, as claiming mainstream scientists to be orthodox, which they are, states that dissidents are unorthodox, and is that a good thing? Surely you are hurting your case by using such terminology. Also, dissidents are not mainstream scientists, so there would be no overlap.--Bob 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the word "orthodoxy" is ambiguous and probably shouldn't be used. Though, I think he is using "orthodoxy" to criticize advocates who are promoting the purported mainstream view of AIDS as a belief that should not be challenged, akin to religion. I think we can come up with something better than "dissidents" too. zen master T 22:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading the definition of orthodoxy, as listed on Wikipedia, I agree it is a POV term. I will remove it soon. However, I will continually replace all dissident arguments and claims that are taken out by the AIDS mainstream promoters who keep coming on here and censoring the dissident page. The very fact that this keeps happening shows those who read this without an investment in either "side" exactly what the orthodoxy has been doing ever since Gallo's press conference in 1984, when he got his patent on his HIV antibody test: dissidents are censored and their arguments distorted. And most AIDS dissidents, in my experience, do not view AIDS as a conspiracy of any sort. The AIDS conspiracy theorists believe things that are ENTIRELY different than the scientists, drs., activists, etc. that comprise the AIDS dissident community. If the two pages overlap, then it just shows how messed up Wikipedia still is about these two issues. However, no doubt mainstreamers will do their very best to confuse readers and try make dissidents the same as the conspiracy theorists. Sgactorny 00:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the POV tag with your last edit. I'm sure we can all work toward a complete, verifiable, and encyclopedic article. Maybe it would help to lay out a plan on the talk page for moving toward that goal. Any suggestions? The Rod 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rod, my general tip would be to stop the AIDS mainstreamers with their agenda from distorting AIDS dissident views on the dissident page...until dissident like myself who have actually read AIDS research for over a decade can get to fixing this ridiculously messy page. The problem with these other folks is that they know very little about even the mainstream views, let alone what the dissident scientists say, so their edits end up being tacit or overt censorship of dissident views and arguments. WHat would help is if they would simply butt out until the page can be cleaned up by those who actually know what the scientific arguments are in favor of the dissident views. No one who is editing this page is familiar with their views. it is obvious from the statements they make. So if everyone would just take a deep breath, I actually sent email to some prominent dissident activists, and invited them to come and make some NPOV contributions. Maybe they'll respond. Until then, I'll work, slowly, to make an ACCURATE non-POV page. BUt I have a full life and that will take a while. In the meantime, I won't allow mainstreamers to come on constantly and delete the VERY FEW accurate dissident positions on this page. As for the constant insults from the mainstreamers on these talk page, the FACT of the matter is that there are BOOKS written about the dissident positions, by scientists from all over the world, with hundreds of scientific references. The fact that none of these people have read them is evidenced by the fact that they continually say there is hardly anything in favor of dissident views. And when they do present what they think is a dissident view, they are wrong. One editor is not even apparently aware that the orthodoxy calls AIDS dissidents AIDS DENIALISTS in most of their writing, and has for years!!! So why should these people, who don't even know dissident views, be editing this page? Ridiculous. Sgactorny 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny, It seems like the only claim you make for "your side" is the claim that your claims are distorted. Why don't you start with that list at the beginning of the article that summarizes the view of the dissidents? From what I see of the article, most of what you call censorship is basically scientifically sound claims easily debunking all of the claims made by dissidents at the beginning of the article.  So far, your contributions to the article are about how your views get distorted. So, if you complain that nobody understands these so-called dissident views, especially those orthodox scientists you keep mentioning, then maybe you should start by addressing how those claims are not the claims of the dissident movement, rather than accusing everyone of censoring you.


 * As a practical suggestion, why don't you start a temp page at Talk:AIDS reappraisal/temp where you can work on the article to your liking and then upload it to the actual article?  Nrets 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll argue about whether HIV causes AIDS with any person who has actually read the dissident, peer-reviewed articles. But I'll never be baited into a conversation with you Nrets, when not only do you have NO idea about what dissident claims actually are, you aren't even familiar with mainstream arguments. And worse than your admitted ignorance, is your willing and continual censorship of the AIDS dissident page. The temp idea is tempting, however, other dissidents may soon appear who will have more time than I to contribute. I do not have much time right now, and that is why I haven't done much else but block your censorship. I DO have time for that, I'll get to fixing the article towards NPOV slowly, but surely. People who actually know what the dissident arguments and evidence is of course have a basis for editing the article. You and the others who know nothing about dissident science, but who only insult it and censor it, please just stop. Sgactorny 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, all I hear from you is complaints about being censored. I am more familiar than you think with AIDS research, and yes, my knowledge about so-called dissident claims is limited. Nevertheless, any claims that this article makes about HIV not causing AIDS are scientifically unsound and easily disproven, and that is what I have been editing. If there are any better arguments out there, I would be happy to hear them, but I somehow suspect that there aren't which is why you have resorted to personal accusations against me and other editors. It is the lack of basic science education in the US that makes questionable scientific claims polular (take creationism for instance), and I am comitted to fighting this type of irresponsible misinformation whenever I encounter it. Again, your argument that you are being censored leads me to believe that you really have no better defense for these claims. Nrets 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"my knowledge about so-called dissident claims is limited. Nevertheless, any claims that this article makes about HIV not causing AIDS are scientifically unsound and easily disproven, and that is what I have been editing."

