User talk:Sgactorny

Welcome!
Hi,, Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page. ---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
 * For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
 * Find everything in the Directory.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * Introduce yourself at the new user log.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
 * If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
 * To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!
You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round. Joe I 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

AIDS dissidents
Stop censoring AIDS dissidents on Wikipedia. Promote your orthodox views on AIDS orhtodoxy pages! PLEASE. You deserve to have your say where it belongs. And we deserve to have our say where it belongs. I've lost too many friends to AIDS to stand by and let you try and censor AIDS dissident positions. People are dying. by User:Sgactorny


 * You fail to realise what Wikipedia is. It is not a forum or discussion place. Your recent vandalism falls into WP:NOT. I am rewording the article to be more NPOV, but inflammatory edits like you do are not helping matters.--Bob 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Bob 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the page AIDS reappraisal, please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bob 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no vandalism and you know it. There is simply you trying to put back in orhtodox AIDS positions on the AIDS reappraiser page.

Revert?
Why did you revert my edits on the AIDS reappraisal article? The sentence I removed was just mentioned in the opening paragraph, thus it is redundant. Nrets 20:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I never spelled anybody's name. I think you have exceeded your 3RR limit on this article. Nrets 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing, this is not a discussion board, it is an encyclopedia. It is not about promoting views as you claim. The material you are including is heavily slanted and unsourced, making it POV. Which is against Wikipedia policy. Please limit your edits to material that can be extrnally verified. Finally, refrain from insulting other editors, which is also against wikipedia policy, unless you want to be banned by an administrator. Nrets 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sgactorny. Until the POV issues are resolved, it's important to keep the template on AIDS reappraisal. Feel free to work on editing the article, but remember not to refer to Wikipedia itself within the article, as the talk page is a better place for those edits. The Rod 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Great. I saw several of the orthodox POV statements that clearly didn't belong, so I'm happy that you and Revolver eliminated them from that article. For what it's worth, I assure you that I assume good faith in your desire to create an encyclopedic article, as you can do in mine. I'm excited to see how the AIDS reappraisal article turns out! The Rod 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join AIDS Dissent Wikicity
Hi, Sgactorny. I got your message on my talk page. I actually created the AIDS reappraisal article a few years ago, and it's gone steadily downhill in quality ever since. I have more or less given up on using Wikipedia as a place to develop information on AIDS or as a place for adequate representation of dissident viewpoints. I became so fed up with the situation that I turned to Wikicities, a spin-off of Wikipedia which runs on Google-ads. Here, there is a separate Wikicity to develop apart from Wikipedia, so there is a lot more freedom to develop things without constantly getting bogged down in fighting people. Also, on Wikicities, any particular wikicity is free to adopt its own mission statement and policies. In particular, the NPOV requirement is not a strict requirement and can be modified. This means that we can allow orthodox arguments to be presented, but if someone is clearly on an agenda to attempt to refute every dissident claim and do nothing but defend the orthodoxy, and if these are the only contributions they make, then they can legitimately be banned.

I founded the wikicity about 2 months ago. So far, I've contributed about 90% of what's there. There are currently about 35 articles. I'm trying to recruit people to contribute and do some things to enhance the google rankings. I even emailed some prominent dissidents, but didn't hear back from them. It takes a while before people are willing to devote time to something that appears to be a waste of time at first or something that may not amount to much. But I have faith that once enough people start contributing and once a sufficient amount of material is available there, it will start to take off just like Wikipedia did at one time. After all, there are hundreds (thousands) of people who should be willing to give a little of their time to develop the site.

