Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV  (Redirected from Talk:AIDS denialism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Up or down for the HIV/AIDS Theory/Theories - The scientific basis[edit]

HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? A Stephen Allen film.[edit]

added an external link to a 2 hour documentary full of citations to respected journals and various papers.

would be nice to work it into the article as there is a huge lack of neutrality in this article. definitely seems to be written with a foregone conclusion that denial-ism is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTxvmKHYajQ i found it very hard to watch the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.200.140 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A "documentary" produced by conspiracy theorists to promote fringe theories does not come anywhere near to meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. The article as it currently is represents the overwhelming scientific consensus, and any inclusion of this movie would be undue weight. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep. And Wikipedia editors don't actually determine what is "right" and "wrong", we just follow the aforementioned reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I vouch for this. The discussion by the links hold many fine, educated points from members of the BMJ. Can we add a Yes/No popularity button for this topic? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't operate by votes, and please read WP:ELNO. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Add an AIDS Denialists who have died section?[edit]

I am just getting started on Wiki, so if I am making formating or protocol errors, my apologies. I know several websites maintain a list of AIDS denialists that have gone on to die of AIDS. AIDS Truth, is one such example. It might add some additional context and implications to the article (though I see South Africa and Christine Maggorie are already present). Does anyone have any thoughts about adding such a section? --Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a thought. I think the section you are proposing is morbid and pointless. It would be equivalent to adding a section called "Believers in the HIV theory who died of AIDS" to the HIV/AIDS article. Since that article doesn't list people who accepted the HIV theory who died of AIDS, why should this article list the people who didn't believe in the HIV theory who died of AIDS? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a very good reason that it does not exist on the HIV/AIDS page, and that is because the disease progression of AIDS is far from a "theory". "Belief". as you put it, is all that AIDS deniers can stand upon, as they have no scientific evidence in which to base their belief. The fact that some of them continue to deny until they find themselves dead goes a long way to showing their level of detachment from reality. Seth Kalichman, goes into far more detail about these psychological aspects in his book, and this section could show the final result of such thinking. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not the least interest in discussing the merits of the HIV theory of AIDS. That wasn't the point of my comment. Rather, all I was pointing out is that there is no more purpose to having a "list of people who didn't believe that HIV causes AIDS who died of AIDS" here than there is to having a "list of people who did believe that HIV causes AIDS who died of AIDS" in another article. Whether HIV causes AIDS or not has no bearing on the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, well I will wait and see if I get anymore feedback from others about the possibility of adding this type of content somewhere in this article. It would appear that you have a personal attachment to this issue, which might make it difficult for you to remain objective. Consequently, there is already a list up for HIV related deaths Here. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
What does Kalichman discuss in his book? I think a better/more important addition could be about the psychological aspects of denial and detachment from reality, this could mention one or two examples. I have to agree FKC has a point about morbidity. This might also verge on original research, is there any reliable source has composed and published such a list? Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3, Your comment got the gears in my brain turning a bit. Perhaps doing a short section on the psychological aspects of AIDS Denialism might not be a bad undertaking, Especially since my expertise is psyche/sociology, and when you are a hammer you naturally see everything around you as a nail. Though there would also be substantial overlap with the more generalized psychological notion of denial, which is extremely well documented in the peer reviewed literature. Prof. Kalichman does go into significant detail specific to AIDS denialism in his book "Denying AIDS". The only thing that I am hesitant about is making an article for a pseudoscientific topic too long. As another alternative, we could always just add a link to the psyche article on Denial for economy and succinctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talkcontribs) 22:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The article is you linked to is about Freudian psychology, and thus has no relevance to AIDS or HIV. I have removed the link. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain why you feel as though denial, as a psychological defense mechanism, is not relevant to the discussion here ? The behavior exhibited by people who embrace AIDS Denialism is so glaring it could be used as a textbook case study on the construct. Prof. Kalichman expresses some more detail on specifics here. I am not understanding your justification for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talkcontribs) 10:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WTF first you want to argue that it's not a pseudoscientific view, now you purport that the psychological term denial is not relevant to an article on DENIALISM? Clearly there is a reliable source which considers the HIV/AIDS denial community and view appropriately analyzed in terms of psychological denial. A reliable source was presented before the content was added, your removal was inappropriate and and your conduct on this talk page is tendentious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC) To wit, "his claim that HIV is harmless reinforces the normal process of denial most people undergo when faced with traumatizing information" (Nattrass, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z). - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am equally baffled by this move, and this user has apparently also removed the "see also" links from the Denial (Psychology) article pertaining to Climate change denial,Holocaust denial, and (naturally) AIDS denialism. These are all about as clear cut and unambiguous of examples for psychological denial as one can find. They are all well sourced, and are a topic of discussion in just about every undergraduate, introduction to psychology or cognitive behavior class you will walk into in North America. Unless I see some very convincing arguments from this user, I will revert these changes back. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The article about the specific psychological phenomenon that Freudians call "denial", which is not necessarily the same thing that people are ordinarily referring to when they use the word "denial", is inappropriate to an article about HIV/AIDS denialism simply because there is no connection between the two. The "denialism" part of "HIV/AIDS denialism" is not meant to refer specifically to the phenomenon Freudians call "denial", and it's original research to try to link the two. Does Kalichman actually use Freudian psychology to try to analyse AIDS denialism? If not, then you're trying to create a connection that does not exist. MrBill3 would do well not to make bogus accusations of vandalism simply because I made an edit somewhere that he disagreed with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
