Talk:Peter Duesberg

Peter Duesberg is not denying AIDS

Calling him a AIDS denialist is very misleading. An AIDS denialist would be someone who denies that AIDS exists...which Peter Duesberg does not think. What Peter Duesberg is denying is that HIV is the CAUSE of AIDS. He's an HIV denialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.197.233 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop it, an intelligent comment on wiki, and about Duesberg no less. Best one sentence summary of Duesberg I have ever seen. My minor contribution - Max Essex a renowned critic says something, don't forget boys and girls that Peter Duesberg ain't no slouch in the research world, his opinion on medical research is probably on a par with Max's. By the way any info on Max's qualifications that surpass Peter's - there must be some, how would a lesser light dare critique a master's work? 159.105.80.221 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... Max Essex actually does scientific research on HIV and AIDS. Peter Duesberg does not. So if you want to base things solely on "qualifications", then it's a TKO for Essex. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 96.255.197.233's comment was intelligent, but the usual practise on Wikipedia is follow the terminology used by reliable sources, rather than making up our own. For whatever reason the term "AIDS denialist" seems to have stuck, despite being a little illogical. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Duesberg denies central aspects of the scientific understanding of AIDS, such as its causation by HIV. He also denies that AIDS exists as a disease entity in Africa. In those respects, "AIDS denialist" is a logical term. "HIV denialist" isn't really any better, because Duesberg (unlike other wings of the AIDS-denialist movement) does not deny the existence of HIV, only its pathogenicity. MastCell ^Talk 05:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes: the current definition of AIDS includes its causation by HIV. Duesberg denies this causation. Hence, he denies the existence of AIDS as currently defined by the medical community. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Is it just me, or is the lead inordinately long for the length of this article? Should some of the details be pared down and moved to the body of the article? Also, I think it is a little unusual that it is only in the 2nd paragraph of the lead that his denialist views are mentioned; he is most well known for these views currently, and that probably should be reflected earlier in the lead. Yobol (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on both the length and the order. I understand what MastCell was trying to do (placate an irate editor), and I appreciate the chronology argument to an extent. However, although Duesberg did make contributions to science at one time, he's made the news and other reliable sources almost exclusively through his AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the lead is too long. I guess I wasn't solely responding to an irate editor, though - I do think that it makes sense to first describe Duesberg's earlier work (which, after all, earned him his position and election to the Academy) and then move on chronologically to his claims about HIV/AIDS. That way, the article's narrative parallels the course of his career. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but I also feel that the first sentence should establish him as the de facto founder of AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On AIDS

In my opinion this section has a couple of problematic sentences compare the sentence "This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence ..." with the sentence "In the Science article ..."

The first sentence asserts in the passive narrative voice of the article that Duesberg's theory is wrong. He may well be, but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to express that opinion. The sentence needs to be recast see WP:ASF. That is why the second sentence is so much better.