So, that's what I think. I know it's tempting to want to "repair" the AIDS reappraisal article, but my experience has been that it's by and large a pointless endeavor. I think I've come up with a better channel for my energies, at the least a more efficient use of my time. And I think in the end, it will help the cause more. So, I would invite you to come over and look around and see what you think. If you want to contribute, you could get a username (just like at Wikipedia). The interface and everything is pretty much the same. You can leave questions or suggestions at my talk page at the wikicity. Hope to see you there! Revolver 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nucleoside analogues
Nucleoside analogues are reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and therefore are used for their anti-retroviral effects. Nrets 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Sgactorny. I don't understand why you made this edit. Can you help me understand your reasoning? The Rod 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add me to the list of people who are confused by your statement (from edit summary): "it IS used as ARV, but it is not one - it is a reverse transciptase inhibitor, an anti-DNA drug." An antiretroviral drug is nothing more or less than a drug that works to suppress retrovirus activity, just as an antibacterial drug works against bacteria. The word describes the purpose and effect, not the mechanism: it doesn't matter whether it does this by inhibiting reverse transcriptase, protease, or bad vibes. Since retrovirus reproduction depends on reverse transcriptase, all reverse transcriptase inhibitors are antiretrovirals, regardless of how well they work or how toxic they are. I don't understand the purpose of redefining the word as you're doing; I think it's only muddling the point of view you're trying to get across. &#8592;Hob 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Sgactorny, but I can think of 2 things he might mean – first, that since AZT is not specific against HIV reverse transcriptase but targets DNA synthesis as well, it's not really accurate to call it an "ARV". Second, if HIV has not been isolated, then it makes little sense to say AZT inhibits retrovirus activity, if a retrovirus isn't even present. Lastly, I think you contradict yourself above: first you say that it is the "purpose and effect, not the mechanism", then you say it's an ARV because it's a "reverse transcriptase inhibitor" (mechanism). If you really believe the former, then AZT is hardly an ARV, because it's been shown not to be effective. If you really believe the latter, then AZT is an ARV, just one that doesn't work. Revolver 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think what I said was contradictory. Sgactorny was saying that AZT cannot be an ARV because it is an RTI. That makes no sense. An ARV is anything that inhibits retrovirus activity by any mechanism, and interfering with RT is one such mechanism; interfering with protease is another; and so on. You could just as easily and nonsensically say "penicillin is not an antibacterial drug because it's an inhibitor of peptidoglycan synthesis". And I don't know what point you were trying to make about AZT "not working"; no one would recommend AZT monotherapy for AIDS patients these days, but that's not because it doesn't have any antiretroviral activity. &#8592;Hob 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To use a Duesberg analogy, saying that AZT is an "ARV" because it inhibits RT is kind of like saying poisoning the water supply of Berkeley to kill a suspected terrorist is "anti-terrorist" because it kills the terrorist. It would just as accurate to say that poisoning the water supply was itself an act of terrorism, as it would kill most of Berkeley. Same for AZT, it doesn't make sense to call it an "ARV" because it inhibits RT, when it kills so many other cells and has so many other "side effects" than outweigh whatever possible RTI properties it has. Revolver 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Revolver spoke eloquently. However, even more important than what he said is the fact that tens-of-thousands of gay men were murdered via AZT and like drugs by being misled about their fundamental nature. All these drugs, if integrated into a person's body, as opposed to pissing them out (which a lot of people do), work by fundamentally destroying their immune system, or causing AIDS. Calling them ARV is fundamentally misleading. It would be just like calling a nuclear bomb a terrorist killer if we dropped one on Baghdad. Sure, we might get some terrorists, but 99% of the people we kill we be innocent, and vital to the future of Baghdad. Since most AIDS patients have no detectable infectious virions of HIV (using infectious titers as the measure, as opposed to the Orwellian viral load), then AZT becomes not an ARV, but a nuclear bomb that can cause AIDS. It's simple. And the ramification of calling it an ARV are profound. But Hob, thank you VERY much for an argument that is about science, instead of name-calling. If you keep the tone scientific, I'll be happy to discuss anything with you. Sgactorny 22:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if the mechanism results in killing someone by destroying replicating DNA throughout their body, wherever there is RT, then the mechanism is paramount, not irrelevant or ancillary. The incorrect focus, justified with false claims of HIV being a death sentence in the U.S. for > 90% of those HIV diagnosed, killed