What a remarkably illogical contradiction. I notice that most scientists are not ever required, as they pursue their careers, to prove they understand logic or critical thinking. I would submit that were scientists required to prove mastery of critical thinking skills and receive classic logic training, that many of the people killed by the AIDS establishment would still be living today. I personally have witnessed people killed and maimed by the "miracle" anti-AIDS drugs. And that is one reason I'm passionate about this subject. But back to you, "any claims about HIV not causing AIDS are unsound" even though you admit you aren't even familiar with dissident evidence. What could be more orthodox than that?????? It fits the definition entirely. It is scientific ignorance and religious devotion. Period. Sgactorny 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the lack of logic here. Once again, its yourlack of logic that fails. And you resort to personal attacks. If you have such a strong case, let's have it. Again, all your contributions to the article are about how evil orthodox scientists are out to kill, maim and censor people like you. Are you going to tell me that vaccines are not effective in protecting against diseases? That antibiotics are a conspiracy by the medico-industrial complex?  What you are doing here is reprehensible, immoral and irresponsible. Nrets 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, I couldn't have asked for a better Orthodox performance. Sgactorny 02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, where is your case? Or are you waiting for "someone more eloquent from the dissident community" to bail you out? Nrets 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This will be final response to your posts, unless I think it will benefit someone else. As I wrote numerous times in previous posts, the task of cleaning up this page will be a very slow one. I have a full life, and this page is a REAL mess. I did five minutes worth earlier, as you must already know but are pretending to not know as you try and mislead people here. Anyway, fixing these pages will take some time. In the meantime, I'd direct people to duesberg.com, questionaids.com and virusmyth.net -- research, nrets, you have certainly never read. Good evening. Sgactorny 02:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yah, just in case people hadn't learned anything about the orthodox view of AIDS in the last 20 years....hahahaha, geez...At least your honest about your agenda. You spent a lot of time censoring the dissidents before you admitted it, but now you're laying your cards right out on the table. Sgactorny


 * OK, I'll look forward to your edits. In the meantime, people can be directed to this site mantianed by the National Institutes of Health, and this site mantained by the AAAS. Nrets 02:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yah, just in case people hadn't learned anything about the orthodox view of AIDS in the last 20 years....hahahaha, geez...At least your honest about your agenda. You spent a lot of time censoring the dissidents before you admitted it, but now you're laying your cards right out on the table. By the way, nrets, when are you going to take the time to educate yourself on the other side of AIDS?!???? I've been reading boths sides for over 10 years, not the propaganda from either side, but the actual peer-reviewed AIDS literature. When do you plan to get equally informed about both sides? And if you're not informed about AIDS dissident positions, how do you know it won't convince you of something? Even if you don't, nrets, others see the insanity of rejecting scientific positions you admit you haven't even considered. That isn't science, that's religion. And that is why so many AIDS dissidents call you all the ORTHODOXY. That's exactly what you are, by your own admission. It would be funny if so many of my friends hadn't been killed by poisonous AIDS meds and improper death disagnoses. Sgactorny 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, now we are dealing with "propaganda". You are sounding more and more like a conspiracy theorist. Lovely. Clearly I'm wasting my time here. Nrets 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
Why do you keep deleting the folowing sentence?

Mainstream scientists claim that disagreement over the cause of AIDS is ultimately a conflict between sound scientific practice and a group of politically motivated activists who selectively pick and choose so-called scientific evidence that best meet their points of view. They claim it is a perfect example of how superstition and perhaps fear have degraded useful scientific debate, regardless of what the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence points to.

