Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 3

Article Problems
[posts about POV]

[...] Like the other controversial articles, the very nature of this subject makes it almost impossible to find a neutral treatment of it [...].

[...] 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[...]. The matter of terminology can be most easily resolved by an introductory statement [...] explicitly designed to explain the choice of terminology used in the article [...]. Make it [as neutral as possible] 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. [...] -- Wapcaplet 22:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protected
Ok, first of all, I've protected the page against an on-going edit war. [...] 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)

Preparing replacement content offline
[...] I'm preparing a neutral, NPOV, referenced, wikified article. Sgactorny 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[...] 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)

[Sgactorny indicated the proposed replacement content will take a few weeks to prepare.]

Proposed AIDS reappraisal criticism content
[Apparent agreement that reappraisal criticisms belong in their own section after the main article]


 * 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)

[...] That version does a good job of only making citable claims. [...] The Rod 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we move the above paragraph from the introduction to a new "Criticisms" section after the main points of the article. The Rod 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the paragraph should be moved to a new "Criticisms" section. Side note: the journal "Science" doesn't appear to be following the scientific method in its purported debunking of AIDS dissidents' claims. zen master T 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Why does the text refer to the Science piece as an "eight page editorial", when the online PDF shows three pages? 2. As for Zen-master's last remark: I think the content and format of the Science article speaks for itself; an investigation is not the same thing as a study. It was essentially a news article that attempted to represent the current range of opinions about Duesberg's work. There is no way an article about the politics of science can "follow the scientific method" in the same way the report of a clinical study would. &#8592;Hob 00:49, 31 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. 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. [...] Dissidents argue that calling AZT, and other drugs like it, "anti-retroviral" is a symptom of what is wrong with the AIDS orthodoxy. [... Calling] the drug what the orthodoxy calls it [...] is no solution [...]. [The notion of "viral load" does not work for HIV.] So lots of the problems caused by the AIDS orthodoxy in fact revolve around using terms that don't actually match [reappraisal positions]. [Using such terms] is to put in orthodox POV. [...] Sgactorny 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardly any dissidents???
[...] 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. [...] zen master T 09:18, 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)

Insertion of unsourced material
Dear user S.G. Actor NY, please stop inserting POV material. If you want to legitimately edit this article you have to insert sourced claims. If you think Science did not call for a close examination of Duesberg's claims and that the article's author was "out to get" Duesberg, then you must find an actual source for that. This is not a matter of MY POV versus YOUR POV, it is a matter of neutrality, which is achieved by using external sources. Nrets 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you do not understand dissident or orthodox claims, you frequently use orthodox terms and don't even know it. Your insertion of an orthodox editorial, 8 pages long, is an attempt to discredit the AIDS reappraisal movement, isn't that right? Or are you going to pretend you are just putting it in there with no agenda? Admit your agenda, again...you already have before. You are here to censor dissidents as much as possible, and to promote your orthodox view about AIDS. And every sentence I wrote is referenced now. So stop inserting orthodox POV into this document, flawed as it already is. Sgactorny 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. The Rod 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Sgactorny that you are unable to hold a rational discussion without firing off insults. I have no agenda except accuracy. Also adding comments like "a mere eight page editorial" is a clear mis-representation of a thorough evaluation. Finally, if you want volume the scientific literature proving HIV causes AIDS is far more extensive and substantial that the dissident claims. I am tired of your personal attacks in this page and in your edit summaries and if this continues I will file an incident report for personal harrassment.  Nrets 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I have a few general suggestions. The organization of the main article may benefit from more subdivisions. Each assertion from the reappraisalists deserves a neutral description of its content. Then present pro and con arguments in separate subsections.

Regarding talk page interaction, a few general rules apply:
 * Editors have a responsibility to present both sides in their best light.
 * It is acceptable to edit down content based on lack of citation, lack of space, redundancy, or certain other considerations.
 * It is not acceptable to remove content from a respected publication because one disagrees with the methodology or POV of that source. If those concerns are valid and significant then someone has probably published a respectable rebuttal.  Find that rebuttal and cite it.
 * Editors become counterproductive when they go beyond discussions of article material and speculate about each others' motivations, knowledge, and background.
 * Strong belief on a subject does not exempt anyone from Wikipedia's policies.

Regards, Durova 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to implement the above suggestion to give each reappraisal assertion a neutral description (e.g. avoiding terms like "claim") and to follow that description with separate pro and a con subsections. Does anyone oppose that article structure? The Rod 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, an immediate benefit of such a restructuring would be to stop the the edit war over whether the Science piece was an impartial investigation into dissident claims or a mere 8-page editorial written to discredit the AIDS reapraisal. The Rod 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. Which section should we start with? Nrets 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ideally, Sgactorny, zen master, or someone else well-versed in reappraisal positions would be involved, so I invite them to choose the first section to restructure in this way. Otherwise, we could start with a reappraisal assertion that should be easy to word neutrally, e.g. the section currently titled "Claim: HIV does not exist", which would perhaps be more neutrally titled "Assertion: HIV does not exist". The Rod 03:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New AIDS treatment toxicity section
This is an odd section, because nobody here is denying that AZT is toxic, in the same way that chemotherapy drugs are toxic. The dispute is whether AZT causes AIDS. The fact is that, prior to the licensure of AZT in 1987 the vast majority of people with AIDS never received antiretroviral drugs -- including those in developed countries -- and they still developed symptoms. There are also people in developing countries with AIDS today where very few individuals have access to these medications (UNAIDS, 2003). Nrets
 * Keep in mind that, per the AIDS reappraisal, many conditions misdiagnosed as AIDS have various underlying causes. The assertion that AZT causes some of the conditions currently misdiagnosed as AIDS can thus be consistent with a misdiagnosis of AIDS in patients with, for example, chronic drug abuse or malnutrition. Your point that nobody denies the toxicity of AZT, however, does appear to require a rewording of the content. The Rod 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Prove the molecular clones are HIV specific
You can't, that's the point. There are no criteria for establishing "HIV primers" are actually HIV primers. That's the dissident point. Show me the studies that prove the molecular clones come from HIV. You have zeroed in on the main dissident point, we say that HIV primers are molecular fragments, that can be caused by all kinds of things: drug use, endogenous retroviruses, harmless exogenous viruses, endogenous DNA or RNA, all kinds of things. To call something an "HIV primer," you must be able to prove it came from HIV. Go for it. Until then, your edit is orthodox POV. And I'm deleting it. Sgactorny 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, a blatant example of your insertion of orthodox POV. You inserted a non-referenced statement that there are "DNA primers specific to the HIV virus." No, this has not been proven. And if you can give me the study which shows the DNA primers are specific to HIV, using ANY logical method for viral isolation and a characterization of a new, unique, exogenous virus, I will take some AIDS meds just for fun. They don't exist. That's what we've been saying for years. But I'm excited we've gotten down to the point. Stop inserting unreferenced, orthodox POV into the article. You're making my case for me though, kinda fun. Sgactorny 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What you call a logical method is beyond by comprehension. Nrets 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your words, not mine. But here is the method, you need to show me a scientific process that proves the DNA fragments come from a unique, exogenous, new retrovirus. You need to show me a scientific process that proves these DNA fragments are NOT caused by foreign or exogenous DNA, associated with people who have AIDS, but that isn't a virus. This gets to the whole dissident case, that oxidative stress and foreign and endogenous DNA can eventually cause HIV tests to indicate positive. Because what is being called HIV is actually many other factors. But if you can prove this DNA is HIV, go for it. Simply asserting that it is over and over is not proof or evidence. Show us the evidence. It's what we've been saying for years. We've even offered financial rewards. :-) Sgactorny 15:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To say we do not know anything about the RNA sequence of HIV is icorrect. Just to give you an example, do a Pub Med search for HIV and Genome and you get over 9000 articles. What exactly are all these people studying then? Gene expression induced by injury has also been studied. Oxidative stress is induced by many insults to the body that do not co-factor with AIDS and yet none of these gene fragments that we think are HIV are detected. Show me a study that smoking tobbacco, or ischemic stroke, for example induce genes associated with HIV.  Do a GeneBank search with a sequence of and HIV encoded protein and tell me if any endogenous human genes show up. What most of your criticism seems to be is to basically find small holes in our evolving understanding of HIV and say "this is proof it does not exist". Nrets 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For your edification here's a link to the HIV genome -, but I'm sure you've already seen this. Nrets 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I sure have. I even organized a debate between one of the scientists who took part in that project, and a dissident scientist. We all agreed the DNA was coming from people who were either sick or who were believed to have HIV. We all agreed there is lots of DNA, over 9,00 articles on all this DNA. Fine. That's not the issue. You're missing the point. What no one could come up with was how scientists decided the DNA that is claimed to be HIV was proven to be HIV, and not caused by all the things that characterize AIDS patients: many other STDs, and/or drug use, oxidative stress, and/or infection of other retroviruses, and/or activation of endogenous RV or Viruses, or even malnutrition triggering an endogenous response that causes someone to test positive on HIV tests.