As for my conduct on this talk page being "tendentious", what is that supposed to mean? Disagreeing with MrBill3? As I understand it, talk pages exist precisely so that editors can discuss their disagreements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Free, if you will direct your attention to citation that I posted in my first response on the matter, in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction they do indeed make that distinction. Also, suffice to say that the field of psychology has expanded upon Freud's original concept significantly in the interim time period leading up to today. More on topic, the peer reviewed academic journal "AIDS and Behavior" routinely publishes sociological and psychological material related to denial, paranoid personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and a host of others as they relate to the AIDS Pandemic and it's cast of characters. People like Mullis and Duesberg are actually a fascinating topic from a psychological perspective, as are AIDS Denialists in general, as they show the propensity of the human mind to overcome reason.
My objections to your removal of the link stand, but I am willing to allow the judgements of my peers to give me direction on this matter Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The link you posted on the talk page (I'm referring to this) leads not to Kalichman's book, but to an article about HIV/AIDS denialism by someone else. Unsurprisingly, that article does not mention Freudian psychology, or show that the "denialism" in "HIV/AIDS denialism" has anything at all to do with what Freudians call denial. So you and other editors, by insisting on adding a link to Denial here, are guilty of trying to create a connection between unrelated subjects. Your comment that "suffice to say that the field of psychology has expanded upon Freud's original concept significantly in the interim time period leading up to today" is a blathering irrelevance, since the article you linked to is primarily about Freudian ideas, which of course have no relevance to the topic of this article. By the way, Freudian psychology is itself often considered a pseudo-science, so it's unusual, to put it mildly, that you or anyone else would try to use it to help show why HIV/AIDS denialism is pseudo-scientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Free, I must apologize, I have too many windows open and I sent you the wrong cite. Appropriate one is Here. . You can only read the first few pages on a free account (though I do have a print copy of the book leftover from my own graduate career), but it will give you all the information you need about the foundations of AIDS denial as a "coping mechanism", and gee, I wonder where on Earth did that concept come from? Denial is actually incredibly common in people that face a serious medical diagnosis, but most people go through a series of stages leading to eventual acceptance. Obviously, with denialists, their pathological behavior makes that difficult. You can throw around lofty accusations all you want, but I studied psyche for 7 years in an academic setting, and I am quite confident that scholarship backs up my contention. Again, I will wait for others to weigh in here, as you have not convinced me. Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I glanced at the book. It obviously does not draw the connection you claim it does. HIV/AIDS denialism has nothing to do with Freudian psychology, and since the link you added is to an article about Freudian psychology, it is clearly inappropriate. It seems that you and other editors want to play the stupid and childish game of labeling points of view you disagree with (the idea that HIV is not the cause of AIDS being only one of them) pathological. I submit that if you really do have convincing arguments against those points of view, trying to suggest that they are forms of mental pathology should not be necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be overly obsessed with labels far more than I am. As an example, other than my freshman year of college, I do not think I have ever heard anybody in academia use the term "Freudian" when referencing denial. Why? Because after that point everyone who has paid attention knows precisely where the basis of the construct comes from. That is not to say people have not modified the concept and applied it to their own research. That happens all the time, and is in the true spirit of applied learning, but that in no way invalidates the work that came before it by any stretch. Take the term "denialism" which this article rests upon, which is a modern convention, and reflects the sociopolitical conception of denial.
As a side note, you are far from the first person I have ran across who is upset with modern psychology and it's predisposition towards finding a term in the DSM and slapping it onto a person and calling it day. I am not a fan of that approach either, which is why I am not sitting in the library right now reading copious amounts of material and pondering my dissertation. However, psychologists, just like most social scientists, are very apt at noticing trends for human behavior, and in the case of denial, the shoe fits snugly on the feet of AIDS "Dissidents".--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I have just reverted a well-intentioned edit by Bhny, which may the first sentence state that, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the non-scientific view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." The "non-scientific" part was Bhny's edition. I understand the reason for the edit, but I'm afraid it's really no different from adding something like "Hitler was evil" to the first sentence of the article on Adolf Hitler. Aside from being inelegant writing, it's unnecessary. Anyone can see that Hitler was evil. Anyone can also see, from the existing material in the lead, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. I'd like to ask Bhny to refrain from adding unnecessary verbiage to solve a problem that does not exist: no one is going to think that AIDS denialism is scientific simply because the words "non-scientific" are not there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning at all. AIDS denialism unfortunately is a weird thing believed by too many people, and some of these people do think there is a scientific basis for their denial. The first paragraph has to make it clear that it is not scientific. (There is no reason to call denialists "drooling idiots" or to godwin this discussion before it begins) Bhny (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