This is a direct criticism of the dissident movement by an established source. This fits with all the guidelines of NPOV, the fact that you are deleting this shows that your agenda here is not to have a factual discussion about dissident claims, but really to stiffle all criticism of them and accuse everyone else of censorship. You have repeatedly abused the 3RR and if you do not desist I will report you to an administrator. Nrets 18:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You dnot even understand the difference between an actual ARV and a drug that works by mass destruction of the immune system being USED AS an ARV. That is how ignorant you are of scientific reality and dissident views. You admitted you know nothing about dissident views. You admitted you are an orthodox AIDS promoter here, to promote the AIDS orthodoxy. STOP IT. Go to the mainstream AIDS page and bash dissidents, not here. This page isn't for a "rational discussion about the issues." It is for NPOV about AIDS dissidents. You are not capable of seeing what that is, since by your own admission you are IGNORANT of their views. So stop adding orthodox POV to this page, especially since you don't even KNOW you are adding orthodox POV to the page. And the reason you don't know it, is because you don't know dissident evidence. On AZT, the very reason it killed tens-of-thousands of gay men in this country is BECAUSE it was NOT an ARV, but was given to healthy gay men (along with sick ones). It maimed and killed them, and most of the orthodoxy admits that, even if you don't! And if you don't realize that, then you are profoundly ignorant of ALL AIDS science, dissident or orthodox. So stop editing this page until you take the time to READ ABOUT the ACTUAL dissident positions. Otherwise, you aren't qualified to edit the page. Sgactorny 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, I now see that you are the one who is qualified to edit here. I guess writing really long diatribes against other editors WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS is your substitute for logic, and makes you the champion here. Good for you. I hope you don't approach other aspects of your very full life in this way, it might get you into trouble someday. Good luck with it.  Nrets 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny accuses others of censorship, yet it is exactly that which he is doing to this page. A NPOV article should outline both POV, and the fact that he continues to delete and dare I say it, censor the fact that mainstream scientists have indeed studied and have come to the conclusion that they disagree with AIDS dissidents in the highly credited journal Science only emphasises the fact that this user does not want to work towards a NPOV article, but simply one that bashes real factual evidence. If this user is able to contribute data and evidence from real scientists who work in the field that discredits the mainstream view, without cherry-picking data, then he or she should do so. Simply using weasal wording, and personally attacking users without any real substance truly shows, in my POV, that this user is incapable of properly editing this article, and should stop.--Bob 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Ok, first of all, I've protected the page against an on-going edit war. I've blocked User:Sgactorny for a period of 3 hours to cool off after violating the 3RR. I'm not going to take sides, and I think you both need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I suggest you resolve the dispute on the talk page to prevent further edit warring. If you want, you can take your case to the WP:MEDCAB or through the formal Dispute resolution processes. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is protected, I suggest we list terminology and content options for this article, as in the section below. (I hope the vote style is appropriate.) The Rod 19:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote on whether to reference Science article
Excerpt from a previous version of the AIDS reappraisal article: "Mainstream scientists claim that disagreement over the cause of AIDS is ultimately a conflict between sound scientific practice and a group of politically motivated activists who selectively pick and choose so-called scientific evidence that best meet their points of view. They claim it is a perfect example of how superstition and perhaps fear have degraded useful scientific debate, regardless of what the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence points to." 'Should the AIDS reappraisal article include and cite the above Science'' article? The Rod 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: The Science article is from a reputable source. It seems to summarize the mainstream assessment of the AIDS reappraisal movement. The Rod 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject: I have to withdraw my support, as the link does not point directly to an article that makes those claims. The articles linked from within it do support most of the paragraph, but it is perhaps too difficult to sift through the linked articles to support the paragraph. I suggest changing the paragraph and using direct links to specific components of it instead. The Rod 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK will re work the pargraph to include direct links. Nrets 22:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: I second that. It is a good summary from an established source. Maybe we can remove the "so-called" to make it less POV, but otherwise I say include the quote as is. Nrets 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support (the modifications to the paragraph suggested by The Rod. The link is good, but I feel that the paragraph must be reworked to reflect what is found in the direct link. Also, we could leave in the remark about superstition and fear, but use another scientific journal link to support this accusation, after all, we should all be citing sources. --Bob 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Counter criticisms belong in a section for counter criticisms, a summary of the mainstream view is already covered in the AIDS article and it would be (or is) redundant and biasing to excessively include them here. Let the AIDS "dissidents" present their arguments, specific counter criticisms should be put in a subsection dedicated for that purpose. Historically, this article and subject within Wikipedia seemingly has been written from the POV of excessively comparing and constrasting the dissident view with the "mainstream view" for the purpose of trying to reject, or discourage an investigation of, the "dissident" views, which is exponentially non-neutral and unencyclopedic. zen master T 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Zen Master, this isn't a specific counter-criticism about the dissident movement. It is a paragraph that states the general reaction of mainstream science to this movement. I agree that the specific counter-criticisms should follow the main points of the movement. Nrets 02:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read the Science article about 50 times, and knowing probably none of you have read it once, and even if you have you never checked out its accuracy (I have) I will not allow it to be characterized as actually refuting dissident positions, because it doesn't. Instead, it misstates dissident positions, leave out the real evidence dissidents point to in their writings, and then refutes the straw man. This is propaganda, plain and simple. Having worked with many of the scientists who fight for dissident views to be accurately repoorted, I got used to it. Having lost so many to AIDS, I just won't let it happen on Wikipedia too. I'm just not THAT cynical yet. Sgactorny 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here is a more direct version of the paragraph:


 * In 1994 the journal Science conducted a 3-month investigation to examine the validity of the dissident claims.  They interviewed AIDS supporters and detractors, examined the primary AIDS literature including Duesberg’s publications. This investigation found that “...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.”  The Science investigation also found that although Duesberg and the dissident movement have garnered support from some prominent mainstream scientists, most of this support is related to Duesberg’s right to hold a dissenting opinion, rather than support of his claims that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What do you think? Nrets 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reminder: The vote above does not apply to the new version of the paragraph.) That version does a good job of only making citable claims. I'd agree with zen master, though, that it belongs in a "Criticism" (not "Counter-criticism") section following the main points of the movement. The Rod 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