thousands of people. And everyone knows it. It is part of why you NOW agree AZT monotherapy would be criminal. Dissidents said that all along. And like MANY, MANY dissident claims, the orthodoxy came to realize dissidents were right YEARS after the damage was already done. If only the Orthodoxy had been scientific in the first place. AZT sped death, it didn't delay it, which when you learn about how these kinds of RTI work, is common sense. Sgactorny 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this always gets me. Having been paying attention for 10 years now, it's amazing how there's a kind of "lag time" between what dissidents say and what the orthodoxy accepts. The lag time is usually about 5-10 years, meaning what dissidents are screaming now, the orthodoxy will admit in 5-10 years time as being true, but by that time some new faddish idea has come along to embrace. It's just coming about the time that they are finally starting to admit the original Ho/Shaw papers were nonsense and HAART does more harm than good. Funny, did anyone say that at the time?? Revolver 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, even if you COULD find meaningful levels of viable, infectious HIV in most AIDS patients, you would STILL be killing hundreds of Cd4s to get at the HIV infected ones. Cd4 delpletion were allegedly the hallmark of AIDS. Giving HIV diagnosed people drugs that kill the very cells that are depleted in AIDS, drugs that kill them FASTER than HIV allegedly does, is nonsense and insanity. And it always was, and dissidents said it from the beginning. You could give AZT or 3tc or whatever to an HIV negative person, and they would probably die pretty quickly...from AIDS. Sgactorny 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you guys, have fun talking to each other and making up statistics. Meanwhile, I'll continue actually taking care of patients in the world I live in, where people stay on antiretroviral meds for years with good CD4 counts and low viral loads (or "Orwellian viral loads" if you insist) - until their meds stop working at a time that just happens to match the development of well-defined resistance mutations in their HIV, at which time their CD4 counts go down and their viral loads go up and they get sicker; I guess that's just a coincidence to you, but it's what my friend went through for nearly 20 years, with improvements and rises in CD4 that exactly correlated to the trial of each new drug, until she ran out of new drugs and died. Meanwhile, newly diagnosed AIDS patients who have never been on HAART continue to come into my hospital showing the classic progression of AIDS, whether they were heroin users or just had a sick lover; and they get PCP and KS and PML whether they were ever on HAART or not, and you can predict it by looking at their CD4 count and their viral load; and the side effects of the meds, sometimes minor and sometimes terrible, do not resemble the progression of AIDS at all. I don't know what your experience is, but that's mine, and I'm not "the orthodoxy", I'm just a nurse whose only interest is helping people fight this hideous plague. But as long as you think AZT monotherapy is the same as HAART, or that "AZT or 3TC or whatever" would rapidly kill an HIV-negative person, or that drug-induced myelosuppression is the same as the targeted destruction of CD4 cells, I see no reason to listen to anything you say - or to do the homework you keep insisting on, since I don't think you've done yours. &#8592;Hob 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You may not be the orthodoxy, but just the fact that you refer to AIDS as a "hideous plague" speaks volumes about where your mindset lies. AIDS may be hideous, but it's hardly a "plague". The number of people it kills each year is small compared with many other diseases. It's only a "plague" in the fantasies of doctors. I find it interesting that when you mention the benefits of the drugs, you talk of CD4 counts and viral load (rather than morbidity/mortality), but when morbidity finally becomes too obvious to ignore, that's when the meds "stop working" and those mysterious mutations take over. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe when each new drug is administered, it triggers a response from the immune system, (lymphocyte trafficking), a natural reaction to toxic assaults, which gives the temporary Lazarus effect and good numbers, but eventually the assault is too much for the body to handle? When did we say the effects of ARVs would exactly resemble "classic progression to AIDS"? Crixivan Hump certainly will not look the same as classic PCP and KS from someone taking recreational drugs for years or having sex with 100 people. When did we say AZT monotherapy is the same as HAART? I only said they were similar in the sense that at one time the orthodoxy championed AZT monotherapy at a time when dissidents were screaming against it, and now they have changed their tune and agree it was wrong, and that a similar thing is happening with HAART...10 years ago, it was the new fad, and now it is going out of fashion and they are finally (reluctantly) starting to admit that was a mistake as well. As for thinking that "AZT or 3TC or whatever would rapidly kill an HIV-negative person", this is not a fairy tale. There are numerous studies showing those drugs are sufficiently toxic to threaten life, whether someone is HIV-positive or not. As for "targeted destruction of CD4 cells", this has never been shown...in fact, AIDS researchers admitted more than 