Talk:Discredited AIDS origins theories

Archives Archive 1

Title of this article

Please check: Man-made origin of AIDS
Last Bullet Point is "Toodle-Doo.". Check for Vandalism. h.mansour Jan 5th 2009

The current title is "AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus". I find this title confusing and lacking on grammatical grounds.

I support the inclusion of all non-mainstream verifiable ideas/hypotheseses/theories here. I just want to find a clearer name - a shorter version of "AIDS origin beliefs that are outside the scientific consensus".

"AIDS' origins outside scientific consensus"? "Origins of AIDS outside the scientific consensus"? "Origins of AIDS opposed to the scientific consensus" Others? SmithBlue (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Although I agree the title is slightly cumbersome it surely is accurate as those theories not only are "outside the scientific consensus" but most definitely are "opposed to scientific consensus." Finding a succinct yet accurate title might be difficult. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The current title may be interpretted correctly but it requires too much of the naive reader. It assumes:

• That the reader can understand that the grammatically incorrect title means "Proposed origins of AIDS that are rejected by the scientific consensus around this topic".
• That the reader understands that the beliefs in the article are not opposed to a generalised conception of "scientific consensus" but are rather rejected by the scientific consensus on this topic.

"Origins of AIDS rejected by the scientific consensus"? If we can say "opposed" without sources then "rejected" seems OK too? SmithBlue (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was recently renamed to AIDS origins conspiracy theories by this edit. If its name stays like that then the coverage about the OPV hypothesis, Smallpox vaccine, African National Congress, and Duesberg hypothesis should be moved elsewhere, as they are merely wrong - not conspiracy theories. Open4D (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But in terms of constructive suggestions for how to proceed, mine would actually be that the article content should be left the same, but that its name be changed (again) - this time to Non-consensus AIDS origin theories. Open4D (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But they are conspiracy theories: the OPV'ers maintain that the government(s)/big pharma/whoever has/have covered up the true origin of AIDS; same with the smallpox people; Thabo Mbeki and his hangers-on stated variously that AIDS (or HIV, or AIDS medications or poverty mislabelled as AIDS) is a plot of racial extermination by whites/foreign governments/business interests; Duesberg implicates a vast international/scientific conspiracy (led, presumably by his former friend Gallo) in promoting purportedly shoddy science and suppressing his (non-research-based) findings. At their very core or somewhere near it, each of these is a conspiracy theory. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not according to our descriptions of them. The OPV hypothesis is described as a result of poor techniques in vaccine production, and I don't see any mention of a cover-up. The smallpox stuff, I added; it seems to have been a genuinely held belief of some sensible people in its day and again does not describe any conspiracy. If some people claim the polio/smallpox theories are true and also that there is now a coverup, perhaps their beliefs in the coverups count as conspiracy theories, but I don't see how that means that the actual underlying AIDS-origin theories themselves are conspiracy theories.

Thabo Mbeki "has argued that AIDS is the result of poverty, chronic disease, malnutrition and other environmental factors", according to the article. Later on there is talk about "the CIA and Western drug companies [trying to] increase sales", but that would be an AIDS commercial exploitation conspiracy theory, not an AIDS origin conspiracy theory. I've never seen anything linking ANC/Mbeki with the kinds of things that Wangari Maathai now denies saying (genocide against Africans).

Duesberg blames recreational and anti-HIV drug use for AIDS. The closest I can find on his website to a conspiracy allegation is his claim that his "findings have been a thorn in the side of the medical establishment and drug companies since 1987. Instead of engaging in scientific debate, however, the only response has been to cut-off funding to further test Professor's Duesberg's hypothesis." That doesn't sound like a conspiracy allegation to me.

Is there no grey area between the opposite extremes of the current scientific consesus vs. the conspiracy theories? Open4D (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Has Hooper ever said that contamination of OPV vaccine was made intentionaly ? He never said that nor let it be understood that way : so , either his name should be erased from that article or the title of the article should be changed !Hooper's work has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy ( even if some may have understood it so...may they be opponents or defendents ). If the choice would be to delete his name from this article , another place should have to be found to present - correctly- the hypothesis he is still defending ( and was not the only one to do so : late Pr Hamilton - for example - did help this hypothesis to be examined ) Trente7cinq (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Having found that Wikipedia(en) had a specific article dedicated to OPV AIDS hypothesis I am of opinion that Hooper's work should be erased from this page , which could thus still be named AIDS origins conspiracy theories . Consequently the introduction should be changed : for example "was the inadvertent result of experiments in the development of vaccines" would be useless . ( again if the title conspiracy is choosen , then why mention inadvertent actions ? Ever heard of inadvertent conspiracy ?Trente7cinq (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer on non-scientific nature of the article