No, the first paragraph does not have to make it clear that it is not scientific. Realistically, no one is going to read only the first paragraph of the article and somehow come away with the impression that AIDS denialism is scientific. It is impossible to avoid noticing the other paragraphs, which make it crystal clear that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. Your addition is poor writing, and it is an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. And for what it's worth, I didn't call denialists "drooling idiots" - you simply misunderstand what I wrote. Rather, the "drooling idiots" part referred to people who would read only the first paragraph of the article and then imagine that AIDS denialism is scientific. You seem to think that such people actually exist. Sorry, I don't think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note, by the way, that no article about a theory that has been rejected by the scientific community is written the way you think that this article should be written. Thus, the first sentence of Creationism, is "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation", not "Creationism is the non-scientific belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation." Try looking at other articles and you will get a better impression of what is and what is not considered acceptable writing on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Pseudoscience is, by it's very definition, unscientific, so I have no problems whatsoever with using the terminology to describe them. As to it being unnecessary because any rational person could not possibly identify it as anything else? You have more faith in humanity than I do. The fact that AIDS Denialism exists at all is testimony to how people can pathologically take a vacation from reality. You can also take a cursory examination around these very talk pages as exhibit B to this phenomenon.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I pointed out that the lead already states, emphatically and clearly, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. That's why the extra "non-scientific" language isn't needed. "Faith in humanity" has nothing to do with it. Nothing that you said above qualifies as a rational response to what I said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to bother worrying about it for the inclusion of one word, particularly when it appears you choose to be condescending to anyone who does not share your views. You can be sanctimonious to somebody else.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You made an irrelevant reply that didn't even touch on what I actually wrote. I am sorry if you find it "condescending" of me to point that out, but I do prefer to be honest. There would be better ways of replying than making whiny comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the first paragraph should make it clear. There are many readers who only read the first paragraph and many websites/search engines that display only the first paragraph or sentence. Why should the first sentence not make it clear? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, but one needs to consider how to do such things properly. The lead needs to use appropriate language, and any statement has to have a proper source. I suppose you could use the first sentence of the Intelligent design article as a model. Yet the language used there is not quite a perfect model for this article. "HIV/AIDS denialism" is not a "theory" as such; it is, as the article calls it, a view. A theory can be called pseudoscientific, but I don't think it makes sense to call something as loosely defined as a view pseudoscientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead should summarize the content. If a point is adequately made in the content it can be summarized without additional sourcing. I think a view that A does not cause B can be called pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience as the belief HIV does not cause AIDS is. The foundation of the belief is pseudoscience, the content of the belief is pseudoscience, it has been called and described as pseudoscience by reliable sources thus calling it a pseudoscientific belief is valid. It's not like the advocates of this belief don't all rely on pseudoscience, this isn't a religious belief or a philosophical opinion, this is a belief that the science that says A causes B is wrong and other (pseudo)science is right. Pretty clearly a pseudoscientific belief, view, proposition, notion, idea whatever noun employed. I agree that good writing should prevail whenever possible, propose something good! Concise and razor clear without sounding awkward or pointed with as much detail as necessary to explain and provide context with nothing extra. As you might have noticed that is not exactly my strength as an editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is by definition something that claims to be science but isn't. A "view" does not automatically equate to a scientific claim, and it doesn't have to be based on something that is claimed to be science; views can be based on anything. "Pseudoscience" is thus not, in my opinion, a useful label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This view claims to be scientific. The fact that "a view doesn't automatically equate" is irrelevant. This particular view is based on (what is claimed to be) science. This is a view on a scientific subject. Being a "view" does not exclude the possibility of being a pseduoscientific view. Doesn't the article make clear that this view is argued using pseudoscience and based on pseudoscience? Doesn't stating that in the lead make it a fair summary? What in the article would not be described as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? All the legal and political stuff refers back to the (in)validity of the science. If a majority of the conduct of the individuals discussed in an article is engaging in, and arguing using pseudoscience, how is it not useful to label the view they are arging for as pseudoscientific? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
No, a view doesn't claim anything. Only people who maintain views claim things. I'm not especially impressed by your arguments for the appropriateness of the "pseudoscientific" label. Other editors may well agree with you, of course, and I've no interest in trying to impose my personal preferences here. If a consensus develops in favor of using such language, then so be it, but let's wait and see. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A weak attempt at semantic distraction. A position doesn't make claims either but a position can be pseudoscientific. I view is scientific if it based on and argued from science and relates to a scientific concept. I view is religious if it is based on and argued from religion and relates to a religious topic. A view is pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience and argued from pseudoscience and relates to a scientific topic. The cause of a disease is a scientific topic, denialism is based on and argued from a pseudoscientific basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think mentioning pseudoscience in the lead is a fine idea. I agree with MrBill3. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
'Agreed --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, not supported by medical science, that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by medical experts[?], that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by medical evidence[?], that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This view is contradicted by medical evidence[?].