5 years ago that HIV can't possibly kill CD4 cells directly as previously thought. It's all in the literature, go back to about 1997-99, there are tons of articles admitting, "okay, it looks like HIV really can't kill T-cells directly after all". It's true, I'm not a doctor (or nurse) and I've never worked with patients, but I've seen too many times ridiculous ideas (like the Ho/Shaw papers) that got trumpetted to the press and accepted to believe much of anything I hear about HIV anymore. Even a cursory glance at the literature on AIDS over the past 20 years is enough to raise eyebrows. It's not any one claim or aspect – it's just a general atmosphere of flights of fantasy and wishful thinking and just not being generally skeptical like almost every other area of science. HIV research seems to be the one area where you can just pontificate endless hypothetical flights of fancy and everyone just accepts it as fact. I can't count how many different theories I've read of how HIV is supposed to kill T-cells; all I know is the totality of the endless hypothesising about HIV is enough to make any reasonable scientist's head swim. As Mullis said, "What people forget is that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical entities." Revolver 09:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found this on a post on The Body from a doctor responding to a patient with buffalo hump. He actually claims that someone blames buffalo hump on HIV!: "What you describe is based on the past few years of observation with undesirable changes in blood fats (cholesterol and triglycerides) noted particularly on some of the protease inhibitors (PI), including Crixivan. And of course the changes in body shape noted as well, including the buffalo hump. There continues to be ongoing debate about which med deserves the blame for the body shape changes however... and that debate leaves us uncertain about what to do to fix the problem. One researcher maintains that it may not even be the meds themselves, but some as yet unclear impact from HIV despite the success in controlling it." The reasoning here is amazing – is there anything HIV can't do?? It's this type of thinking (even considering HIV could cause buffalo hump without any reasonable justification) that makes me think these people are lost in their own little world. Revolver 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an orthodox nurse giving anecdotes, and who, as is most often the case with the orthodoxy, blatantly says "I will not read the actual science literature." It's insanity. They brag about being closed minded. I think we might consider outlawing scientists who brag about their ignorance while treating patients or having opinions about controversial subjects. And nothing that I wrote I made up. I can tell you where to read EVERYTHING I wrote in the real science literature. I have no idea what "targeted destruction of CD4 cells is," I've never heard of such a thing. Is this a new thing the orthodoxy has told themselves they can do? Are they now bragging about killing the very cells that are supposed to cause AIDS when depleted? By the way, CDC numbers revealed very obviously that CD4 levels below 200 didn't mean death, because until 1997 they released data that showed that MOST AIDS cases 1993-1997 were in people with tiny CD4 numbers but NO SICKNESS. Dissidents starting talking about this, and in 1998 the CDC stopped releasing these numbers. I tried to get them a few years later, I just got hung up on by the man in charge at CDC, who told me they wouldn't release them because of budgetary concerns (ok, he implied that part.). Many of the newer AIDS meds do not specifically target HIV, they attack all kinds of things, like PCP, for example. This is well documented in the science literature. So there are plenty of reasons why temporary administration of HAART can improve a patients condition, and then ultimately kill them. As revolver said, counting circulating CD4s is a very strange affair, since the body can sequester CD4 in the lymph nodes when under attack, making it look like HAART is helping when in the long run, it's killing them. Protease is an enzyme required for life. DNA is required for life. If you non-specifically inhibit protease and DNA, you destroy their bodies and kill them. I never said HAART resembles a "classic progression to AIDS." To the contrary, HAART has killed people in all kinds of new ways! And would you like to swap anecdotes? I'll bet you $500 I've known more people who've died than you have. And what a coincidence that most of them got sick AFTER they took AIDS meds, or they had LONG histories of drug use and STDS, or whatever... In none of their cases did we need magic HIV to explain their death. And the reason we call viral load Orwellian is because it doesn't actually measure viral load, it COPIES fragments of DNA which have not been shown to come from a viable virus. And the REASON "viral load" is used is because when you use the methods to count virus that are used for every other REAL viral pathogen, they do not work for HIV and AIDS. So the orthodoxy came up with new methods for HIV, that have different and unacceptable logic supporting them. Finally, your claim that CD4s and Viral load "correlate perfectly" with progression to death is utter nonsense, although I certainly don't question the profound effect it has on everyone's death psychology witnessing such numbers -- glad I'm not around that voodoo ward. Next, certainly you can find examples of people dying without obvious