hey wikipedians

I note that the subheading "This article contains hypotheses not supported by scientific evidence. For current scientifically based hypotheses, see AIDS origin." seems rather unneccessary given both the title of the article and the first paragraph (both of which clearly delineate that position). This overemphasization smacks to me of bias against anything deemed 'non-scientific'. I think this warrants deletion of the aforementioned subheading. 206.223.190.7 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentences in question simply remind the reader that the hypotheses reviewed may not be scientifically accurate and then provide a link to an article with accurate information. As for bias, Wikipedia indeed has a bias in favor of verifiable information from reliable sources. Please review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE for details. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not my point. Obviously, Wikipedia strives to reflect the consensus position in its articles. I am saying that restating the same thing three times before the reader has finished reading 50 words is excessive (not to mention it reads poorly). 206.223.190.7 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Biological warfare hypothesis

Today, I have added this subsection under "Man-made or iatrogenic origins of AIDS". I found and photocopied the reference at the reference library of the State Capitol in Phoenix, AZ, about 14 years ago; I still have it. The chief witness before the subcommittee was Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, then Deputy Director Research and Technology, (DDR&E), in the office of the Secretary of Defense. To my knowledge, this material is not available online, so I shall provide a few short quotes:

At page 129, from written information provided to the committee by Dr. MacArthur:

“2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

“3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.

“4. * * *

“It is a highly controversial issue, and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.”

At page 121, Dr. MacArthur says,

“…that there will be a worldwide scourge, or black death type disease that will envelop the world or major geographical areas if some of these materials were to accidentally escape. That could not possibly happen….”

I have not personally seen documentary proof that Congress approved the funding. My unfounded speculation is that, the pilot program proceeded and death-row inmates were used as test subjects. With no long-term follow up of test subjects, one or more of them were exonerated and released before they became symptomatic. All this might have even occurred before DOD went to Congress, giving them an opportunity to unwittingly take the blame for what had already been accidentally unleashed on the public. This hypothesis is compatible with some of the more synister plots which could have occurred later. The Strecker hypothesis is a reasonable descriptioGovernment programs whose funding ran out after a specified period have been known to shut down completely. n of how DOD's pilot project may have been undertaken. Onerock (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My original post and reference were deleted anonymously; I regard this as vandalism, and I have restored them. Would the culprit please identifying yourself so we can discuss and resolve your objections. If you doubt my source, I suggest that you go to the nearest large repository of federal documents and verify it for yourself. Your state capital's library should have a copy. Onerock (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are proposing is original research, which probably explains its deletion. You describe this as "unfounded speculation", which is putting it mildly. Does the document you photocopied make any reference to HIV or AIDS? Has any reliable source ever Government programs whose funding ran out after a specified period have been known to shut down completely. linked MacArthur's testimony to HIV/AIDS? If the answer to both questions is no, then I don't see how this belongs in an encyclopedia with our content policies. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing and paraphrasing an unimpeachable public record is not "original research". Are you suggesting that an official government document is invalid without a link to a third party's citation of it? I seriously doubt that crediting that UFO magazine in which I originally heard of this document can add credence after I personally photocopied the original document at the State Capitol Research Library in Phoenix, AZ. If you doubt me, you can do the same. Unfortunately, I don't believe the minutes of congressional subcommittees are available online.

"Does the document you photocopied make any reference to HIV or AIDS?" If it did, that would prove it is a fake. In 1969, DOD announced to congress that it wanted to create HIV-AIDS, except they didn't call it that because those terms were not yet invented. The term HIV-AIDS accurately describes what DOD intended to create, despite the fact that they wanted it to be quick and non-contagious, and Dr. MacArthur did not specify that the agent was to be a virus.