If you can show us the studies that prove all this DNA is caused by a new, unique, exogenous RV, you'll be the first on the planet to do so. It's what dissidents have been complaining about for years. It's the main point of many dissident scientists (NOT Duesberg, though). Then, if you can prove these DNA primers are really caused by an exogenous RV, then we can move on to the next discussion: is this RV harmful? Even mainstream scientists know that human DNA contains thousands of endogenous RVs that are harmless. So even if it is HIV, is it harmful? But we're not there yet, we're at this question: what's the DNA coming from? And why can't it be proven it comes from an RV, using the same critera used for all the previous RVs. And if it can't be proven using the criteria used previously for all the other RVs, then what logical criteria are used? I await your response. Sgactorny 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's not exogenous then why doesn't everybody test positive for HIV? Or are you saying that if you are a drug user AND are a homosexual AND have unprotected sex, then ONLY when all these factors are met your body will be coaxed into expressing these genes? How come others who do not have any of the risk factors, but have managed to become exposed through other means, can sometimes express these genes? Is there any evidence that these HIV sequences are in the human genome? Or in any vertebrate genome? And why, if cells get infected with HIV do they suddenly express these sequences? It seems that, when taken together, the overwhelming amount of evidence is in favor of HIV being an exogenous retrovirus.


 * One final technical point, you stated: if you can prove these DNA primers are really caused by an exogenous RV. DNA primers are not caused by anything. DNA primers are fragments of DNA which are made in the laboratory and which sequence matches a portion of the DNA you want to amplify by PCR. For more info on that see [| this link]. PCR is a common technique used in molecular biology for many, many things, not just HIV testing. Nrets 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know all this. But thanks. You are missing the point. How do you know the DNA sequence of the primers is from an exogenous, new, unique RV? That's all the dissidents ask. The old methods were VIRAL ISOLATION. The new methods are what???? Sgactorny 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know all about PCR, since I've had conversation with Kary Mullis about it and worked with scientists who use PCR. PCR is not viral isolation, and cannot isolate viruses. That's the point the dissidents and Mullis have been making for years. I'm waiting for ANY study which shows the DNA fragments are from a whole, unique, new, viable, infectious, exogenous RV. That's all we ask. Sgactorny 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the point, that it is normally not found in the body, therefore it must come from an exogenous source. Nrets 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum for proving or disproving theories, so most of the content in this talk page section is inappropriate. The Rod 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No nrets, just saying that isn't proving it. Prove it. Where are the studies? How do you know what you are saying is true? Show us. In fact, people test false positive on PCR tests ALL THE TIME. It's right in the PCR test kits. Here's some quotes: "The FDA has not approved PCR viral load for HIV screening or for diagnostic purposes. The CDC acknowledges that the specificity and sensitivity of PCR are "unknown" and that "PCR is not recommended and is not licensed for routine diagnostic purposes."142 The viral load test manufacturers' literature warn "the test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV..."143

If you would only read the ANY of the articles dissident scientists write, you might get the point: -- You could be the one to win the 10,000 pounds if you find the missing science papers thats how HIV can be isolated using any logical criteria whatsoever. Just calling DNA HIV does not make it so, in a genome project or whatever. The DNA can be a result of ALL KINDS of other things, that's the point. That's why we need science, not just claims.

Rod, if you would stop trying to stop a discussion, and add to it, that might help. It's all quite relevant to the content on the page. You have an opportunity to learn about actual dissident views. I hope you use it. Please.


 * Regarding your request that I "stop trying to stop a discussion", please see the advice in above by User:Durova. In order to make progress on this article, we need to stop trying to prove and disprove theories. Instead, we need to describe each AIDS reappraisal assertion neutrally and then, in separate subsections, cite references supporting and opposing those assertions. The Rod 17:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sgactorny 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Things found in the body and not normally in the body often come from inside the body. For example, my grandma died of cancer recently. She had a "cancer count" the whole time she was on her way out. She would not have had a cancer count two years ago. By your flawed logic, the cancer must have come from outside her body. Your logic is flawed. And you need to science to prove your claim. I await that science, as have dissidents for years. Also, everyone knows about endogenous RVs. Again, to use you reasoning, anyone who in the past tested negative for an RV, and then tested positive, that's all you need to know they got it from someone else. Wrong. Events trigger the expression of endogenous RVs, and then they have something in their plasma they didn't used to have, just like the dissidents say happen in AIDS cases. If you would bother to read dissident articles before saying they are crap and morally reprehensible, you could participate in this discussion more usefully. If there anything you'd like me to read that you think I don't know? I'd be happy to. Sgactorny 17:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cancer is caused by mutations of existing genes, so cancer does come from something normally in the body. There is no evidence HIV is a mutation of an existing gene. I very well know that we do not express all of our genes at all times, but nevertheless the sequences are already in our DNA whether we express them or not. There is no evidence that I know of that HIV-related sequences form any part of the human genome. Nrets 18:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My point about your logic stands. And by the way, the processes that lead endogenous genes to become cancerous MAY VERY WELL result from the outside. In fact, they do! The mainstream argues for it. So in fact, there is medical precedent that things like smoking alter DNA, causing endogenous DNA to be measurable and quantifiable in the body and cancerous! There is even debate within the medical community about whether cancers are caused by viruses, smoking or endogenous phenomena. I think we will find it is all three, so do people like Peter D. And we think it is the same for AIDS. But back to the point here: please prove your assertions about where the DNA comes from called HIV with studies that provide logical criteria, since you discard the "old methods." Tell me what the new methods are, as requested in the summary section and in the SIV section. Should be simple... Sgactorny 19:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What old methods did I discard exactly? As I said, the RNA (yes you are correct to say that no DNA comes from the virus) sequence of the HIV virus is known, and matches nothing that is in the human body. Here's a review article with tens of references detailing what is known about HIV and how it infects cells . If you cannot access it let me know and I can send you a copy.


 * As far as cancer it is irrelevant to my point whether the cause of the mutation is external or internal, the point is that it is the body's own DNA that is mutated. Nrets 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nrets, what is the criteria for showing that the DNA or RNA is not endogenous and/or that it is not caused by drugs, and/or chemicals, and/or oxidative stress, and/or WHATEVER. What is the logical criteria? What are the current methods for isolating a virus? When was this done for HIV? The classic methods you apparently discard are the ones Gallo AND Montagenier tried to use for HIV. But when they couldn't isolate HIV from AIDS patients using the same methods used for all other viruses, they changed their criteria for virus isolation to nonsense. Here was their criteria, I encourage you to read Gallo's original study. The criteria for being diagnosed with HIV in their studies was ONLY 1) The presence of p24   2) The presence of reverse transcriptase ... and AIDS symptoms... THAT IS IT! That is what the establishment accepted as isolation of HIV. That is utter nonsense. Read the original papers. I've read them many times, in disbelief. A year later came a paper claiming "molecular clones" of HIV. But the methods in this paper did not actually ISOLATE anything that could come close to being called a real virus. By by that time, it was too late. Test kits were being made with these molecular clones, and an entire field has arisen examining all this RNA and DNA from sick people. It assumed the DNA/RNA they found was a virus, there was no criteria given for this, just assumptions. We agree the genetic fragments are there. The question is, what is it? How do you know it's a virus? Show us the studies. Your 2005 review article will almost certainly NOT present us the criteria we are looking for, it will only reference OTHER studies it claims "isolated" HIV. The Perth Group are almost the only group of scientists at this point, on the whole planet, who bothered to look into this.

They found that no studies used by the establishment have any logical criteria for the isolation of a virus. They find the only valid logical criteria the scientific community has so far were the technique of density gradient centrifugation and purification. The establishment says this process destroys HIV. This is classical circular reasoning. 1) We know it's there because it is and everyone knows it. 2) The methods to find it destroy it but we still know it's there because it is, or because these people are sick, or because of these DNA fragments we find in them. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. That's all the orthodoxy has. It's illogical. Logicians, attorneys, mathematicians, activists, and some scientists see it. But the orthodoxy, with careers based on this illogic, can't. I'll ask again, where are the studies that show that the DNA fragments found in sick people are from a new, unique, viable, infectious, exogenous, RV? Where? Show me one....

You keep saying your criteria is that these DNA fragments are only found in the sick people. That isn't true. Plenty of people who are diagnosed HIV positive with this flawed logic are healthy, MOST in fact...until they take AIDS Meds. But even with the AIDS-causing meds, it is STILL true that most of the people who test positive for these DNA/RNA scraps are healthy. That's why the test kit itself says not to use PCR to diagnose HIV!!!!!! It can't be used that way, and here you are using it.

This nonsense of using "molecular clones" as viral isolation may also explain the absurd "WILD" HIV mutation rate. It makes no sense. And of course, if HIV was so fantastically intelligent, why has it killed so few people compared to every other infectious epidemic in the history of the world? And why don't these mutations give rise to a super deadly HIV that killed us all by now???? Nonsense, a simpler explanation is that all these DNA and RNA fragments are caused by many factors. And people who tend to do the same kinds of things to their bodies and live in the same places, tend to have the same "dirty DNA" floating around in their body. But let's not get distracted. Back to the original question: where are the studies that show that the DNA fragments found in sick people are from a new, unique, viable, infectious, exogenous, RV? Where? Show me one....

Summation of debate

 * In response to your retorts on this previous section, you are way over-complicating the issue and avoiding the main point.