AIDS Orthodoxy temporarily wins battle to censor dissidents from this page
Like past AIDS dissidents who have tried to make an honest, NPOV page, I will now yield to the two or three AIDS orthodox promoters set on changing this page so the public can't know the truth about what AIDS dissidents say. The reason I'm doing this is because I'm preparing a neutral, NPOV, referenced, wikified article. If you orthodox promoters try and censor that, too, I'll take it all the way to the top. For now, have your fun stopping readers from seeing what dissidents actually believe. I will be back soon. Sgactorny 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you want to create a good encyclopedia article. Accusing others of censorship, though, prohibits the assumption of good faith on which Wikipedia collaboration depends, so let's work together. I'm looking forward to your improvements. Peace. The Rod 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you honestly say you believe these others, who admit they don't know dissident science, believe in the orthodoxy, and repeatedly insert orthodox positions are interested in this page accurately presenting an encyclopedia article to the public? From the dissident perspective, the mainstream has had its views in the public for 20 years! And whenever we try and present the alternatives, supported by scientists with as much credentials (or more) as the orthodox scientists who make their money promoting HIV and AIDS meds, those orthodox people are right there inserting POV and censoring and getting us banned wherever possible. It isn't a conspiracy, any more than when people believed leeches cured illness was. But societal heirarchies and the fact that most people do not actually have good critical thinking skills make Thomas Kuhn's time-tested maxim true: When an establishment exists that is invested in a paradigm, the masses defend it to the death, even though the masses know nothing about it. For this is what must occur for a society to survive: THere are leaders (duesberg, gallo, montagnier, mullis) and followers (nrets, grcampbell). The only thing that eventually changes a dominant paradigm (such as HIV-causes-AIDS) is time: as the orthodoxy literally dies, and the next generation has no investment in either side. And a new paradigm can occur. This is what has occurred all throughout human history, and AIDS is no different. In my 10 years working on this issue, I have noticed that when people come to AIDS with no investment in either side, and they actually take the time to read the actual dissidents' writings, they become a dissident. I can hardly think of any exceptions to this observation. QuestionAIDS.com or Virusmyth.net are a couple of the best repositories of actual dissident data. I've noticed that dissidents don't try and censor the orthodoxy, in fact we're the first to say READ THE ORTHODOXY DATA! We find that upon actually reading what the the orthodoxy says is its science, critical thinkers come to the conclusion its crap. Interesting how dissidents WANT the public to read orthodoxy articles, but the orthodoxy does everything it can to suppress the debate and free flow of dissident information. No surprise, history predicts this. As for this article, it is 98% nonsense, as I've said in many previous posts. It is designed to make people think there is nothing to dissidents' views. You know, is the orthodox people, like nrets, were so confident in the orthodox positions, why do you think they need to come on here and do edit wars with dissidents? I think the answer is obvious... Sgactorny 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny, Terms like "propaganda", "Orwellian" (see below), "Alice in wonderland", make it very difficult for us to take you seriously. Nrets 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Source request
Could someone find a source for this sentence: "AIDS dissidents have little or nothing in common with those who view AIDS as a government or military conspiracy"? Seems in opposition to reality. Some segment of the media, due to their portrayal of AIDS, would have to be at least inadvertantly complicit in vast error should the highly buttressed "mainstream view" of AIDS be incorrect. zen master T 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this article call AZT an antiretroviral drug?
Mainstream science classifies zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug, but the AIDS reappraisal movement specifically disputes its effectiveness and thus does not similarly classify it. Thus, reverts challenge this article's description of AZT as an antiretroviral drug. So, how should this article classify AZT? I suggest that this article only needs to refer to "antiretroviral drug" in its terminology section, e.g.:
 * AIDS terminology
 * The AIDS reappraisal disputes the mainstream classification of Zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug.
 * The AIDS reappraisal disputes the mainstream classification of Zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug.

The rest of the article could then refer to AZT without saying "antiretroviral", except to make explicit claims about its effectiveness. How does that sound? The Rod 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

it sounds wrong. The definition of anti-retroviral should be a drug that specifically targets a retrovirus -- hence "ANTI-RETROVIRAL." AZT doesn't. It specifically targets DNA synthesis and was discovered long before HIV. It was shelved before it ever got to humans because it was so toxic, killing lab rats quite swiftly. The fact that it rather indiscriminately kills dividing cells of the immune system is why it kills so many people (and also why they thought it might SLOW the progression of AIDS -- but there are no studies that show it does anything good for anyone, and the orthodoxy admits that now)). If you were HIV-negative and took AZT, you would likely progressively lose your health and immune system. You would soon lose your hair, muscles and energy. Soon, you would exhibit many of the illnesses in the category called AIDS. You would likely eventually die. Dissidents argue that calling AZT, and other drugs like it, "anti-retroviral" is a symptom of what is wrong with the AIDS orthodoxy. Misleading language about the nature of this chemical misleads HIV diagnosed individuals into going along with very bad suggestions. Your suggestion is that we just simply call the drug what the orthodoxy calls it? That is no solution, since calling things by names that don't fit what they are is a big cause of the ignorance surrounding HIV and AIDS. Another example in the AIDS world of this Orwellian approach to naming things is the notion of "viral load." The person who invented the technology that gives rise to "quantitative PCR" is Dr. Kary Mullis. He got a nobel prize for creating PCR. And guess what? He's an AIDS dissident. And he says "quantitative PCR" does not actually count virus. It COPIES fragments of DNA assumed to come from a virus. Even if the assumption was correct that the DNA comes from fragments of a virus, and dissidents say it isn't, counting DNA fragments is not counting actual infectious VIRUS. Why does the establishment use "quantitative PCR" to "count" DNA fragments and call it virus? BECAUSE ALL THE CLASSIC WAYS FOR COUNTING VIRUS DO NOT WORK FOR HIV, NEVER HAVE. Because, as Duesberg would claim, you often can't find infectious HIV in AIDS patients. So lots of the problems caused by the AIDS orthodoxy in fact revolve around using terms that don't actually match the reality. You are suggesting we do that in the AIDS dissident page. We will NOT do that on the AIDS dissident page. Because to do it, by definition, is to put in orthodox POV. Do you understand? I think it is stupid to continue this discussion through talk. Rod, you seem like you actually have an open mind, you just don't know much about the issues. I respect that. Rather than my spending time answering your reasonable questions here, I think it is best to let me prepare what I consider a NPOV referenced article. Sound cool? In the meantine, rather than asking me questions, go to virusmyth and enter in search terms that you are curious about, like viral load, you will then find referenced articles explaining with clear logic and evidence the problems with the orhtodox logic. If you indeed have an open mind, are genuinely interested in the subject, and have the ability to think critically, I think you will quickly find that the AIDS orthodoxy is like "Alice in Wonderland." I've been reading basic AIDS research for over 10 years. And to quote a leading AIDS dissident, AIDS research attracts the worse kind of scientists: interested in fame and fortune. AIDS research is the "dung heap of science research." The reasoning is most often absurd, the definitions of things are smoke and mirrors, and more than anything else, the data in the studies do not match the abstracts and the conclusions. Sgactorny 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe WE CAN SAY...sorry...we can say that AZT is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor, use for it's anti-retroviral effects. Many drugs (such as chemotherapeutic agents used against cancer) work by interrupting normal cellular function which has been harnessed by the disease-causing agent. At the time it was first used, AZT was one of the few drugs that could slow HIV replication, despite its side effects. Nrets 02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Sgactorny. Maybe I'm being dense here, but I think my suggestion is consistent with your sentiment, i.e., the article should say that the AIDS reappraisal movement disputes the AZT's antiretroviral classification. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your suggestions here on the talk page. Then we can work toward agreement and request unprotection of this article. Respectfully, The Rod 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There was never any evidence it slowed "HIV replication." Especially since viable, infectious HIV can't be found is most AIDS patients. That's why they started using Dr. Mullis's PCR technology to count fragments of DNA assumed to be from HIV. Why don't you busy yourself with responding to what I'm saying? I'd LOVE to see what you come up with. Sgactorny 03:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny, look, with all due respect, everyone here is trying to work with you but you keep on insulting other editors with your personal attacks. Would you like to be blocked again for attacking users? We know you have been reading AIDS research for the past 10 years, we know you have worked with Duesberg, we know you have lost firends to AIDS, but many of us have been reading AIDS research, doing research, treating patients, etc. for longer than that. So rather than accusing the "orthodoxers" of "ignorance" and nit-picking every word, why don't you post some constructive alternatives to the question posed by The Rod?  Most civily yours, Nrets 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot acctept your invitation to debate the affectiveness of AZT, Sgactorny, as Wikipedia isn't a forum for such debate. This talk page, however, is the appropriate place to discuss what content to put on the AIDS reappraisal page. We are awaiting your comment on how to improve my original suggestion for how this article should describe AZT. As a reminder, that suggestion is this:
 * The AIDS reappraisal disputes the mainstream classification of Zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug.