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This view is not supported by mainstream science[?].

Etc...

Obviously any of these would need an appropriate source linked at the point where I've inserted the '?'.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the original phrase "non-scientific view" is bad for all sorts of reasons. Firstly lots of views are "non-scientific" (including the view that Hitler was evil, or even that Hitler was Chancellor of Germany). Science is only one way of determining truth. Secondly, a view may be scientific but also wrong. Many scientific theories have been disproved, and it's fair to say that some early versions of HIV-AIDS denialism were based on legitimate scientific models, or at least were genuinely consistent with scientific method. Balaenoptera musculus's suggestions ("not supported by medical science" etc) avoid both these problems. I do understand that some editors wish to get the disclaimer-terms in as early as possible, but I think that can be counter-productive. It makes readers feel they are been preached at, or hit over the head with an "official" POV. I'm all in favour of saying in the first paragraph that scientists overwhelmingly reject denialism, but it does not have to be pushed as far forward as possible in the very first sentence. We could even leave it to the second sentence! Paul B (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Paul B.
In other articles with the same problem, it's been useful to try to move the article text 'up' the hierarchy of disagreement, i.e. giving reasons why we think something is invalid rather than just saying that it's invalid. In Ken Ham we ended up with His claim (blah blah) is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records."
So something more specific than the "medical evidence" or "mainstream science" that I've used above would be even better. E.g. something like:

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by epidemiological evidence[?], that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done: As no objections have been raised, I've made this change. Please revert and discuss here if I'm wrong. Face-smile.svg Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced this is strongly worded enough, since epidemiology is only the tip of the iceberg as to what puts AIDS deniers at odds with the scientific mainstream. They are, after all, factually wrong, and we should portray them accordingly. The introductory sentence is what sets the tone for the article, so I would be more comfortable calling these folks precisely what they are, pseudoscientists, right from the get go (Per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS). Thoughts?Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have particular fields or sources of evidence in mind, then we could add them thusly: "contradicted by evidence from A, B and C".
I agree that the denialist view is factually wrong (of course), but I think that the tone is more encyclopaedic if we just present the evidence to the reader.
To me it seems higher up Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to present the evidence that the denialist view is wrong, rather than to label it as wrong.
BTW I find this essay provides a useful reference for this type of topic.
Best, Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Since we already have numerous sources within the article which prove the scientific reality of viral isolation, epidemiological association, transmission pathogenesis, etc.[1], why not just add, "despite conclusive medical and scientific evidence". This does not flat out label them as incorrect, per your concerns on Graham's hierarchy, but presents a more accurate assessment of the reality of the situation. Supaflyrobby (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, good plan, go for it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneSupaflyrobby (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you shouldn't have done it. What you added to the lead (let me be frank) is illiterate, inept, confused writing. It now reads, "HIV/AIDS denialism' is the belief, desipte conclusive medical and scientific evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." I understand what it is supposed to mean. You are trying to say that HIV/AIDS denialism is contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence. That is not, however, what the words you have added actually state. Taken literally, they imply that "conclusive medical and scientific evidence" does not show that HIV/AIDS denialism is something other than the belief that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Think about it very, very, carefully, and you will realize that such a statement does not make sense. I do object in the strongest terms to incompetent edits like the one you just made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So fix it instead of devoting your energy to borderline personal attacks. VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I would have fixed it already, but unfortunately, in an editing environment like Wikipedia, where anyone can register an account, I cannot be sure that an edit removing or correcting inept writing will not be reverted. Talk page discussion thus seems to be needed. The discussion having happened, I will correct the error and use the language I suggested in my most recent edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, please review WP:Personal and WP:Civil. This is now the second time you have resorted to such measures instead of simply offering constructive commentary to work towards a better article. If you find an edit problematic, fine, that is what these talk pages are for, not as a means for you to assert your self-proclaimed superior intellect over the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talkcontribs) 21:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad that you've accepted the correction. I wasn't trying to assert anything about my intellect (I don't think it requires great intellect to insist on correct English). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
While I also prefer 'contradicted by', I too find FreeKnowledgeCreator's condescension unnecessarily rude.
FreeKnowledgeCreator: Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour. That means it's usually a good thing to avoid describing text or edits in terms more usually applied to persons (such as 'inept', 'illiterate' or 'incompetent') as you could very easily be understood to be deploying childish name calling against your fellow editors.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
For goodness sake call it HIV/AIDS skepticism. Nowadays the believers refer to 'HIV disease' and not AIDS anyway. The changing of definition for this whole 30+ year charade is proof enough that the dissident/skeptics might be correct on a basic level. MLW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.83.214 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless you present a WP:RS, and one that conforms to MEDRS, this will go nowhere. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol[edit]

Did he deny the link between HIV and AIDS, or, did he just deny having AIDS? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

After doing a little digging, I have yet to find a reliable source that suggests that he denied the link, only that he denied he was infected. While his actions in Poland certainly lead me to believe he was a Sociopath, I see no evidence of AIDS denialism, at least, none in the manner that matches our definition here. If someone has evidence to the contrary I would certainly like to see it. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

To be very precise and verbatim, he denied "being infected" (with HIV), as he was circumcised, while knowing that he had tested positive for AIDS years back. He thus repeatedly denied the possibility of him infecting dozens of girls he slept with with HIV. Logical, isn't it?

See the details and context below.

First, while I am dwelling on this here. Since this and related articles are oftentimes reverted or even deleted for the reasons of political correctness (see proof), I need to provide more scientific background and seek wide consensus first.