Just show me even one study that shows the DNA called HIV or part of HIV, is from a unique, new, viable, infectious, exogenous, RV. Just one study...and tell me the generic logical criteria used for establishing a NEW, viable, infectious, exogenous RV. What are those critera? :)

Be sure you read a study before you cite it, we've read them all for years. And I'll read anything you think proves your case. I'm waiting. Sgactorny 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How would such a study affect your opinion of the appropriate content for this article? The Rod 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree there are such a thing as "HIV primers," neither does Kary Mullis, who invented PCR. When you show us proof, we will agree it isn't POV. Until you show us any evidence whatsoever, it is merely an assertion, and thus it is orthodox POV being inserted into the AIDS reappraisal article. Sgactorny 19:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before HIV is an RNA virus not a DNA virus, so no mone will be able to show you DNA from HIV. As I also said before, DNA primers are artificially made DNA constructs used to amplify a gene with PCR. No as far as isolating genetic material from HIV patients, a standard technique of molecular biology called molecular cloning has been used to obtain highly purified HIV. Genetic material extracted using PCR or other techniques has been introduced into bacteria or other cells (usually using phages or plasmids), which then produce many exact copies (clones) of the viral genes. If cloned viral genomes are inserted (transfected) into human cells then they produce a new generation of infectious HIV particles, which are free from contamination. This has been done many times by multiple labs. Here are some references: ,,,.  Nrets 19:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No nrets, you still don't understand. You keep saying, "highly purified HIV." How do you know that is what this molecurlar material is? What is logical criteria used here that what is being "transfected" is a unique, new, viable, infectious, exogenous RV? How do you know that what is being transfected isn't caused by all kinds of other things? Sgactorny 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Under "Summation of Debate", I'll throw in my two cents as a more-or-less disinterested seeker of truth. This may or may not be relevant to the neutrality of the associated Wikipedia entry. Anyway, I've read the entire BMJ debate (over a period of several weeks; it's very long), and I would summarize it as follows:

1) Dissident point: HIV has never been isolated as a unique virus. Mainstream response: this is true, but irrelevant; multiple separate lines of related research point to the entity identified by 9 specified genes, and called "HIV" (-1 and -2), as a necessary (cough, cough, ITCL) and not-exactly-sufficient (LTNPs) cause of AIDS.

2) Dissident point: HIV/AIDS does not follow the pattern of other infectious diseases. There is no AIDS epidemic in the Western world.  Mainstream response: Also true, but this is because HIV acts slowly and is difficult to transmit (sexually or intravenously) due to being very fragile outside of cells.

3) Dissident point: HIV does not transmit in the same way as all other STDs; the only way to acquire it is through receptive anal intercourse. Mainstream response: This may be true, but should not in any way be publicized, in order to avoid the impression that unprotected sex is a safe idea.

4) Dissident point: HIV genetic information is poorly specified, and varies by upwards of 40% from one instance to the next. Mainstream response: Again true, but not an argument against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.   Other viruses also vary by this amount or more, yet clearly cause diseases.

5) Dissident point: HIV tests are non-specific and acknowledged by manufacturers to be invalid for diagnosis of AIDS. Mainstream response: True, and this fact is supposed to be taken into account by clinicians using these tests to diagnose AIDS, by taking the overall health of the patient into account, along with temporal trends.  No one should be diagnosed with AIDS on the basis of HIV screening or "confirmatory" tests alone.

6) Dissident point: HIV's origins are shoddy, fraudulent and discredited. Mainstream response: True, but irrelevant; more recent research has validated and solidified the original claims.

7) Dissident point: AIDS is not a single disease, but a renamed collection of other existing diseases, each with its own well-known, non-viral cause. Mainstream response A: True, because all of these diseases are opportunistic and will not appear until HIV suppresses the immune system sufficiently.  Mainstream response B: False; AIDS is a single disease characterized exclusively by low CD4 T-cell counts (<300).

8) Dissident point: CD4 T-cell counts are not a valid indicator of any disease. They vary in healthy individuals up to and including the levels called "AIDS".  Mainstream response: False; healthy individuals always have CD4 counts above 500, although some readings may be below this value; long-term trends are more important than individual readings in diagnosis of AIDS.

9) Dissident point: HIV has not been shown to kill CD4 cells. Instead, there is evidence that CD4 cells can change their identifying characteristics and turn into CD8 cells.  Thus it is inaccurate to claim that decreasing CD4 cell counts (along with increasing CD8 counts) indicates killing of cells.  Mainstream response: CD4 cells have been shown to be actually killed, not morphed, by HIV molecular clones in vitro.

Overall, I'm not very impressed by most of the mainstream responses. Some of them I cannot critically evaluate, as a non-biologist. Most of the responses that I can critically evaluate indicate quite clearly that the current approach to AIDS research and treatment, involving billions of dollars and large quantities of toxic drugs, is fundamentally flawed, regardless of the microbiology involved. This problem, of course, is not unique to AIDS, but gets a lot more visibility than usual in this particular case. Birdman17 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

SIV
HIV evolved from SIV. From SIV: "The origin of HIV is now generally attributed to SIV from African primates. HIV-2 is most closely related to SIV-sm, the SIV strain from Sooty Mangabey. HIV-1 is closely related to the chimpanzee strain of SIV, SIV-cpz. The most likely route of transmission from monkeys to humans involves the contact with the blood of hunted animals." HIV-1 and HIV-2 are NOT more closely related than each are to their primate cousins. We know the gosh darn family tree and you want to claim they are not from outside the body? We know they are from other primates. We have the DNA to prove the relationship. These DNA are known molecules, not mysterious forces. WAS 4.250 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Your assertions above rest on the unproven assumptions made by the orthodoxy.

I asked for any studies that specifically show that the DNA fragments pieced together and called "HIV" by "consensus" actually comes from a viable, infectious, exogenous, new, unique, RV. Do you have any specific study which claims to establish this? If so or if not, what is the LOGICAL CRITERIA that leads one to label DNA fragments a new virus, or RV, to the EXCLUSION of other factors? Simple questions...where's the answer? Sgactorny 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You say cats do not exist. I show you a cat. You say that's not a cat. WAS 4.250 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before HIV is an RNA virus not a DNA virus, so no mone will be able to show you DNA from HIV. As I also said before, DNA primers are artificially made DNA constructs used to amplify a gene with PCR. No as far as isolating genetic material from HIV patients, a standard technique of molecular biology called molecular cloning has been used to obtain highly purified HIV. Genetic material extracted using PCR or other techniques has been introduced into bacteria or other cells (usually using phages or plasmids), which then produce many exact copies (clones) of the viral genes. If cloned viral genomes are inserted (transfected) into human cells then they produce a new generation of infectious HIV particles, which are free from contamination. This has been done many times by multiple labs. Here are some references: ,,,.  Nrets 19:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No nrets, you still don't understand. You keep saying, "highly purified HIV." How do you know that is what this molecurlar material is? What is logical criteria used here that what is being "transfected" is a unique, new, viable, infectious, exogenous RV? How do you know that what is being transfected isn't caused by all kinds of other things? Sgactorny 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice you aren't even reading studies, you're just pointing us to abstracts. You just don't get it, I'm afraid. Well, enough. If you write something new or seem to get the point, I'll be happy to resume. Good luck. Sgactorny 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing...I'm not saying these molecular clones are NOT HIV. I'm saying you have yet to give any logical criteria proving them to be. Just because you can transfect genetic material from clones does not mean you've found a new, unique, viable, infectious, exogenous virus. It ain't the same thing...at all....These phenomena could be caused by MANY other things. That's the point. You need criteria that excludes all these other things and proves that the genetic material is specific to a new virus. Pointing us towards abtracts just doesn't cut it. Sgactorny 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sgactorny, I'm pointing to the abstracts because most publishers do not let you link to the articles unless you have a subscription. The full text article is easily accessed by clicking on the link on the top left. I would be happy to send you any of these papers if you cannot access them. If you need help understanding some of the molecular biology methodology I would be happy to explain this as well. Also, I don't think you understand my point. The point is not that you can transfect genetic material from clones, this is done routinely. The point is that if you transfect this genetic material into cells then these transfected cells will produce HIV particles which are infectious. In essence you are isolating a viable, exogenous virus which then can infect other cells. If this is not proof enough for you then I do not understand what is.  Nrets 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you are going in circles. You just make a slightly different assertion but you never get the main point or answer my question. This time you write, it will produce "HIV particles which are infectious." No, it will reproduce molcular clone fragments that can be reproduced and can replicate. Big deal. This isn't valid criteria for establishing that this genetic material is a viable, infectious, IN VIVO replicator, new, unique, exogenous retrovirus. You need logical criteria for that. What is it? The criteria that was used for ALL OTHER viruses could not be used for HIV . So what is the new criteria? Finding genetic material, transfecting it, and replicating it, are not enough. No way. Illogical. Sgactorny 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you read the articles? How is having a cell make a virus which is then in and of itself infectious not logical? Let's break this down:


 * 1) Use PCR to amplify genetic material suspected of being HIV from infected host.
 * 2) Transfect material into bacteria to make multiple copies of genetic material.
 * 3) Purify clones and transfect them into human cells.
 * 4) Human cells will then generate suspected HIV particles. IF these are really viruses THEN they should be able to INFECT other human cells by themselves.
 * 5) Take a new batch of human cells, put suspected virus in media and cells become infected. Voila, the suspected virus really is a virus!