Respectfully, The Rod 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to nrets. And I wasn't suggesting a debate, I have a life. I was suggesting he actually try and refute anything I say, instead of just making constant orthodox POV on the dissident page. As for your suggestion, it is putting the cart way before the horse. The page you see will soon cease to exist entirely, as it is really an orthodox page masquerading as a dissident page, except for the intro part. The rest is orthodox POV. You'd know that if you actually read dissident literature. :) Anyway, I will be slowly putting together a dissident page elsewhere, and we'll bring it here when the time is appropriate. It will be referenced and NPOV. And then if the orthodoxy tries to insert orthodox POV and censor us, i'll take it all the way to the top... I've watch too many people die to just let it go and not care. For now, goodbye. Sgactorny 04:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sgactorny, I appreciate your enthusiasm and look forward to your proposed replacement content. In the meantime, however, this article page is locked to encourage us to work out content differences here. If you are planning to work elsewhere instead of here, please let us know about how long your effort might take. That will help us decide whether to wait for your proposal or to petition for this page to be unlocked in the meantime. The Rod 18:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardly any dissidents???
Hey, look at all the dissidents! I thought there weren't any scientist or doctors who say HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Oops. List of dissidents, including PhDs, MDs, from all over the world...hundreds... Sgactorny 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a good source. It would be inaccurate to refer to the purported mainstream view of AIDS as something approaching a consensus scientific view. I've been thinking, it seems the entire concept of a "mainstream view" is nothing more than a media construct -- a random scientist would present their findings and solicit comments and criticism, not portray conclusiveness a certain way. Some segment of the media would be complicit in vast error should the purported mainstream view of AIDS be incorrect. zen master T 09:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Kary Mullis, the chemist who invented the polymerase chain reaction and won a nobel prize for it. Is he a "random scientist"? That seems about as mainstream as you can get. Savidan 11:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because someone is a genius doesn't mean they can't be batshit insane. See Bobby Fischer.  So just because he came up with an idea in genetics doesn't mean his insight is infalliable.  -- Cyde Weys  16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Responding to Savidan, so you are arguing the dissident view is actually the true mainstream/random scientist view? zen master T 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This list hardly makes the dissident view "manstream". You can get anybody to sign a petition. There is no media conspiracy here, scientists don't get together in back rooms and say "let's suppress some dissident views". Scientific consensus is bulit upon thousands of scientific observations, validated over and over again until everyone pretty much agrees on something. Sure, you can always find studies that conntradict each other, and if you focus on that you can say that "the whole theory is wrong". No scientist will tell you that we know everything there is to know about how HIV works, not even its most avid proponents. But that doesn't mean that there is no consensus, and that what we do understand is wrong. Most of the data cited by dissidents as problematic, seems to be 10-20 years old. Scientific progress moves at a great pace and many of those original criticisms have been addressed. You still have a right to your dissenting opinion of course, but if someone shows you evidence refuting it, respondinng by calling them an ignorant idiot is certainly not going to help your case.  Nrets 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How many experienced virologists on that list? --Bob 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the time that creationists put together a list of hundreds of scientists who didn't believe in evolution. In response the scientific community put together a longer list that had two much stricter criteria: everyone on it worked in the field of biological sciences and everyone on it was named Steve.  -- Cyde Weys  17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There were ONLY a few dozen "experienced virologists" in the whole world when HIV was promoted as causing AIDS in the 1984 press conference, without any studies published establishing this. Peter Duesberg was probably the leading retrovirologist in the world at the time (he says HIV doesn't cause AIDS), so said Robert Gallo (co-discoverer of HIV). Robert said HIV caused AIDS, Peter said it didn't. Robert was better at the press conferences, Peter was horrible at them. Robert's science papers are a joke, Peter's are not. Science by press conference is the theme of the HIV-causes-AIDS paradigm, and the primary or even sole reason the paradigm got entrenched. Duesberg was extremely self-destructive in refusing to learn about how to do PR. Gallo, Montagnier and Ho were opposite, rather poor scientists, and liars to bat, but exceptional at manipulating the press and government. A common question from the orthodox is, How could all these people be wrong? The answer is that hardly anyone was wrong in the beginning, just a handful of scientists. But since they used the press, INSTEAD of peer reviewed journals, to adjudicate thier science, they convinced the world, literally overnight, that HIV caused AIDS. By the time the other handful of scientists who were experts started to realize the original sin of HIV science (there wasn't any good science), it was too late. The press said HIV caused AIDS, so did the government and AIDS activists. By this time, there was no way for the establishment to consider AIDS might be more complicated than HIV without hundreds of careers utterly in ruins, and billions of dollars of lawsuits from the invalid HIV tests, toxic AIDS meds, etc. So the establishment has been the last 20 years trying to explain all the absurd contradictions in AIDS science