Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/HIV/AIDS denialism

I believe this page could, if improved, be an informative and educational resource which could save lives in those parts of the world where accurate and reliable information on HIV/AIDs is not available.

Lack of information, and the presence of misinformation - eg. the myth that sex with virgins cures aids http://www.google.com/search?q=virgins%20cure%20aids are a real problem, and one which an accurate, comprehensive, and scientifically rigourous article here may be able to impact.

Take a look at Apollo moon landing hoax accusations to see how wikipedia has dealt with another highly disputed and controversial topic which can dealt with by a rigourous approach, perhaps some of the section titles seen there, such as "The burden of proof" could be usefully used in this article Richard Taylor 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see your point. However it should be noted that the virgin cure myth is not part of AIDS reappraisal. The latter is solely concerned with the cause(s) and treatment of AIDS. Most "dissidents" who advocate AIDS reappraisal are well aware that scientific consensus is against them. In contrast, common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS (such as the virgin cure myth) are usually the result of simple ignorance.


 * The Apollo landing hoax article is quite good, but I'm not sure that a lot that can be learnt from it and applied to AIDS reappraisal. I agree that the "burden of proof" section could be adapted to apply to AIDS reappraisal, but I very much doubt that the several dissidents who watch the article would allow it to remain. AIDS reappraisal is a much more contentious subject than the Apollo landing hoax. How best to treat and prevent AIDS is a life and death issue for millions of people.


 * Scientific peer review might improve the AIDS reappraisal article. However it might be difficult to find many people with sufficient knowledge of the subject who have not yet become editors of the article. Trezatium 13:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sex with virgins cure doesn't belong in this article - its just one example of misinformation which a good set of articles on this subject on Wikipedia could tackle.Richard Taylor 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * HIV is one of the most heavily-researched topics in all of science, so it is extremely difficult to be non-ignorant about all of the goings-on in HIV research regardless of where you stand on the issue unless you are an HIV researcher. Does anyone here, for instance, know exactly how David Ho's claims of "eradication" died?  So calling a person "ignorant" simply because they do not accept the mainstream views of HIV/AIDS is false.  Many dissidents, both inside the scientific community and outside of it, are well-versed in the mainstram view of HIV/AIDS and the knowledge of what actually happens in HIV research is precisely why the mainstream view is seen as untenable.  Do not confuse ignorance with ideological non-conformance. --Loundry 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "ignorance" was used in relation to the belief that sex with a virgin can cure HIV. Such a belief can fairly be characterized as ignorance, rather than a failure to keep up with the latest on PubMed. I think the point being made was that scientifically-based arguments by AIDS dissidents shouldn't be lumped in with such beliefs as the virgin-cure thing. MastCell 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)