explanation from the category called AIDS, since AIDS is simply a list of 29 old, some of them relatively common, illnesses. Many studies reveal the lack of correlation between all these numbers, CD4, viral load, infectious titers, p24, and most of them ignore clinical symptoms anyway. http://healtoronto.com/vload.html -- On this page is a famous study quoted in the medical literature all the time that reveals how odd the notion of viral load and CD4 counts are. No one even knows how CD4s work in the body and what they do. No one understands the immune system at all, really, and anyone who claims they do are liars with God complexes. We will one day, but we're not even close, and most AIDS research is a misleading hindrence, not a step forward. But you wouldn't know, Hob, since you brag about your ignorance while parroting the orthodoxy. Sgactorny 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Hob successfully distracted us and him or herself from the reality that Hob didn't even attempt to answer most of the original problems Hob pointed out, and our responses. Hob just changed the subject. Typical of the orthodoxy. Sgactorny 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I provided anecdotes - because they reflect a reality that your model, in my opinion, can't possibly explain. And yes, after reading pages and pages of your unfocused rants and venomous attacks, I changed the subject - to the reasons I don't think it's worth debating this stuff with you any further.  I do not brag about my ignorance, but that could hardly be worse than what you're doing.  You continue to say things that are simply wrong, not wrong as a matter of interpretation, but wrong as in you don't understand the meaning of the terms you're using.  I won't bother listing them because I don't think you are open to even the remotest possibility of being wrong, and you've demonstrated your absolute contempt for me and almost every other editor.  I'll take your reading lists under advisement (and I do read the science literature, where the hell do you get off assuming I don't?), but I won't play your "you're not allowed to talk unless you've read all my assigned reading and 'proved' you understand it, by agreeing with me" game.  I've encountered thoughtful people who share some of your opinions about AIDS; you're not one of them.  If you hang around Wikipedia long enough, and maybe delve into a few other areas of interest that you're not so emotional about, you will find that people with wildly opposed opinions can collaborate productively... but not if they behave the way you do.  Anyway, goodbye, I won't speak to you any more.  &#8592;Hob 18:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anecdotes never "reflect a reality", let alone a reality that would disprove a model. That's why they're called anecdotes. The only way to get an accurate reflection of reality is by doing careful studies and analysis. Anecdotes don't prove much. Revolver 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh.... Sgactorny 22:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not try to "prove" anything with anecdotes; my point was that if you have a general model to explain AIDS (or "AIDS"), I can't accept that you've proved it if it fails to explain the actual things I've seen happen. On a more general level, please see my RFC comment; your current approach serves no purpose here. I do apologize for the venom in my earlier reply, though. And for what it's worth, it's nice that you appreciate nurses, even orthodox ones. &#8592;Hob 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. . If you feel this block has been unjust, that is, you didn't violate the 3RR, please feel free to email me, or get another admin to give you a third opinion. - FrancisTyers 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your email. I'm afraid that despite being a bit uncivil and edit warring, User:nrets hasn't violated any rules that would require a ban. I have protected the page (now only admins can edit it), I would appreciate if you and User:nrets would sort out the problem on the talk page after your ban expires. Please read the notice I left on the talk page regarding dispute resolution. - FrancisTyers 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, probably the best thing to do in this case is to take your case to the mediation cabal. There you can talk through the problem with an impartial mediator who will help you resolve this dispute without resorting to an edit war. Hope this helps, - FrancisTyers 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Can you honestly say you believe these others, who admit they don't know dissident science, believe in the orthodoxy, and repeatedly insert orthodox positions are interested in this page accurately presenting an encyclopedia article to the public? From the dissident perspective, the mainstream has had its views in the public for 20 years! And whenever we try and present the alternatives, supported by scientists with as much credentials (or more) as the orthodox scientists who make their money promoting HIV and AIDS meds, those orthodox people are right there inserting POV and censoring and getting us banned wherever possible. It isn't a conspiracy, any more than when people believed leeches cured illness was. But societal heirarchies and the fact that most people do not actually have good critical thinking skills make Thomas Kuhn's time-tested maxim true: When an establishment exists that is invested in a paradigm, the masses defend it to the