to keep HIV the sole cause of AIDS. There has never once been any legitimate inquiry to it, except by President Mbeki, who was immediately attacked by the entire world as insane. All the articles put on this site as legit consideration of dissident views are bullcrap. None of them do that, not Maddox or Cohen or Ascher. They were written to try and protect HIV, not to genuinely examine all sides. Anyway, all this is why Thomas Kuhn's maxim will be true for AIDS: Reigning paradigms never die until the establishment promoters literally die off. Too much is at stake for them to consider they've been wrong, and it will scare the world way, way, way too much about the fallibility of science and authorities. But many of you reading this have no investment in whether HIV causes AIDS, and you will learn a lot if you read questionaids.com and virusmyth.net. Happy reading Sgactorny 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny I think the science article is fairly impartial and set out without any agenda, and if you read then series of them they seem to do a fairly thorough job of debunking dissident claims. Of course you say that what they claim are dissident claims are not dissident claims, but they directly review Duesberg's papers and Duesberg himself. But no matter what we say here, it seems like any criticism of the dissident claims you will categorize as "propaganda". But this is ridiculous, for you to say things like "the press said HIV caused AIDS, so did the government and AIDS activists" makes little sense because there is no one unified opinion in the press, the government nor in the scientific establishment. You are talking like there is some vast conspiracy here, but there isn't. There are literally hundreds of virologists around the world working on HIV, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and to say that they are all "in on it" or have been brainwashed somehow is absurd. Scientists vary in their opinions greatly about pretty much anything. You claim that scientists do HIV research for the fame and glory, but I can guarantee you that if someone conclusively shows HIV does not cause AIDS they will get far more fame and glory and attention than by plodding away into one obscure gene sequence or another. Your view about how science is done is very distorted, you do not realize how mundane the day to day aspect of it is. There is very little glory in it, believe me. Meanwhile you take publicity-hungry people like Kary Mullis to champion your cause, who in an interview I just read with him he basically claims that anybody with AIDS that is not gay or a drug user is basically lying about his lifestyle. Get off your high-horse, you are not the only educated person here. Maybe you would benefit from spending some time working in an actual laboratory rather than reading over-hyped accusations about this vast conspiracy.  Nrets 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do agree, we would learn a lot if we read questionaids.com and virusmyth.net, we would learn how to cherry pick data, how to invalidate whole experiments due to one inaccuracy in an interpretation, how to ignore valid points and how to invent data. It would indeed be a learning experience.--Bob 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Although it's difficult to refrain from debate, in order to unlock and improve the article we must refrain from making judgements that a view is "absurd" or "distorted", a dissident is "publicity-hungry" or on a "high-horse", or accusations are "over-hyped". The Rod 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll refrain from making judgements. Nrets 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, now Sgactorny, will you also agree to refrain from judgements like "science papers are a joke", "poor scientists", "liars", "manipulating", "original sin of HIV science", "good science", "absurd contradictions", "insane", "bullcrap", "written to try and protect HIV", and "not to genuinely examine"? The Rod 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, are you telling us you are in a laboratory doing some kind of research and yet you simultaneously think that you can judge dissident claims without actually reading any dissident literature, only the CRITICISMS of it? I can think of nothing less scientific. SCARY. You admit you don't know dissident claims or literature, and you judge dissident claims as absurd. Can the readers of this talk page see how insane this reasoning is? The Science article by Cohen DISTORTS Duesberg's views, ignores the evidence in favor of it, and MOST importantly ignores the FACT that Duesberg and Mullis are but TWO out of hundreds of dissident scientists. I think Duesberg is an idiot about certain things. That doesn't mean HIV causes AIDS. I think HIV hasn't even been properly isolated. Duesberg and I disagree. But Duesberg is right about AZT, it is murder to give that to people. So using an article in Science which doesn't even accurately present dissident views, and which ignores the fact that other dissidents explain things Duesberg doesn't, and that YOU are fooled by it and want to insert into the dissident page, is a comment on your ignorance and agenda. You never independetly verified that article, period. Period. Read through questionaids.com and virusmyth.net -- VERIFY or DISPROVE the claims YOURSELF. Stop having faith in the authorities...That's your original sin, faith in Jon Cohen, faith in authorities. It is why we're in this mess to begin with. Sgactorny 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a "no" answer to my request for a civility agreement ("I can think of nothing less scientific", "absurd", "insane", "DISTORTS", "murder", "YOU are fooled", "your ignorance and agenda", "faith in the authorities", "original sin"). Since we apparently cannot all agree to be civil, what is the next step? The Rod 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'd like to remind people that if you wish you can seek mediation from the mediation cabal, I won't be your mediator as I am involved (I locked the page), but I'm sure one of our competant mediators will be able to help you resolve your dispute. As an aside, please remember that the talk page of an article is for discussing the article in question, I don't see much of that going on. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Root-Bernstein's article in Genetica 95: 111-132, 1995
He states:

A number of widely repeated and factually incorrect myths have pervaded the AIDS research literature, misdirecting research and treatment. Five of the most outstanding are:
 * 1) that all risk groups develop AIDS at the same rate following HIV infection;
 * 2) that there are no true seroreversions following HIV infection;
 * 3) that antibody is protective against HIV infection;
 * 4) that the only way to treat AIDS effectively is through retroviral therapies; and
 * 5) that since HIV is so highly correlated with AIDS incidence, it must be the sole necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS. A huge body of research, reviewed in this paper, demonstrates the falsity of these myths.

Now, this is a dissident stating what mainstream science is telling us, it seems to me that he is very much mistaken on a number of points


 * 1) Mainstream scientists know that different risk groups progress at different rates
 * 2) There are a few cases of retroconversion known, but these correlate with defective viral strains, or false tests
 * 3) We know that CTL's are important against HIV infection. However, antibodies against Tat have been proven to be correlated with slower disease progression.
 * 4) It is not the only way, but one of the most effective. Life expectancy increases when you take these drugs.
 * 5) HIV is the underlying cause of AIDS, and has fulfilled Koch's postulates fully

Blinkers must be taken off. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grcampbell (talk &bull; contribs).

First of all, you are an AIDS doctor who is not interested in actually exploring whether HIV is the sole explanation for AIDS. But now to the point, It absolutely does not fulfill Koch's postulates at all. And this article was written in 1995. But, dr., you are right!!!! The orthodoxy has very slowly come to accept a LOT of what dissidents said all along!!! And you have given some examples here.... I'll send anyone $50 if you open your mind enough to read these two articles: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdilemma.htm AND http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epwbtest.htm  You have to prove you really read and understood them though. :-) I'll be happy to explain the whole thing via phone. Sgactorny 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you are uninterested in discussing the facts, just attacking the contributor. It is a poor debating technique, but yet one that attempts to obfuscate the actual evidence presented here. --Bob 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Data

 * Sgactorny, This is from one of the articles you cite :


 * Why are 9 out of 10 AIDS patients males? Not true, in 2001 about 25% of new cases are female
 * Why are about two-thirds male homosexuals? new AIDS diagnoses in homosexual males has decreased to about 40% by 2001
 * Why are one-third intravenous drug users? Again this number has decreased but IV drug use hasn't
 * Why are most AIDS patients 25-49 years old, and why don't teenagers get AIDS? Not true, AIDS diagnosis in children under 13 unfortunately increased during the early 90s and then dropped by 2001 as blood screening became more common place.
 * Why have doctors and nurses never caught AIDS from over 800,000 American and European AIDS cases - particularly in the absence of a HIV vaccine? By 2002, 57 healthcare personnel in the US are documented as aquiring HIV after ocupational exposures, 26 have developed AIDS


 * For some actual data on AIDS I refer other editors to here and here. I know Sgactorny will say that these numbers are cooked, since they do not support his assertions, but I can't do anything about that. You can keep your $50. Nrets 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't actually just dismiss things-- that's what the orthodoxy does. We dissidents take pride in considering whatever you send us. So I read them and understand them. They're fine. I will be happy to read ANYTHING you present me that you think disproves dissident views. I have only asked you to read two articles start to finish -- which you refuse to do. The first article I gave you was written in 1998. And your quote comes from that, not the second one which you referenced. Good try though.

1) As AIDS cases dramatically decline in the U.S., which began in 1993 (4 years before the introduction of HAART, by the way), women make up an increasing percentage of AIDS cases. They make up a slightly increasing percentage of a shrinking pie. Big deal. True infectious epidemics do not discriminate based on sex like AIDS does. AND FURTHERMORE, the fact is that the definition of AIDS was changed in 1993. This resulted in dramatically increasing the likelihood that women would get diagnosed with AIDS. This was done because the orhthodox POV that AIDS should become a hetero epidemic in the U.S. NEVER occurred -- because AIDS is not infectious in the U.S -- it is a multifactorial event. And even after changing the definition of AIDS in 1993 to cause more women to get AIDS (for insurance purposes, by the way), AIDS STILL does not appear infectious, as Duesberg wrote in 1998. So your point is crap. I could actually add several more reasons here, but it is available in the dissident literature you simply REFUSE to read, even though you're so confident you know we're all whackos.

