Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sgactorny

Proudly ignorant orthodox
Although the relevance is limited, I never refused to read anything written by AIDS reappraisers, as Sgactorny says. On the contrary, I read "virus myth" literature in order to understand its position to help me write with an NPOV. The Rod 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a major step forward. Thanks. Previously you wrote you would "wait for" me to write edits, and use that to inform you about dissident views. See your previous message in the talk pages. Thanks. Sgactorny 15:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You say you welcome suggestions from people like me
You suggest this as a source for others to read, which while written in 1993 has a first sentence stating "It is currently accepted that a positive Western blot (WB) HIV antibody test is synonymous with HIV infection and the attendant risk of developing and dying from AIDS." which completly misrepresents what this 1991 document stating the orthodox position says. I recommend you get better sources. WAS 4.250 17:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that 1991 document did not dictate the practices around the world. But good try. And even if it did, it does not alter the arguments in the 1993 peer-reviewed article. Did you bother to read it? If so, what did you think? And why? Sgactorny 18:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read and re-read the document you asked me to, and having read and re-read the 1993 journal article you are criticizing many times over, I can't figure out what point you think you are making by pointing me to a one page CDC anonymous report that has nothing to do with the issues in the Perth's Group paper. How does it establish HIV testing as valid, reliable, specific, sensitive and accurate? Sgactorny 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"How does it establish HIV testing as valid, reliable, specific, sensitive and accurate?" It DOESN'T. That's the point. YOUR article says "It is currently accepted that a positive Western blot (WB) HIV antibody test is synonymous with HIV infection and the attendant risk of developing and dying from AIDS." This DOCUMENT proves it was no such thing. My point was my last sentence:  "I recommend you get better sources." I would say something about reading comprehension skills, but I'm sure it's just the bias of seeing what one expects to see (as opposed to what is actualy there), which happens to everyone. WAS 4.250 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)