 * This methodology has been used to characterize other viruses as well. Nrets 20:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is circular reasoning. It sounds good, but it is circular. It doesn't prove that IN VIVO we have a UNIQUE, exogenous, viable, new, infectious retrovirus. It merely proves that clones transfect and replicate. Big deal. We are going in circles. I know all this stuff you are saying, so does the Perth Group. I'm an idiot in New York, read what the dissident scientists say, then get back to me:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdreplyep.htm - Duesberg claims HIV is isolated http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm - Perth Group rebuts his claim

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd2.htm - Perth Group's second rebuttal, even more to your point.

You tell me what you think after reading these. I am not as eloquent as the Perth Group. Peter told me in his lab ten years ago that HIV had been isolated. But what he said sounded exactly like what you said, and given what The Perth Group said, I was not convinced. At least we are now clear what the disagreement is. And we are not insane or "morally reprehensible" as you called me, we honestly seek the truth. I've lost many friends to AIDS, I want to know what's really going on. Sgactorny 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read all this, all of this is pre 1998. Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also read all of the above. Besides their age (not only are they 8+ years old, but many of the positions they're arguing against are from the 1980s), they don't really deal with what Nrets is talking about. Sgactorny, in his statement about "circular reasoning" above, doesn't seem to understand the difference between a virus and a piece of genetic material. If a cloned piece of genetic material, when introduced into a cell, simply caused it to make more of the same RNA, indeed that would be no big deal. What Nrets is talking about is that if you insert this RNA into a cell, it begins to produce complete viral particles that can infect other cells with the same RNA. In order for that to happen, the RNA would have to have included the instructions for assembling a viral envelope and budding it from the cell; it can't be just any old RNA. If you find a round thing and keep it warm and a bird hatches out of it, then it's an egg, not a rock. That was the conclusion in the studies Nrets linked to (which also showed that the new viral particles had the same tropisms as the original viral isolates, and could kill cells in vitro), and I see no circular reasoning there.
 * By the way, Sgactorny's comment that "you aren't even reading studies, you're just pointing us to abstracts" is ludicrous; I cannot imagine anyone with any kind of scientific background using such an argument. A very small proportion of peer-reviewed scientific literature is available for free on the Internet, but PubMed citations provide everything you need to find the articles (including links to the full text wherever it's available) and everyone who does any kind of research knows that. There is no reason to suppose that Nrets didn't read what he linked to, and that's the kind of personal attack that I strongly advise Sgactorny to cut out right now. &#8592;Hob 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perth Group
From the references above, since I'm worried you won't actually read them:

HERE IS MY FAVORITE SENTENCE: "Since cloning is a process leading to the production of an exact copy of whatever object one starts with, how can one claim cloning of something before there is proof that it ever existed?"


 * PCR and cloning are used routinely to discover new genes from suspected gene fragments. The test is whether you can replicate the function of the gene by re-introducing the gene back into the cell. This is what was done with HIV in the citations above. Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"6. All cells have RNA

"...viruses can also be isolated as infectious nucleic acids from infected cells".

Viruses are not mere nucleic acids. Neither can the introduction of nucleic acids into cells and their reproduction be considered as proof for viral infection. lf:

(a) one starts with a presumption, but no proof, that a cell is infected with a unique retrovirus;

(b) chooses from its RNA a fragment of arbitrary length, and calls it retroviral RNA

(c) inserts the RNA (cDNA) into a cell and reproduces the same RNA (cDNA) and interprets this as infection;

(c) construes (a)-(c) as proof of isolation of a unique retrovirus; then, given the fact that the same steps can be achieved with any cellular RNA (DNA), one would have no choice but to consider every single fragment of cellular RNA (DNA) as retroviral, and that all cells are nothing more than an assembly of retroviruses.


 * The studies mentioned above by me do not simply insert the RNA into the cells to show infection, they introduce the purified virus, complete with envelope proteins, into the media and the virus itslef infects the cells. Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Others

"...such infectious nucleic acids initiate replication of virus in uninfected cells from which new virus particles are subsequently released".

This may be the case with the genome of other infectious agents but this has never been shown for the genome of HIV.


 * The studies I cited above show PRECISELY this for HIV. Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

8. Cloning

"...infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected cells several times by molecular cloning".

This matter has been discussed at length in our Continuum paper. Suffice here to stress two points:

Retroviruses are not "cloned, infectious HIV DNA of 9150 bases" but "enveloped viruses with a diameter of 100-120 nm budding at cellular membranes. Cell released virions contain condensed inner bodies (cores) and are studded with projections (spikes, knobs)". (25) Furthermore, such particles share the physical property of banding at a density of 1.16 gm/ml in sucrose density gradients, a fact long used in their isolation. Cloning of a virus is defined as obtaining EXACTLY the same virus by introducing its genome into a cell. However, to date, nobody has reported such particles by "cloning, infectious HIV DNA of 9150 bases", or DNA of any other length. In fact, nowhere in the HIV literature can one find particles which have "a diameter of 100-120 nm" AND which are "studded with projections (spikes, knobs)", let alone such particles banding at 1.16 gm/ml in sucrose density gradients. Since cloning is a process leading to the production of an exact copy of whatever object one starts with, how can one claim cloning of something before there is proof that it ever existed?


 * Did you read the papers? What they purify are virions. Here are some electron microscopy studies showing the structure of HIV from clones: see Fig. 6 here, , and finally Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary

What does one have to do and how hard does one have to plead in order to obtain answers to fundamental questions regarding a retrovirus which has menaced the world and in whose name hundreds of thousands of people have died or been poisoned?

For example:

1. How is it possible to transmit a cell-free retrovirus, "HIV", when it is accepted that: (i) gp 120 is absolutely necessary for the virus to enter the cell and for the "cycle of viral replication to begin"; (ii) to date nobody has reported the existence of cell-free particles with the dimensions of retroviral particles possessing knobs, that is, gp 120?

2. How can one claim that AIDS patients and those at risk are infected with a unique retrovirus, HIV, when to date nobody has even reported in fresh, cultured tissue, or tissue co-cultures, particles fulfilling the principal morphological and physical characteristics of retroviral particles?

We agree with Peter Duesberg that "the cause that unites us all" is finding a solution to AIDS. With this our aim we were among the first to put forward non-infectious factors as agents to explain AIDS in gay men and furthermore we were the first to propose a non-infectious theory with a unifying mechanism to explain the development of AIDS in all risk groups. (26) Indeed, our theory also predicts a non-infectious explanation for the phenomena which others have inferred as "isolation" of a novel retrovirus from AIDS patients. However, once HIV was accepted as the causative agent, we realised that the single most important obstacle in finding the explanation for AIDS is the belief in HIV. For this reason, from the beginning and unlike anybody else, we have critically analysed the data which claim proof for the existence of a unique, exogenous retrovirus, HIV, in AIDS patients and have always maintained that no such proof exists. *

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou & David Causer

Source: Continuum Feb./March 1997"


 * Also note that this is dated 1997, ALL the papers I cite above are within the last 5 years. Perhaps it is time to re-examine these dissident claims which have not changed in the last 10 years or so and start reading some primary literature. Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Would anyone mind if I archived today's discussion. It is fairly lengthy, and as Rod pointed out it does not directly address what to include in the article. I'll leave it up for a day or so then put it in the archive to make this talk page more gainly. Nrets 22:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perth Group in 2003, I think. Trying to confirm:

CONCLUSION Nowhere in the scientific literature is there proof of the existence of the HIV genome based upon extraction of RNA from purified retroviral particles. Instead, from the sucrose density band of 1.16 g/ml, the density at which retroviruses band, fragments of poly (A) RNA were chosen and defined as the HIV genome. However, since: (i) no proof was given that the 1.16 g/ml band contained any retrovirus particles pure or impure; (ii) poly (A) RNA is not specific to retroviruses and is found in all cells; (iii) cellular fragments containing poly (A) RNA band at the 1.16 g/ml band; (iv) culture conditions may induce the appearance of novel RNAs;  then clearly there are grounds to question the proof for the existence of the HIV genome. --> comment left unsigned by Sgactorny


 * Oy vey, just when I thought we were making progress. The statment you cite above does not address any of the studies I mentioned earlier, in fact it is completely unrelated. I never mentioned anything about sucrose density bands nor poly-Adenylated RNA. So I don't see how this is relevant?! Nrets 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't relevant to the studies you mentioned. --Bob 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonexistence of HIV etc.
Many of Sgactorny's recent edits and comments are devoted to the position that all the genetic material that's currently thought of as the HIV genome is just random crud that has nothing to do with any single virus. In that case I wonder what he makes of the information summarized in HIV structure and genome. Here we have a set of genes; we know the proteins they code for; several of them are clearly basic viral structures, as well as specific viral envelope proteins that fit what are thought to be the target receptors of HIV; some of them have interactions with proteins coded for by the other genes (e.g. not just any protease, but a protease that specifically cleaves the gag protein); others can be shown in vitro to have specific effects on T cells that fit very well with current mainstream thinking on the HIV life cycle. In order to say that the "HIV genome" doesn't correspond to any actual HIV, one would have to conclude that either (a) the authors of the basic research are all lying, or (b) these are all whopping coincidences, akin to finding what looks exactly like a rusted car at the bottom of a river and concluding that it's really a collection of pieces of a washing machine, a sofabed, and a coral reef, carried there separately by fish, even though there's an engine in it that still works.