My point is that apart from "AIDS is not HIV", many Black people claim(ed) that they are immune to HIV since they are circumcised. Simon Mol who knew he had AIDS (he was tested and told about it), was one of them, as evidenced by his own quote there, which belief may have contributed to his HIV transmission.

To prove existence and universality of this false belief, I want to add a subsection about it, with a quote about its occurence among Subsaharan Blacks in particular, referencing e.g. this article: Circumcision Denialism Unfounded and Unscientific and maybe related ones which reference it: Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current evidence and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa. or this one, sample quote: “Are heterosexual men, living with HIV in South Africa, clear that although they can get circumcised, their benefits in this regard are close to none – if any?"

My point is that he and other people learning that "circumcision massively reduces HIV risks" (Mol actually directly referenced a BBC article about it) engange in denialism, wishful thinking, that in claiming and believing they could never catch HIV (Mol used the word "(not) infected" to ally the fears of his partners).

Is it RS enough and does it warrant a subsection so that my edits are not reverted again? Please advise. Zezen (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One could deny that one could catch HIV/AIDS while still affirming that HIV causes AIDS. Unless you have evidence that Mol specifically denied that HIV leads to AIDS, it is original research to include Mol. The sources you provide contain no indication of anyone claiming that circumcision means AIDS is somehow not caused by HIV, but that some people are under the mistaken assumption that circumcision is a cure for already contracted HIV-caused AIDS. Completely different matter.
To be clear: this article is about those who claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV. It is not about those who understand that AIDS is caused by HIV but mistakenly believe it can be cured through circumcision, or whose who understand that AIDS is caused by HIV but mistakenly believe that circumcision renders them completely immune. You need a source that specifically claims that Mol denied the link between HIV and AIDS, not sources where Mol claims to have no been infected. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


I understand your point about what this article is about NOW.

What I am trying us to agree on is that we create a subsection (better) or if really needed a separate article about mistaken claims, popular among Black Africans, that if you circumcise then you do not catch AIDS/HIV or that if you do so after getting infected it sto;; magically cures you. As I wrote, they are RS proven (see the sample sources above)

Please comment on my query if such sources are RS enough for a separate section.

Zezen (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just found that Simon Mol also believed his sperm to be sacred.[1] Would that be a proof for his magical thinking (aka denialism) good enough? Zezen (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does not appear to say that Mol believed that HIV does not cause AIDS. This article is specifically about people who deny that HIV leads to AIDS. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Zezen, Much of what you are brining up is already covered in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS, which is where I think some material about Sol could be worked in. I also agree with Ian that the evidence you present does not appear to support inclusion here.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip. I search for "circumcision" there but they do not cover this type of AIDS denialism.

-> Shall we create it here then? As you see from these RS, it exists, and influences many people's decisions.

Zezen (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that circumcision prevents HIV infection is not a form of HIV/AIDS denialism. How many times do you have to be told that? HIV/AIDS denialism is only the claim that HIV does not lead to AIDS. HIV/AIDS denialism does not include any claims that HIV infection can be avoided by some means.
The mistaken belief that circumcision prevents HIV infection is a misconception about how HIV spreads, even if that misconception has yet to be added to that article. It is not the denial that AIDS is caused by HIV. Do you see the difference? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to be a problem with this editor. However, circumcision is not mentioned in Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS which may be because according to our article on Circumcision and HIV the World Health Organisation "and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention but should be carried out by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent". Now this may be, as the tag says, outdated, but if " many Black people claim(ed) that they are immune to HIV since they are circumcised." there seems to be ample reason for this belief, correct or not. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. While I think it is possible that adding of some of the material presented here could have a rightful place in the misconceptions article (the belief is, after all, incorrect, and therefore represents a misconception) it clearly has no basis for inclusion here. I would encourage Zezen to bring this up on the misconceptions article talk page. . --Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your judicious advice. I will try to introduce such section by reaching consensus on misconceptions article talk page. instead of editing this one then. (I will be a tad busy over the next couple of days, so will not be able to contribute for a while.)

Zezen (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Sekretne życie Simona Mola". Polityka. 2007. Archived from the original on 2014. ""My sperm is sacred" Polish: "Moja sperma jest święta."."