death, even though the masses know nothing about it. For this is what must occur for a society to survive: THere are leaders (duesberg, gallo, montagnier, mullis) and followers (nrets, grcampbell). The only thing that eventually changes a dominant paradigm (such as HIV-causes-AIDS) is time: as the orthodoxy literally dies, and the next generation has no investment in either side. And a new paradigm can occur. This is what has occurred all throughout human history, and AIDS is no different. In my 10 years working on this issue, I have noticed that when people come to AIDS with no investment in either side, and they actually take the time to read the actual dissidents' writings, they become a dissident. I can hardly think of any exceptions to this observation. QuestionAIDS.com or Virusmyth.net are a couple of the best repositories of actual dissident data. I've noticed that dissidents don't try and censor the orthodoxy, in fact we're the first to say READ THE ORTHODOXY DATA! We find that upon actually reading what the the orthodoxy says is its science, critical thinkers come to the conclusion its crap. Interesting how dissidents WANT the public to read orthodoxy articles, but the orthodoxy does everything it can to suppress the debate and free flow of dissident information. No surprise, history predicts this. As for this article, it is 98% nonsense, as I've said in many previous posts. It is designed to make people think there is nothing to dissidents' views. You know, is the orthodox people, like nrets, were so confident in the orthodox positions, why do you think they need to come on here and do edit wars with dissidents? I think the answer is obvious... Sgactorny 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When you get tired of banging your head against the wall (I know the feeling), you can come to the wikicity. 64.185.47.19 00:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Revolver 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Sgactorny. As you know, the article page for AIDS reappraisal is locked to encourage us to work out content differences. I get the impression that you'd prefer not to use the talk page to collaborate on what content and wording to use. Let me know if that impression is wrong. If it's right, though, could you please estimate about how long your effort to create the replacement page might take? If you estimate only a day or so, I'll just wait for your proposal on the talk page. If you think it might take much longer to create your new article page content, I'd hope to petition for the article page to be unlocked in the meantime. That would let me move content that appears to criticize the movement into a new "Criticism" section, following the main body. The Rod 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It will be a few weeks, not a day. I really do have a very full time job in NYC having nothing to do with AIDS. I've been an activist for a very long time, though. I, and revolver, judge that "working out differences" with those who clearly know utterly nothing about dissident POV is a total waste of time. Not only are some of these people ignorant of actual dissident research, they are deliberately ignorant, and possibily even incapable of independent thinking. As a result, spending time talking to them, before there is even a dissident page created, is pointless. You can do whatever you want, it will all be moot when an actual dissident page is made. As for your individual changes to the massively inaccurate page "AIDS reappraisal," go ahead. To me its a total waste of time until the new page is done. But rod, have you ever read any actual dissident science with an open, scientific mind? I wish you would prioritize and do that, as opposed to advocating a point of view on this page, when you have little or no basis for your own opinions. By the time you read a couple articles by dissidents, we'll be on our way to the new page -- that's when it makes sense to talk. I'd happily take any questions you have about dissidents on the phone. If you don't have a science background, learning the vocabulary can take time. I'd be happy to talk to ANYONE who is genuinely interested in getting informed, on the phone anytime. I can tell you both the orthodox POV (accurately) and the dissident reasoning (accurately). I've been doing this a long time. I have an encyclopedia knowledge of it all. Sgactorny 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will count on using your new content to educate myself more in the matter. (I'm sure you will include references so that I can research each point further.) Since it will be a few weeks before you and revolver present your update, I'll at least work toward unlocking the article in order to move its obviously critical content into a "Criticism" section for now. I am a little concerned about what might happen when the article is unlocked, as everyone must remain WP:CIVIL. Do you think we can all be civil there even if some people are unaware of some AIDS reappraisal facts and doubt its validity? The Rod 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll send anyone $50 if you open your mind enough to read these two articles: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdilemma.htm AND http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epwbtest.htm You have to prove you really read and understood them though. :-) I'll be happy to explain the whole thing via phone. Sgactorny 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious offer? :) I'm very much interested in the