But - that said, the gist of Sgactorny's argument definitely belongs in this article, under the "Claim: HIV does not exist" section. But the argument should be attributed to the specific people who have advanced it, including the people Sgactorny has cited. That's a major issue with this article in general - it lumps together a lot of separate disputes and uses vague phrases like "Orthodox scientists say..." and "Dissidents say...". On such a touchy subject, it's normal for various groups with strong opinions to think, or claim, that theirs is the essential and honest position, and cite others only insofar as they support their own; this happens both among dissident groups and within mainstream science. Sgactorny for instance leans heavily toward the opinions of the Perth Group, who agree with Peter Duesberg that AIDS is largely due to drug use but violently disagree with him about the existence of HIV. But in passages like the current version of the "Claim: HIV does not exist" section, these distinctions are lost. The current text looks very much like a summary of what a particular editor believes, dressed up slightly by putting the words "Dissidents say" before every sentence. It is impossible for a reader to evaluate these arguments without the context of who said these things (and when). We do have a history section at the end of the article, but the context is not present in the other sections. &#8592;Hob 00:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is actually open-minded, and wants to read an indepth debate about the HIV genome and whether its HIV, here is the link.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495#44654

Nrets was wrong, the positions and studies are not 8 years old, they are only 2 years old. Theperthgroup.com is still active. The Perth Group addresses all of what you wrote nrets, go ahead and take a look. Correspond with the dissident scientists yourself. I never received the studies you said you would send. I'm waiting, I'll send them to The Perth Group. They are alive and kicking. They say nothing has changed. Take a look...the back and forth was interesting, but I am not a dissident scientist. Talk to them directly. Read the literature directly. Don't edit unless you're sure your edits are accurately reflecting dissident views please. That's all I ask. Sgactorny 05:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I read this debate earlier and this has nothing to do with the points I raised earlier. The quote you mentioned above is from there and as I pointed out earlier, none of what I mentioned is discussed in this rambling debate. Plus if you look through the postings the Perth guys don't seem to hold up particularily well. Nrets 14:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one who's been saying that the other editors refuse to read scientific articles, or don't know how to read scientific articles. When Nrets said "8 years old", he was referring to the three links you posted directly above his comment(*), which are very clearly dated 1997. It doesn't matter if The Perth Group is still active and "say nothing has changed", the written material you pointed to is old, and consists of an argument against even older claims.  If that's the best you can do, you are not representing their positions well at all.


 * (* A useful thing to know about Wikipedia talk pages: when people post a reply, they are replying to the comment that is above their reply, or above and to the left. I think you may not understand this, because you just replied to my comment and said "I never received the studies you said you would send"; you must think you're talking to someone else, since I never offered you anything. Or do you think we're all interchangeable because we're all "orthodox"?) &#8592;Hob 14:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Remarks on Orthodoxy vs. Dissidents and the recent discussion about HIV isolation
I just read the entire debate between The Perth Group and Brian Foley of the Los Alamos Lab HIV Genome Project. The Perth Group asked the same questions I did. It all comes down to this: what is the logical criteria that show that "HIV-1 infectious molecular clones" are in fact actually HIV-1 infectious molecular clones and NOT confounding RNA, cellular debris, microvesicles, an artifact of the cell culture stimulation process, etc.

From the debate: "Throughout this debate Brian Foley has claimed that "the HIV-1 infectious molecular clone" proves the existence of HIV. There is no need for any other evidence including EM evidence for purification. We have repeatedly asked him to give us evidence for the existence of "the HIV-1 infectious molecular clone" according to his definition. Which is: "The clone must produce virus particles that are identical by serology, morphology, protein sequences, RFLP, Southern blotting, etc. to the parental virus, and the particles must also be infectious. If a cloned viral genome does not meet these criteria, it is not an INFECTIOUS molecular clone of the virus, be it HIV-1 or any other virus". (emphasis in original).

Brian Foley has never produced such evidence. Which means he has never provided any proof that “HIV” DNA or RNA is in any way related to a putative retrovirus."

The debate extended well into 2004 and that is when the above was written. And Dr. Foley was unable to provide the Perth Group with a reference that satisfied HIS OWN definition of an infectious molecular clone. Nrets, I'm sorry, I don't believe you read the whole debate "before" yesterday because it is extremely long and yoou never made reference to it. If you had read it (I had not read it, by the way), you wouldn't have said yesterday that the conversation was "8 years old." The conversation isn't 8 years, and non of the references Dr. Foley provided were satisfactory. The Perth Group examined each of his references point by point. I don't need to say any orthodox AIDS promoters are lying, conspiratorial or evil. I believe, based on the reading, that the orthodoxy simply accepts illogical criteria for the existence of HIV. The criteria that is accepted by the orthodoxy for HIV isolation cannot exclude OTHER factors as the cause of the "infectious molecular clones." In other words, the establishment gives no logical rules to determine that the genome and proteins are in fact from ONE, new, exogenous virus. All the criteria they use, extensively discussed and broken down in the debate, do not eliminate confounding factors in terms of the actual original origins of "infectious molecular HIV clones." When pinned down, all the "lines of evidence" used to characterize the genetic material as "HIV" lead back to the initial ASSUMPTION that the genetic material found is HIV and not caused by other confounding factors.

I and others do not accept this reasoning because you cannot disprove it because 'the argument assumes the position it tries to proove.' This is a classic logical fallacy.

It goes like this: We found "infectious molecular clones" that are HIV because they are HIV and cannot be anything else.

This is the bottom line reasoning the establishment uses. I think it makes no sense. But I do understand that it turns much of modern virology on its head. The Perth Group understands this, too. They are challening an entire field. Sometimes entire fields are wrong. New truths ALWAYS START WITH ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET. I hope you remember that. And the fact that The Perth Group logical turns much of what HIV researchers accept as obvious on its head is why mainstream scientists will never agree with dissidents. Only when the NEXT generation of scientists arrive, uninvested in the outcome of this debate, will the "truth" be agreed upon. This is not new in science. Thomas Kuhn, in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," writes that this is the way all major paradigms change in science: the orthodoxy defends the paradigm to its death, literally. Only when the next generation of scientists arrive, who can see outside the box, will the paradigm have the potential to change. He gives countless examples of how this has occurred in scientific history. I agree with his thesis.

We will not solve this debate here. It is a debate, and the disagreements seem clear to me. No one is insane, no one is ill-willed. Now we must take to the task of making an AIDS reappraisal page that is as little POV as possible. The discussion has been useful in terms of us coming to realize our actual, specific disagreements. Nrets know way more than I at first realized, and very quickly we came to the meat of the disagreement between the orthodoxy and the dissidents. That in and of itself is an accomplishment. Usually, the orthodox people simply call dissidents whackos and get nowhere. I got used to that for many years, and began this discussion far too cynical. I apologize for that. It is refreshing to have a worthy opponent in Nrets. I believe we are both committed to the truth. I also believe we will not solve the debate here. I also believe it is not "dangerous" to accurately report the debate on the AIDS reappraisal page. In fact, our pursuit of the truth requires that we do this. We all agree unsafe sex is not a good idea...so what's the danger? We all agree that what is called AIDS has killed many, many people, including many of my friends. So let's move forward. We're both here to pursue the truth. Sgactorny 15:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you get the papers I sent you? Not only do they show that what they produce is infectious, but the other studies actually LOOK at these particles and show that they are viruses. To say that this does not rule out that this is not due to material coming from various sources like several other viruses, repressed DNA sequences somehow coming together to form a viable virus is making an incredibly barroque argument to explain tousands of studies. (yes thousands, type in "HIV" in PubMed and you get almots 200,000 hits) The simplest, most parsimonious explanation to explain all this data is that HIV is a virus and that HIV causes AIDS.  This is what is called Occam's Razor. I still do not uderstand the logic of the Perth group since basically all their objections have been answered, but OK, I agree that this won't get solved here. As far this page, yes I am happy to report the essence of the debate on the article, as long as it is done NPOV. It is not "dangerous" to report the debate, it is dangerous to make unsourced claims. I suggest the following organizational scheme:


 * 1) Intro to Dissident Movement - without stating the claims yet, or maybe in very general terms in a sentence or two
 * 2) The dissident community
 * 3) History of the DIssident Movement
 * 4) Summary of the major dissident claims
 * 5) Criticism made by AIDS mainstream.

Sections 4 and 5 in particular should be heavily referenced. Any comments? Nrets 17:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Heavily referenced from peer-reviewed journals with references that pertain to the statement made. --Bob 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nrets Studies he sent me
I will not continue the debate, as I do not think you understand that your "thousands of sources" do not meet the simple logical criteria set forth by The Perth Group. I also reject your appeal to Occam's razor. The very nature of the orthodox definition of AIDS contradicts Occam's razor, as 29 old illnesses, some cancers, some bacterial infections, etc. should not be grouped together and blamed on a retrovirus. But let's not bother with that.