2) Same thing with #2. As AIDS cases continued to decline, and AIDS-causing AIDS meds were given to people from the general poulation, so too did AIDS cases begin to appear in heterosexual drug consumers, either recreational or pharmaceutical, AIDS-causing drugs. Overall, AIDS cases declined starting in 1993. The homosexual community, of which I am a part, cleaned up its act BIG TIME in the 80s and into the 90s (with the end of the batthhouse culture and LESS drugs and FAR less STD rates in our community). It follows that AIDS cases would naturally decline many years later, regardless of HIV or AIDS meds playing a role. And that is exactly what happened. There are more explanations, but all you have to do is read dissident literature with an open, but skeptical mind, and you'll find them. I can't write textbooks here.

3) No idea what point you think you are making about Injection drug use. But I will say that one reason AIDS cases have declined in populations such as Injection drug users (it isn't intravenous, by the way, its injection), is because treatment for OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS among those with destroyed immune systems has dramatically improved over the past 20 years. This is the ONE triumph of the orthodoxy. Their HIV hypothesis is absurd, if you bother to learn about it. Their AIDS meds cause AIDS. HIV tests don't measure HIV and may not measure antibodies to HIV. BUT the individual OI treatments are, as a whole, very helpful. Also, many more addicts have clean needles. This helps slows the transmission of ALL KINDS of microbes and dirty DNA, regardless of HIV.

4) AIDS in children has always been a rather tiny occurence in the U.S., the vast majority (over 80%) occurring in children of drug-addicted parents. Thus, they have plenty of reason to have destroyed immune systems without HIV. Second, pregnancy causes false positive HIV results. Third, what occurred when AIDS increased in children is that children were given toxic AIDS drugs as they were experimented on (most of them were poor and black). This caused AIDS in children to increase temporarily in the U.S. As dissidents screamed nazi experimentation, very quietly many of the treatment recommendations were reversed, and reports appeared in the medical literature throughout the world that giving kids AIDS meds was disastrous. Other than that, I don't see what difference it makes, the whole sentence, in terms of HIV causing AIDS. But hey, if you think this proves HIV causes AIDS, then you'll believe anything.

5) Many of the 57 cases have been examined in the medical literature by dissidents. They are not what they seem and offer NO EVIDENCE HIV causes AIDS. You are simply making an assertion here, and hoping everyone will believe you. You didn't verify it yourself. I, however, have personally read many of the accounts. Factors such as the person's own drug use, AIDS meds use, etc., perfectly explain occassional sickness among healthcare workers with one of the 29 OLD ILLNESSES now called AIDS. THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that if HIV caused AIDS, THOUSANDS of health care workers would have gotten AIDS over the last 20 years, not 57!!!!!!! or even 150!!!! Did you know that for the last 20 years about 1,000 healthcare workers have gotten HEPATITIS from accidental needlestick injuries EACH YEAR???????? If HIV causes AIDS, where is the similar or even WORSE epidemic all over the world among healthcare workers or PROSTITUTES? Nrets, you have not researched anything. You are just spewing what you read, never bothering to question it, and with complete faith in the establishment literature. I, however, have ZERO faith in what I read. I CONFIRM IT. Gosh, I'd like to see your score on the LSAT. That would give me a good laugh.

Taken together, even if all that you wrote had NO explanations, none of it is evidence HIV causes AIDS or that AIDS is infectious. I have no idea what point you thought you were making. And I suspect you don't either. Now the reason I bothered to write this stuff is that I suspect you will go on mischaracterizing the articles I asked you to read, and delude yourself into thinking you are rebutting them. I won't sit here and respond point by point. But I did respond to these to show OTHER readers that the things you say have explanations and even if they didn't, are irrelevant to the points of those science articles. I have no doubt that further quotes from you will be distortions and misunderstandings, because you clearly are not interested in actually learning about another POV than your own. You only interested in one thing, promoting the orthodox POV, even though you admit you don't know much (or ANYTHING) about what AIDS dissidents actually believe. Sgactorny 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The point I'm making is that one of your articles that you claim represent your point of view starts with flawed/outdated data and uses it to build its case. You can explain away anything you want, but I can give you far more plausible explanations that this data does not support your hypothesis. I now see that it is pointless to argue with you. Good luck in your endeavors and your campaign of misinformation. Nrets 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The epidemiology is slightly outdated data because it was written in 1997!!!! Duh. But so what? None of the new data are evidence HIV causes AIDS -- etiology. You made no point at all. If you think you made an important point, or that anything you said proves HIV causes AIDS, you are living in Wonderland! Sgactorny 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that these data show HIV causes AIDS, I'm saying that the data supporting one of the main arguments against HIV not causing AIDS is no longer valid, therefore that argument is no longer valid. Nrets 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NONE of what you wrote was a "main argument" HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You know nothing about the main arguments since you have a closed mind about science and won't read dissident literature. Collaborate with people who won't read the dissident literature before editing the dissident page??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? INSANITY. Period. Sgactorny 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How do people collaborate in the face of continued insults ("your point is crap", "HIV hypothesis is absurd", "spewing what you read", "your score on the LSAT [...] would give me a good laugh", "no idea what point you thought you were making [and] you don't either", "mischaracterizing", "delude yourself", "quotes from you will be distortions and misunderstandings", and "you clearly are not interested in actually learning", "you are living in Wonderland"). Sgactorny says it will take at least a few weeks to complete the proposed replacement content. In the meantime, this article is locked and I'm at a loss on how to move this article forward. Has anyone reading this has seen similar disputes? The Rod 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly Rod, I don't think collaboration in this article will ever be possible with this editor. Nrets 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)