articles, so I'm going to read them anyway. --DenisDiderot 10:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You made several attacks in your last comments ( and ). You said, "your point is crap", "Their HIV hypothesis is absurd", "You are just spewing what you read", "Gosh, I'd like to see your score on the LSAT [...] That would give me a good laugh", "no idea what point you thought you were making [...] And I suspect you don't either", "I suspect you will go on mischaracterizing", "delude yourself", "further quotes from you will be distortions and misunderstandings", and "you clearly are not interested in actually learning". Comments like that make it difficult for people to empathize with you. I know you have good information to offer, so please help ensure that your valuable insight gets included into the AIDS reappraisal article by using a more WP:CIVIL tone. The Rod 22:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Just a clarification that Wikipedia follows a Neutral point of view. Specifically you should note WP:NPOV:


 * represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view

Please bear this in mind on AIDS reappraisal. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting
It is probably to your benefit to listen to the multiple editors who have warned you about personal attacks and maintaining neutrality in your edits. An RfC has been filed against you for your personal attacks and generally disruptive behavior. Nrets 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And also, I'd like to see where anyone here said that they are out to "squash dissidents" as you claim? Nrets 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem
I replied to your posting of the Perth group, my edits are interspersed with your text. I think the problem is that most of what you have been asking many people to read in Virusmyth.org is 5-10 years old, and many of the concerns raised by the papers you cite have actually been resolved in recent years. For example showing that isolated clones can lead to actual infectious viruses or to viruses visualized by EM studies. Most virologists claim that the standards of proof that the Perth Group set for the HIV virus far exceed what has been accepted for other viruses, which is why they have not released their reward. The links I provide link to some articles where the very concerns raised about the existence of HIV are answered. If you have problems accessing them let me know and I'll be happy to send you copies. Nrets 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The people of the Perth group know about these studies, but still hold fast by raising the bar to impossible standards. You probably won't like this source, but I find this to be a fairly well balanced rebuttal of many of the dissident claims, properly sourced and up-to-date. I came accross this a couple of days ago, and this is how I've found many of the references that I have talked about. I suggest, in the spirit of peace, that you take a look (without dismissing it as orthodox censorship or whatever if there is sentence here or there you don't like) and see what you think. I can send you any of the primary articles cited if you can't access them. I'll send you the ones I mentioned before later this evening or tomorrow. Also, I will archive the talk page on the article since Rod is correct by saying that it should be a place to debate what to include in the article. If you object to the latter let me know and I won't do it. Nrets 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you receive the articles I sent you? Nrets 17:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation proposal
I have been reading the page, and I am willing to act as a neutral outsides with experience in both science and activism. The version you promote is generally not going to sway any scientist as it is so clearly activist oriented. It generally will undermine your quest for reappreasal. However, I think dissident views and critisim to main stream ideas are extremely welcome, and sometimes crucial for the progress of a field. See further talk page of Talk:AIDS_reappraisal --KimvdLinde 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone here reverting and editing is here to promote the orthodox view of AIDS, except "Revolver," who has basically given up. If you prove you are actually here to be neutral, then we can work together. Reverting to the skeletal version made by the people who want to censor AIDS dissidents will not suffice and will not impress me. It isn't right. Start editing the page to a neutral page, and we'll be working together. Do what all these others are doing, and you will only prove you do not actually want to honor Wikipedia's policies (and you've done that so far). My agenda is NOT to promote AIDS reappraisal here, it is to have a page that ACCURATELY represents AIDS reappraisal. And by the way, you're wrong, AIDS reappraisal web sites, written from the AIDS reappraisal POV, have persuaded thousands of people all over the world. I was once a very active orthodox AIDS promoter. Then I read the literature. It changed my mind. Others change too. Sgactorny 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, my position would be the neutral outsider. Therefore, I will not do any editing myself, and I will not work for either side of the argument, but look at the arguments both sides (aka editors of this page) will bring forward and comment back on them, pretty much the same way as I normally do peer-review of scientific manuscripts.