As for your HIV isolation and characterization references, with all due respect I do not believe you read The Perth Debate in BMJ or you would not have thought those references addressed the fundamental underlying assumption of ALL the references you sent (I just read them). They do not change my mind, and they do not address the fundamental illogic the Perth Group sees with HIV molecular or morphological research. You don't have to agree with their conclusion, but at least show us you understand how their reasoning flows. But I don't think Dr. Foley understood it, and I don't think you do either. It's not an insult, it's just what I think, since both of you present references that miss the point or are not what anyone is asking for.

The question is not whether you can create molecular clones of genetic material or take pictures of what look like viruses using EMs (big deal), the question is how you know that genetic material is unique and specific to an exogenous, new RV. None of the studies you presented argue for ANY generic logical criteria to exclude the possibility that the "molecular clones" are associated with AIDS but are not a unique, exogenous, RV. You need logical criteria to exclude confounding factors...where is it? Molecular isolation, you say. Isolation of WHAT, we answer. That is your assumption, that it's HIV "because it is." That's the missing link. But you don't agree this logical criteria is needed. Neither do most virologists, and therein lies the problem.

Your entire world is built on an underlying assumption that genetic sequences that 1) can be cloned 2) that you haven't seen before, in contaminated cellular soup, can be 3) labelled a virus whenever you want to...as long as 4) the genetic material is associated with a group of 29 illnesses, called AIDS (or whatever the illness). You argue that since the genetic material "correlates with serology" and "AIDS" that it must be HIV and this genetic material called HIV is therefore the cause oof the illness. "The argument assumes the position it tries to prove". This is a classic logical fallacy, and there is no way to disprove you if you accept it.

If you deny you need truly logical criteria for the establishment of a microbe, even though retrovirologists from the 50s-70s worked hard to establish such logical criteria, then you can never be disproven. It is not that The Perth Group or I think you must use the SAME methods used in the early 70s, it is that THESE methods were logical in that they EXCLUDED all other confounding causes of the genetic material. But we submit your modern logical criteria isn't good enough because it does NOT exclude confounding causes of this genetic material found in all these people. Your criteria allows you to say you've found a new virus in sick people, when in fact many of them aren't sick, the virus can't be found using ANY classic methods, and the logical criteria you put forth are tautology and nothing more. End of discussion, because we're just going to do in circles. But I had to let you know I read your studies, and they make sense to me in the context of the BMJ debate, which I do not, with all due respect, believe you actually read. 

To quote The Perth Group: "The most that can be claimed from these experiments is transfection with some nucleic acids which originated from material that either (a) predominantly contained cellular fragments and thus cellular RNA and DNA and a few particles which have some but not all of the morphology attributed to either the HIV or other retroviral particles or (b) consists of material which contain no particles having any of the morphology attributed to retroviruses. In other words, the transfection, if any, was of nucleic acids for which there is no proof they were either of HIV or any other retrovirus."

Happy virus hunting. Sgactorny 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your logic is circular, as you state that we must show it using techniques of the 50's through to the 70's, and if we can't, then it must not exist. However, science advances, and with these modern advances, we are now able to show things that were not able to be shown in the 50's as technology was limited. An just what is your medical/biological expertise to be able to assess fully the Perth's groups claims, whic other, I'm sure, more experiences and better qualified people have rejected. --Bob 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't state "we must show it using techniques of the 50's through to the 70's." We do not believe this. You read wrong. We said if you discard the logic rules they used back then, you must come up with new ones that make sense. What are the GENERIC logical rules for the establishment of a new, exogenous RV? And where are the references that HIV passes this logic test? What The Perth is saying is that the answers to these questions "assumes the position it tries to prove". This is a classic logical fallacy, and there is no way to disprove you if you accept it. As for your other distraction of "who I am," an attempt to change the subject from the logic of the argument to me and my credentials, I'll ignore it and say the logic should stand or fall without regard to who is making the case. But your "appeals to the trusted authorities" are a big part of the problem in AIDS research, if not the sine qua non of the whole AIDS blunder.

Sgactorny 19:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This also shows that you may not fully understand the molecular biology techniques used. They are designed precisely to separate specific sequences from what you call a molecular soup. You talk about confounding factors here, but it is not clear what these may be. From what I read from the Perth group they are not very clear in defining what these are. Show me a shred of evidence that endogenous "cellular material" can act the way the putative HIV clones do. If it looks like a virus, acts like a virus and has all the characteristics of a virus then it is a virus. With all due respect, but you really are not making much sense here.  I think I'm done here. Nrets 19:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Koch disregarded his own postulates, as we need to do with the postulates of the scientists of the 50's through to the 70's, as their logic does not hold up to todays testing techniques.


 * Also, the fact that you are arguing a point of science, I believe, should lend credence to the question of your scientific credability. If you have no scientific credibility, then on what basis should we begin to believe your rants? --Bob 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So at the end of all this, what exactly is non-neutral about the page in question? Since it appears that, as has been mentioned, the point here is not to prove the debate one way or the other, but to ensure that the associated Wikipedia entry is of a neutral form (given that its purpose, in this case, is to present only one side of a highly emotionally charged topic). Birdman17 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Koch never disregarded his first postulate, which is the sine qua non of causation, but not complete. And of course, HIV meets none of this postulates. But I'm not going to hash that out.


 * Actually, I hate to burst your bubble, but he did disregard his own first postulate for both typhoid and cholera. --Bob 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If Koch actually said he could establish that a microbe caused an illness without it even being there, which is the first postulate, then that is illogical. Logic is logic, and Koch himself is irrelevant to the discussion. Sgactorny 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was you who stated Koch never disregarded his first postulate. That was wrong. --Bob 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then HIV causes AIDS. (Yes, that was sarcastic.) Smile for once. Sgactorny 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

2) Logic is logic, and is not relevant to TIME. Dr. Campbell, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between METHODS and the LOGIC that gives rise to a particular method. We can discard the methods of the 50s-70s, but we need replacement METHODS that are at least as LOGICAL as the scientists from the 50s-70s. There exist none for HIV.
 * The methods we have in use today are indeed logical, and are in use because they are so. Just because some people who don't understand them fail to realise that, doesn't negate the fact that they are logical. --Bob 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again: "You need logical criteria to exclude confounding factors...where is it? Molecular isolation, you say. Isolation of WHAT, we answer." What is the LOGIC, not the methods, the LOGIC? Go ahead... Sgactorny 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * HIV proteins. If you fail to realise that, or you want to obfuscate the data, then go ahead, the liars at the Perth group are content with doing the same. --Bob 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Campbell, it just doesn't seem like you understand the discussion on this page since your responses are without substance. And calling scientists liars doesn't help anyone. Sgactorny 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

3) Nrets, although it seems you may know as much as most orthodox AIDS promoters about the molecular arguments made by your paradigm, you did not read the BMJ debate, even though you claimed to. You do not understand The Perth's Groups claims, as I've been saying all along. You are arguing against straw man arguments, positions I and the Perth Group do not hold, and you are saying we say things we don't. You are not asnwering my questions...or The Perth Group's. Now both of you are just beginning to insult me. It does not "look like a retrovirus" it does not "act like" a retrovirus and does not have all the characteristics of one. That's the whole point... Once again:

"You need logical criteria to exclude confounding factors...where is it? Molecular isolation, you say. Isolation of WHAT, we answer."

Sgactorny 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nret's Logical Criteria for Viral Isolation

 * As I said before, and now for the last time, it is not clear what confounding factors you are talking about except a cell's own genetic material. How do we exclude that these clones do not come from the cell's own genetic material you ask? 1) These sequences are not found in the human genome. 2) To my knowledge there are no known human proteins which can fold into viral envelopes package RNA and infect other cells in vivo. 3) They share molecular similarity with other know viral sequences yet remain distinct enough to be a different virus. Therefore, as far as we can tell, this genetic material is not derived from human DNA, and it is not from other known viruses. Thus it must come from another virus, which we now have called HIV. How is this illogical? How is this a tautology? It seems very straight forward to me. Unfortunately we cannot shrink ourselves to the size of a cell, kick back and watch viruses come in and out, which seems to be the bar that the Perth group sets.  Nrets 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) "These sequences are not found in the human genome." - This is an assertion. You have no idea if these nucleic acid fragments are not found in the human genome. Perhaps you are right. But even if they weren't, it wouldn't mean that they came from a retrovirus. This is not logical criteria. You cannot say "I believe the nucleic acid is not in the human genome, therefore it is a new retrovirus that causes AIDS." That is nonsense. There are all kinds of possibilities, including that the transfection and cell culture itself causes the nucleic acid sequences observed. This has been documented in the literature, and you can find references on the BMJ debate you didn't read, or in The Perth Group papers. There is no purification of the sample, so the origin of the nucleic acids is speculation. That's the point.


 * The human genome is publicly available and the tools to compare the HIV genome to that are as well, do the search, you won't find it. Nrets 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2) " To my knowledge there are no known human proteins which can fold into viral envelopes package RNA and infect other cells in vivo. Are you saying the logical criteria for the isolation of a new RV is that when to a "scientist's knowledge" we find " proteins" that can be cloned we can say we have a new retrovirus? The rest of your statement is untrue assertion. You do not know if the "viral envelopes package RNA and infect other cells in vivo." None of the studies you reference show this, because none of the references begin by establishing that we are looking at HIV particles.