My "unfounded speculation" in the talk section never appeared in the wiki article, so you cannot offer that as a reason to delete my addition to the article. It is not speculation to say DOD could not have known what they would get from the new science of molecular biology; they hadn't even invented the terms genetic engineering and recombinant DNA, yet. Nor am I speculating that the proposal to Congress made no mention of long-term follow up of test subjects. Government programs whose funding ran out after a specified period have been known to shut down completely. It is common sense that, without long-term follow up, a contagious disease with an incubation period of several years could have escaped. I am only speculating when I suggest that the inevitable may have actually happened.Onerock (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. The material you seek to insert does not deal directly with HIV or AIDS. No reliable source links MacArthur's testimony to HIV/AIDS. The link between the testimony and HIV/AIDS appears in your posts, but not in reliable sources (at least, not in any that have been presented here). The edit therefore falls afoul of Wikipedia's prohibitions on original research and synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No intelligent reader needs to be told by a “reliable source” that “… a new infective microorganism …. refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” is related to HIV-AIDS. This quote from Dr. MacArthur is as good a description of HIV as could be expected at a time when neither the virus nor its name had been invented. Since my cite has been repeatedly removed along with the article, I repeat it here for the benefit of anyone who might want to enter the fray. Sudoc # Y4.Ap6/1:D36/5/970/part 6/ pp. 104-144Onerock (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I combined this material with the Cantwell section, because he quotes it in his chapter on Biological Warfare as can be seen here This should suffice as a 'reliable source'! 119.92.125.233 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A self-published book does not suffice as a reliable source. I'm not sure that Cantwell should be mentioned in this article at all, but I will check to see if there are reliable sources describing his theories. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

AIDS developed by modern biology?

Should the passage below be added to the "Man-made or iatrogenic origins of AIDS" section?

Dr. John Seale of the Royal Society of Medicine had his memorandum quoted at length in the "Third Report from the Social Services Committee, Problems Associated with AIDS, Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda" which was an important investigation into AIDS, carried out in 1988 by the Social Services Committee of the House of Commons in the British Parliament.

Dr. Seale stated "Every biological scientist who has dispassionately studied the virus and the epidemic knows that the origins of the virus could lie in the development of modern biology, just as the origins of the nuclear bomb with modern physics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

timeline

i think this page would be much better and provide a much more thorough overview of what 'non-consentual' research has been done , when the different theory's would be in ordre of first publication, first anouncement. that way the ridiculous anti-african simian theory would more obviously show as a distraction to go with the "offical" racist explanation for aids etnoselectivity.24.132.171.225 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "non-consensus", perhaps? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

goudsmit

as you probably all know the to-be consensual theory is : jaap goudsmit's. this is a synopsis for his "further" significance in viral research.:"" Segmented genomes confer evolutionary advantages; different strains of a virus with a segmented genome can shuffle and combine genes and produce progeny viruses or (offspring) that have unique characteristics. This is called reassortment or viral sex.[76]""

(from virusses wikipedia),the relevance for this page is that this is eaxctly the odd kind of theory that was needed to explain such a(n obviously) recombinant virus as aids. i really never have heard of research confirming this(76), except when it concerned other suspect recombinants. so yes for sars(is birdflue), aids, and h1n1, but no for every other virus that exists. that is most improbable and perhaps a thing people know of is disproven.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of molecular research on retroviral recombination; how it's relevant to this article isn't clear. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New report

AIDS is not anywhere from the 1930s, according to a new report. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Keraunoscopia|galaxies , the information you mention is most interresting Trente7cinq (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hooper

I decided to delete the paragraph on Hooper according to what I wrote a few days ago ( cf section Title of this article)Trente7cinq (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Article title

I see that this article has been renamed. Just about anything would be better than the old name, but I'm also not too sure about the new one. Firstly, I don't see why we need the words "overview of". All encyclopedia articles give an overview of their subject, so those words seem to be redundant. It also seems to use pretty tortuous English, even if not as tortuous as the previous name. Another issue is the capitalisation. How about the more fluent and correctly capitalised Discredited theories of the origin of AIDS? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point(s). I really like your suggestion, too. So I'll just go ahead and fix that, as well as the wikilink at Origin of AIDS#Discredited_Theories... Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Late to the party, but "Discredited AIDS origins theories" would probably be best. No redundant "of" and "the" needed in title. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still think think that that seems like rather clumsy language. We are not newspaper headline writers with limited space, so we don't have to worry about making the title as short as possible.Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that we don't have to have it short; but the current version seems clunkier to me than my suggestion. Either way, this is clearly a better title than the previous one. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bah - you're right; it's just too wordy. Phil, would you be opposed to changing it to "Discredited AIDS origins theories"? Or I'll just go ahead and change it - revert, if you care to... Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not NPOV. Its true that Wikipedia gives more weight to mainstream than fringe views,but Wikipedia shouldn't pass judgement in its own voice.169.231.43.139 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)