 * I reverted your sweeping rv because you removed all edits for other people in the same run, you can not do that. And I was not talking about persuading non-scientists, activism works fine for that ( I should have said, many scientists, not any). --KimvdLinde 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What you did was to remove a lot of legitimate information, references and quotes of dissident scientists, or evidence supporting the reappraisal of AIDS. You reverted to a version that essentially censors the actual position of AIDS reappraisers, made by "others" who are simply here to censor AIDS dissidents. It isn't complicated, that's exactly what's going on. There is only one person who actually knows what dissident positions are as far as I can tell at this point: me. Revolver also knows, but he says he gave up on this page a long time ago because of the orthodox censorship. So all the others simply delete actual dissident views, or add in orthodox POV. It's clear in the history. Go for your suggestions, I look forward to your suggestions. As for your comment about persuading scientists, I would match my ability to parse science articles with ANY scientist. Unlike most scientists, I actually studied logic and analytical reasoning, statistics and experimental methods in college. As you must know, scientists never have to prove they have analytical reasoning abilities, the hallmark of knowing how to draw conclusions from data. So I'm not too impressed by the common logical fallacy of "everyone knows" "authorities agree" "scientists know better"...AIDS activists have proved time and time again in the AIDS era that they often know better than AIDS scientists, who for example gave AZT to thousands of people, maiming and killing them. As for your naive view that "scientists" have not been persuaded a reappraisal of AIDS is important, you are wrong. Many have. Read Virusmyth.net with an open, yet skeptical mind, and you'll see. Sgactorny 14:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, I come here with an open mind, and I can get scolded immediatly. --KimvdLinde 14:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to take care of you. Sgactorny 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My impression was that you were here to make "a page that ACCURATELY represents AIDS reappraisal". And I wanted to help with that, but if that is not appreciated, that is ok with me. --KimvdLinde 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is appreciated, go ahead... Sgactorny 15:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Than why do I get scolded immediatly on the slightest difference of opinion? --KimvdLinde 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Hipocrite is attempting to cleanup the article and remove a lot of POV info, yet you keep reverting his and many other people's edits. Please try and work with other editors as we have attempted to work with you. Best, Nrets 15:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Hipocrite???? Sgactorny 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can ask if he plans to return, before deleting all his edits. I think he got daunted by the history section. Since you know most about this, I propose that maybe you can give it a go at cleaning up the history section. Remember, stick to the necessary facts. Nrets 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I already did that this morning. You reverted it to the HEAVILY censored version. Go back to my version and edit that one. You keep reverting it because apparently you don't like dissident information to get out. Sgactorny 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not censored, he took out a lot of the mainstream rebuttal as well. Let him finish, and then we can add things little by little. Nrets 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)\

He left. We'll see, 24 hours. Sgactorny 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a unilateral ultimatum here, maybe, if he doesn't come back, we can discuss on the talk page among the interested editors how to proceed. Nrets 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can not see this as a constructive way of solving this argument. This does not go by setting deadlines by one editor to the other. Especially not when the two have a strong disagreement with each other. --KimvdLinde 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Links
None of the other links are advertisemnts for acting schools, except maybe the Stella Adler acting school, which I left since it was founded by the person who the article was about. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise an acting school, I left it on the Jason Bennett site since it is relevant there. Marcuse 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Bennett
Hello, I saw your comment on my userpage. I don't want to get into any personal issues you may have with other users or make guesses about their motives. My reason for the delete opinion is because Mr. Bennett does not seem to meet the criteria at WP:BIO based on the limited information I've been able to find about him. The only criteria he possibly could meet (based on the claims made in his article) are as an author. Most of the linked articles cited in his Wikipedia article are hosted on his own site, so they don't really apply to WP:BIO criteria in my opinion; they are self-published. I couldn't verify the claims of other published works; with the exception of the http://www.nycastings.com article. I'm not wholly convinced the readership of this is great enough to establish notability. At this time I don't see great enough evidence to change my vote. This is nothing personal against you or Mr. Bennett. I'm not an actor and I've never even heard of Bennett until his page was listed for deletion today.--Isotope23 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Back and forth regarding Jason Bennett
Good Morning, Sgactorny. We seem to be going back and forth about the placement of Jason Bennett's name with the great acting teachers in history. Please use Wikipedia for what it was meant for: Sharing information not ads. Tree Trimer 13:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Copying
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Jason Bennett, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -Will Beback 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)