 * You do not know if the "viral envelopes package RNA and infect other cells in vivo." That is exactly what was done in those articles. Nrets 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Perth Group:

"According to the Oxford dictionary, to “purify” means to “clear of foreign elements”. There are several reasons why it is necessary to purify a retrovirus. These reasons include the need to characterise the viral proteins and viral RNA. As Montagnier pointed out: “It is necessary to do that” (1). Unless this is done, it is not possible to claim the existence of viral proteins and a viral genome and talk of “cloning of a complete viral genome into an infectious molecular clone”

You put the cart before the horse and your number 2 assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. Your number can be re-written as, "These proteins are folding into viral envelopes and packaging RNA and infecting other cells and are therefore HIV and I know this because these proteins are folding into viral envelopes and packaging RNA and infecting other cells." It is a classic example of begging the question. You don't know these assertions unless there is some criteria for ISOLATING and PURIFYING the material in the petri dishes. As for what goes on in vivo, that's pure fantasy, no evidence for it.


 * This last statment makes no sense. Nrets 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Perth Group, "As Montagnier has stated, characterisation of viral proteins and the viral genome “demands mass production and purification. It is necessary to do that.” (2) Unless you find proof for HIV purification then he like us will have to conclude that at present there is no proof for the existence of HIV proteins, the HIV genome and thus HIV."


 * The third step actually results in a highly purified particle. Stop quoting things that make no sense. Nrets

Since retrovirus-like particles are ubiquitous in nature it follows you must prove that the particles in question: (i) are indeed viral particles, that is, that they are infectious; (ii) have reverse transcriptase and RNA but not DNA; (iii) they represent a unique retrovirus, that is, they must have unique RNA and proteins.

To obtain a molecular clone means to produce an identical copy of a DNA fragment. At present this can be achieved for any such molecule without undue difficulty. However, to clone an object such as a virus, bacterium or an animal is a different matter. It requires three main steps. For example, to clone Dolly the sheep, it was absolutely necessary for the researchers to obtain the genome from a sheep’s cell, introduce it into the ova and lastly prove the birth of a sheep. Similarly, to claim proof of HIV cloning it is absolutely necessary to obtain the HIV RNA from HIV particles, introduce it (or its cDNA) into a suitable cell and ultimately prove the appearance of similar HIV particles. In our view at present, the only way to obtain the HIV genome is first to obtain material which consists of purified HIV particles or at least a material which does not contain any impurities with nucleic acids.

In the case of Montagnier’s “purified HIV” there were not even particles present with the morphology of retroviruses. This means that to claim “HIV molecular cloning” is no different than to go into a veterinary surgery, take an unlabelled bottle of blood, clone the cellular DNA and claim molecular cloning of Dolly the sheep.

You can sequence any fragment of nucleic acid and you can clone them. But how do you know what virus the clone is derived from if you don’t know beforehand what the viral genome is, that is, that the genome originated from the virus particles?"

The Perth Group have shown at length in their paper on the Western Blot that all the "viral proteins" called HIV are NOT AT ALL unique or specific to HIV. So appeals to what you claim are "viral proteins" associated with the "viral molecular clones" are unsubstantiated until you come up with some process for the isolation and purification of viral particles that doesn't involve assumptions and circular reasoning. So far, you have not...not even close.

Again, we won't solve this here. We're having the exact same discussion on that's on the BMJ debate you never read Write to The Perth Group yourself. Let's stop this and just get to the page. No one is a liar. There is just a disagreement. That's ok. Sgactorny 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, even if we agreed on your standards for viral isolation, NOT ONE of the HIV tests were created with these kinds of standards. The original HIV tests were created using "assumed" specificity and "assumed" infectivity of the plasma used to create the HIV tests. I wonder how many took AZT and other AIDS meds who were diagnosed on these tests, and were maimed and/or died as a result. I personally know many dozens of gay men who were maimed and killed by these AIDS drugs. Now I know many people who test positive on these ridiculous tests, stay away from drugs, AIDS meds, and unhealthy lives, and are doing just fine...many of them have been for 20 years. Oh but wait, it must be because of something genetic, that way we can patent it and make some money off of it, and avoid the realization that mainstream AIDS science has killed tens-of-thousands of people, mostly with mega-doses of AZT. Sgactorny 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about about specificity of HIV tests, or who took which drug. All I am staring is that the studies I sent you (and many others) show that HIV is a retrovirus. None of the studies by themselves proves this, but taken together with all the others, the data is extremely compelling. It is extremely rare in science that you will find ONE paper that conclusively proves a point. Scientific knowledge is reached by consensus by numerous labs confirming and building upon each other's results. As far as me reading the debate, you have NO idea what I have or have not read, and I find your little personal jibes insulting. Finally, are you a member of the Perth group? I notice you keep saying "we claim this or that", but you seem to be cutting and pasting text from this debate which isn't even relevant in some cases to the point I have just made. You keep talking about a Western Blot, but of all the papers I sent you only ONE uses ONE Western blot as a small control in one figure, everything else is done in vivo with actual cells. We are not having the same debate as in the BMJ site, the points I'm arguing are totally different, and since you read the papers you should realize this. My offer still stands, if you would like help understanding some of the molecular techniques used in these papers just let me know. For a moment I thought you were editing in good faith here, but now I realize that it is and will remain impossible to work with you on this article.  Nrets 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with most everything you wrote, simple assertions, lots of circular reasoning. I understand why the circularity of the establishment's reasoning is so convincing though. It is very clever internal logic, but it all rests on underlying unproven assertions. It is VERY, VERY hard to actually examine ALL the underlying assumptions of this paradigm at once. It's why the HIV-causes-AIDS paradigm will only change in about 75 years, once all the establishment scientists have died off. The next generation will be capable of the psychological adjustment to a new paradigm, the current generation cannot, just like it's been throughout scientific history. It's too bad you are still trying to have me censored, behind the scenes, on Wikipedia though... :-( Sgactorny 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you are entitled to disagree, but you still fail to give logical reason which is relevant to the points I make. You are using arguments against things I'm not even saying! I'm not trying to have you censored, I'm just asking that you play by the rules. And this is not behind the scenes either. Anybody can look at the RfC, which by the way, is not there to have you banned, but to get feedback from other Wikipedia members. Nrets 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Too long didn't read.
I looked at the RFC as posted. Could someone summarize their side of the dispute in fifty words or less? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here goes: AIDS denial is the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS.  Two editors  and  who share this view have written this article.  It's therefore a POV mess, fails completely on WP:NPOV and IMHO needs a complete rewrite, and possibly split off into subarticles.  Revolver and Sgactorny are exhibiting classical MPOV and being quite aggressive about it.  Sgactorny already has an RFC, Revolver's heading that way.  The task is to see (because of good faith) if NPOV can be acheived, with or without them.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No one "denies AIDS." That isn't just POV, it's absurd. It's also a lie, because the author probably knows no one here denies people are sick and dying. But I could reverse it and say, like the story of the Emperor with no clothes, AIDS denial is the denial that AIDS is a complex phenomenon with many causes and thus many cures. Grouping together 29 old illnesses (see the absurd definition of AIDS), caused by bacteria, viruses, or are cancers or fungi is prima facie absurd. Treating these illnesses with drugs that destroy the immune system is absurd. Diagnosing the illness with tests that "assume" the individual is infected if they "test positive," with no gold standard, is absurd...and on and on and on. There is no medical precedent for so many of the absurd characteristics of the AIDS blunder, nothing in the history of the world that would justify such an absurd medical construct, and history will see it that way, ultimately...lots of microscopic biology being explained in nonsensical ways. But the reigning orthodoxy would never even entertain such a proposition. To them it's absurd on its face. Orthodoxies always feel this way about new ideas, always have and always will. Sgactorny 18:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite rewrites the dispute
Ok, makes sence now. Let me try to summarize?

Side 1, which I will now call the "majority" viewpoint - I say this because I believe both sides believe side 1 is the majority of both scientific and popular opinion - but may very well be wrong - believes this article is about a viewpoint held by a discredited minority, and needs to be expressed as such.

Side 2, which I will now call the "minority" viewpoint - again, I believe side 2 believes they are in the minority but please correct me if I am wrong - believes this article has an obligation to explain to the word the true-truths about the fact that HIV does not cause AIDS alone.

Is that correct, Side 1 proponents and Side 2 proponents? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we don't think it has an obligatoin to promote the "true truths about AIDS." We aren't Gods and we don't know the truth about AIDS, we think AIDS should be reappraised and we want the reason we believe this to be presented accurately. The dissidents simply believe the AIDS dissident/reappraisal article should simply accurately reflect the views of dissident scientists, accurately profile them, and allow the evidence and their references to be accurately presented. Almost ALL the edits by orthodoxy
 * 1) Delete references the dissidents say makes their case
 * 2) Delete quotes by dissident scientists
 * 3) Delete actual dissident positions and replace them with absurd positions dissidents don't actually hold
 * 4) Insert orthodox POV language
 * 5) Insert irrelevant text that seeks to discredit dissidents in sections that should be simply about explaining the actual dissident positions
 * 6) Insert orthodox vocabulary throughout all the text such that the arguments dissidents make are not accurately presented and do not make sense, for example, The orthodoxy will insert something like, "Dissidents claim drugs that fight HIV should not be used to treat AIDS patients even though this was disproven by the entire scientific community." This is not an accurate dissident position, first of all. The REAL dissident position is more like, "Dissidents claim there is no such thing as "anti-HIV" drugs, and that the drugs used to treat AIDS patients destroy their immune system. But then the orthodoxy will come back and re-insert "anti-HIV drugs," a term dissidents reject. See the problem?

The biggest problem of all is that the orthodox AIDS promoters refuse to read dissident articles and claims while simultaneously insisting on editing this article. How can they accurately edit an article when they don't even understand the actual dissident claims?!!?!?!?! See the problem? The dissidents will read anything the orthodoxy gives us, the orthodoxy will not read just about anything the dissidents have written. That is why they are the orthodoxy, that's what orthodoxies do, always have and always will. Orthodoxies are closed-minded, that's why paradigms don't change. Sgactorny 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Too long didn't read. Summarize. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll try.
 * Side 2, which I will now call the "minority" viewpoint - again, I believe side 2 believes they are in the minority but please correct me if I am wrong - believes this article does not accurately explain the views of the people it attempts to describe, and devotes too much time to their opposition.


 * I'm a Side 1 proponent I guess, but I'm not sure I like Hipocrite's summary either. I do believe that the minority viewpoint has been discredited, but that's my own belief - I don't think the article should make such a statement. I think it needs to present the arguments of AIDS dissidents with accuracy and in context. The context by necessity includes references to the scientific data the dissidents are arguing about, and in many cases it also includes rebuttals by other scientists if those help to clarify what has or hasn't been established - just as, if an article about "Tomato reappraisal" described one faction's claim that tomatoes cause baldness because all fruits cause baldness, it would be appropriate to cite another faction's position that a tomato is a vegetable and not a fruit (assuming that that's a widely held view, not just from some guy on a street corner). I'm not at all happy with the current point-counterpoint structure of the article - I think it actually leans too heavily toward both sides, making too many unsourced claims and lumping together too many viewpoints, but I haven't thought of a better solution yet. (Also, please note that the RFC is not about the purpose of this article - it's about Sgactorny's constant personal attacks, and his stated unwillingness to collaborate with other editors because of what he feels is their agenda.) &#8592;Hob 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I need to respond to the rest of what you wrote, but I'm responding not to the user conduct RFC but to the Sci-tech RFC. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, one of the indications of pseudoscience is that the AIDS deniers are arguing against a position without advocating one in reply because of a lack of evidence (another good example is the intelligent design creationism movement). So does HIV exist or doesn't it?  There's more disagreement between AIDS denialists as is between AIDS denialists and the scientific community.  This makes it very difficult to write about. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunc, I don't think that's what makes it difficult at all. Having a diversity of factions and arguments on one side is hardly a unique situation, and it's certainly not a good reason to shower ridicule on the whole debate. For instance, some people refuse to pay taxes because they are pacifists, while others refuse to pay taxes because they think the feds want to take their guns away; so you could dismissively say "there's more disagreement between tax protesters..." etc., but that wouldn't be very informative. The article already takes some care to distinguish between different non-mainstream claims, and in some cases (not enough) it specifies who has advanced these claims and why. &#8592;Hob 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the summaries
Now we have a showing of bad faith by User:Sgactorny.
 * 1) Verifiable references from respectable sources have not been deleted.
 * 2) Quotes from both sides have been left in or been deleted.
 * 3) The absurd positions dissidents actually hold have been left alone.
 * 4) Language has been specifically NPOV. It is User:Sgactorny who continually rephrases the article from a NPOV to a POV.
 * 5) Any article should present both sides of the argument. The fact that mainstream scientists reject the dissident position should be included.
 * 6) Mainstream vocabulary is what people know.

The length and the actual relevance of his rants is also a problem for this page.--Bob 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * and Side 1 would get my vote, but, I do think the ideas of the dissidents should be expressed and explained as well as being broken by the overwhelming data that supports HIV-AIDS link. --Bob 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. I looked at this page, read it, the most recent talk archive, the article history, the various RFCs, threw my hands up in the air, and said "TOO LONG DIDN'T UNDERSTAND." I believe a back-to-basics approach will help a lot, and so I'm trying to glean down the conflict to the conflict, and then approach it from there as someone who dosen't really care about the conflict (I don't really care about the conflict). I actually did read everything, but it's really unwieldy as is. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As an additional note
"Too long didn't read" applies to the article as well, which is too long and I didn't read. Needs to be split into multiple articles (not POV forks) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have begun to chop. Please revert me if I chop something you think should stay. My chopping is an attempt to shrink a too-long article, not an attempt to NPOV or add information or anything. Just smaller. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is fair to say that side 2 argues that their claims are distorted by side 1. Yet they never make it very clear how these claims are being distorted, or what the actual claims are. Most of what has been inserted by side 2 of late are not sourced viewpoints of dissident scientists but rather the editor's own opinions about side 1's claims.. Nrets 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That would obviously be a problem. It is important that all information in the article is NOR, NPOV and V. We'll go through all of those policies after the article is smaller, which has to be in everyone's agreement, right? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note about terminology
Hipocrite, If you look at the earlier discussion, it was agreed that saying "mainstream scientists" was more NPOV than using "orthodox" which has a lot of diifferent implications which do not necessarily describe the scientific mainstream. In your cleaning of the article it would be helpful to stick to this guideline. Nrets 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we really have agreement on that? It's a simple find and replace fix if we do, but I think I'll just stick with my plan to hacksaw and not rewrite (rewriting comes later, let's get a smaller version that is as good as the current beast there) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. (good luck with the next section!) Nrets 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, I like Hipocrite. As for getting into a back-and-forth negotiation with the orthodoxy, no thanks. Hipocrite, you seem cool so far. Notice the continued personal attacks and ad hominems against dissidents...that's the problem. Hipocrite, your name is apt for this discussion. Sgactorny 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so I'm clear - broad brush, the current version of the article is "eh" to everyone in question (IE, you're not pissed about the cutdown)? I cut a GREAT DEAL of material out. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think everyone has had time to look through all your recent major edits and respond. When the diffs get that big, it's hard to tell exactly what's been cut or moved. My first impression is that some key points have been lost, along with a lot of redundant stuff that needed to go, but I can't be more specific yet. &#8592;Hob 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course - I took a hacksaw, not a scalpel. If anyone wants anything back in, please either revert it right back in there, or ask me to do that revert (in case people are keeping powder dry for 3rr, but I beg you all not to edit war) and it's done. We all seem to agree shorter is better. I don't want to blow up our first agreement by removing the wrong stuff. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, are you asking whether the current wording is OK or just whether the general meaning of the remaining content is OK? I have some minor suggestions for the wording (e.g. with those invested in the HIV-causes-AIDS paradigm), but I don't want to slow down this process if we need to continue to work on the substance first. The Rod 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Size of sections, and the information (not presentation) that I got rid of/kept (please no NPOV, V, NOR concerns yet - just say you want something back, and it's back, or something gone, and it's gone. I err on the side of inclusion, so in the event of disagreement - first pass - stuff can stay, if that's ok with all). IE- everything but the History section (which requres a lot of work) is about the right size, and I didn't delete any INFORMATION that people want in. This is something that everyone should be able to come to happpy agreement about. NPOV will be harder, and later. Doing the easy stuff first. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Regarding information content, then, the following sentence seems peculiar to me in the Mainstream rebuttal section:
 * "The Science editorial failed to mention the reality that the AIDS reappraisal movement is diverse, including hundreds of scientists from all over the world."
 * The point of that sentence appears to be to clarify that the Science article only addresses Duesberg and should therefore not be taken as a rebuttal of positions of any other segments of the AIDS reappraisal movement. So, instead of that sentence, the rebuttal section should open with something like the following:
 * "The AIDS reappraisal movement includes a diverse range of views. In 1994, the journal Science conducted a 3-month investigation of one such set of claims, Peter Duesberg's...."
 * Also, I'm unaware of mainstream rebuttals to AIDS reappraisal positions other than Duesberg's, but if such rebuttals exist, though, the mainstream rebuttal would perhaps be better split into a subsection for each one or, alternatively, for each AIDS reappraisal claim (if claims of different AIDS reappraisal movement segments overlap). The Rod 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Coming clean
I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but since I got in a totally seperate dispute about this same issue elsewhere, I've got to come clean about my personal POV. Sadly, I think that the reappraisers or whatever they are called are wrong. I have not done nearly enough reasearch on the topic to speak with authority, but I promise you that it will be impossible to convince me (as a not-biologist but scientist type) that this is true, as I'm stupid enough not to understand the scientific work but smart enough to understand that pieces for public consumption are trash. I'll try not to let my POV get in the way. Please point out if I'm making errors biased to one side or the other - my impression is that this article should present the varying views of the reappraisers fairly, and note that scientific consensus disagrees at this time. This, I believe, is what our NPOV policy requires. I would very much like to get everyone on board with the SHORTER article first, however, before we do POV and OR and V work, which is far more likley to get peoples anger levels up, than shortening, which should make everyone happy. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

call-demand strategies and debilitation
Influence pool demand calls debilitate healthy people and a virus is more able to invade the human organism; military protocol breach demand-calls and threats can cause neurological suicide because troop-member callers behave as if subject/ respondents are the enemy. Beadtot 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC) beadtot  2/4/2006