The second problematical sentence is "Duesberg asserts that AIDS in Africa is misdiagnosed and the epidemic a "myth", claiming incorrectly[23] that the diagnostic" which suffers from the passive voice problem, but also WP:ASF reference 23 does not directly state that he is "claiming incorrectly" so the sentence also contains a WP:SYN. -- PBS (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on "claiming incorrectly" - that's a bit intrusive. On the other hand, the narrative voice is appropriate for certain viewpoints that are essentially universal. For instance, we say: "The earth is round" rather than "According to NASA, the Earth is round." MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to make a judgement on whether he was right or wrong, it is up to us to report on who agrees or disagrees with his hypothesis (WP:ASF and importance to distinguish between "talk about talk" and "talk about the world") -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF, there is no "serious dispute" among reliable sources (WP:MEDRS, in this case) that HIV causes AIDS and that Duesberg is incorrect. We should reflect the overwhelming consensus as such without qualification by attribution. Yobol (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you prove that "This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence"? This obviously leads to the question "what evidence?". Much better to attribute it to an authority (see the arguments in the essay above and the Iraq example). Who claims he is incorrect? You say "We should reflect the overwhelming consensus" how do you know it is an overwhelming consensus? A much simpler solution is to find some papers from experts in the field who have refuted the work. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence? Besides the 5 in-line citations that provide the evidence? Your "simpler" solution would place a requirement for attribution that our current policies (WP:ASF) do not require. Yobol (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PBS has made similar arguments at Phillip E. Johnson, but my interpretation is that, on the matter of fringe theories, we do not give them more credibility than they receive in the reliable sources (e.g. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources). Since we can't well specifically attribute criticism of Duesberg to each of tens of thousands of scientists whose work has disproven his theories, and attributing to only two or three would convey a false impression of parity, I'm quite comfortable with "overwhelming consensus" or similar language. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are doing you own survey (which is OR) we need a summary article that says it is the consensus. There is no need to present it as parity we just have to find the correct sources and/or word it in such a way that it does not breach WP:NPOV and WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like the Twilight Zone. Are you seriously asking us to provide a "summary article" stating that HIV causes AIDS? There are more than 10,000 published peer-reviewed articles in the medical literature which support this connection. If you feel that it requires a source, then could you please identify one yourself? I'm not sure what you're looking for, any more than I'd know where to start if you asked for a "summary article" proving that the Earth is round. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They are easy to find with a google search on some thing like [ Aids HIV scientific consensus survey site:edu ] for example see Like a Virgin? Virginity Testing as HIV/AIDS Prevention: Human ... cites Michael Specter, the Denialists the Dangerous Attacks on the Consensus about HIV and AIDS, The New Yorker. March 12, 2007. In that article (found with a Google string search) you will find "In 1987, molecular biologist Peter Duesberg published a paper challenging the consensus that H.I.V. causes AIDS." Now that took me about 5 minutes. You should be able to find many more quite easily, so I do not see why this article has to contain OR and SYN, when there are plenty of sources available to do the job within the policy restraints we have. -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying we can't say "HIV causes AIDS" without attribution on Wikipedia? Yobol (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say we can't say "HIV causes AIDS" that (It is easy to find an authoritative source to back up that statement and if necessary to attribute it to a source such as WHO), what I said what that if MastCell want to say in the article that it is the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS we need a source that supports "the scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS". I think this conversation is starting to drift can we please keep the conversation focused on the two sentences I have highlighted as a concern? -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem with the second sentence "Duesberg asserts that AIDS ..." it does not state when he made this statement, as it is in the present tense it implies that it was very recently however the given sources are not recent ones, so the year he made this statement should be included with the rest of the information. -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Can or cannot the phrase "AIDS is caused by HIV" stand without attribution? And is it really your contention that we can say "HIV causes AIDS" but not that "the scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS" using the same sources for both? And finally, I disagree that any date needs to be mentioned. There is no indication that Duesberg has changed his stance at any point on this matter, and dating it as if he has would violate NPOV. Yobol (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did answer your question: "I did not say we can't say 'HIV causes AIDS' that (It is easy to find an authoritative source to back up that statement and if necessary to attribute it to a source such as WHO)". You write "And is it really your contention that we can say 'HIV causes AIDS' but not that 'the scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS' using the same sources for both?" It depends what the sources say, one has to be careful of OR. I did not suggest dating it, as if he had changed his mind, I suggested dating it. -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While that is certainly an "answer", it completely missed the point of the question, which was to clarify your position of Wikipedia can say "HIV causes AIDS" without the need for attribution. Answering "if ncessary to attribute" completely avoids the intent of my question. I would appreciate a direct answer. Yobol (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the context and as we were not debating the inclusion of the phrase here lets keep focus on the issue that I raised:

• The first sentence asserts in the passive narrative voice of the article that Duesberg's theory is wrong. He may well be ...
• The second problematical sentence is "Duesberg asserts that AIDS in Africa is misdiagnosed and the epidemic a 'myth', claiming incorrectly" ...
• There is another problem with the second sentence [it is not dated] --PBS (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As your answer to my question goes to your interpretation of WP:ASF, and therefore how I would reply to your other concerns, I would like to focus back on my question. Under what circumstances would the phrase "HIV causes AIDS" require attribution? Yobol (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When the issue of a specific usage comes up we can discuss if attribution is needed, but until it does, there is no need to discuss it. Let us stick to the content of the section and the specific poits I have raised. -- PBS (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and MastCell that the phrasing "claimed incorrectly" is likely a violation of SYNTH, but do not see a problem with the other two points. Since you appear to be refusing to elucidate your interpretation of WP:ASF with concrete examples, which is at the heart of the concerns you raise and initially brought up by you in your original concern, I see no point in discussing this further with you. Cheers,Yobol (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Duesberg's theory is wrong, that's a fact. The scientific community is united in viewing HIV as the cause of AIDS. He is as wrong about AIDS as Ken Ham is about evolution. We don't have to attribute simple, universally agreed upon statements like HIV causes AIDS, and we are in fact out of keeping with WP:NPOV if we don't give the mainstream, universal opinion that HIV causes AIDS and Duesberg's opinions on HIV are wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If Duesberg's theory is wrong and it is "a fact" then it will be easy to find a reliable source that says that says it is. Currently the article says "[Duesberg] considers AIDS diseases as markers for drug use, e.g. use of poppers (alkyl nitrite) among some homosexuals, asserting a correlation between AIDS and recreational drug use.[26] This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence showing that only HIV infection, not homosexuality or recreational/pharmaceutical drug use, predicts who will develop AIDS." If it has been disproven (BTW I think the word should be "disproved") then please quote here on the talk page, from the several sources given, the one that says the correlation has not be found (which is what I think the second sentence is trying to say) or one that say he is wrong or one that says they have disproved his hypotheses. I always understood that the problem with denialism is that denialists put forward wacky theories and no one in the scientific community is willing to waste time disproving, which is what makes it difficult for us to put in a refutation into Wikipedia without breaking WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See the NIH summary here (scroll down to "Responses to Arguments that HIV Does Not Cause Aids"). Basically, a number of studies have followed cohorts of gay men. Inevitably, those who are HIV-positive develop immunodeficiency and opportunistic infections. The men who are HIV-negative do not develop anything resembling AIDS, nor opportunistic infections, nor immunodeficiency. Rates of recreational drug use, nitrate use, anal intercourse, etc are comparable in the two groups. That's pretty strong evidence that a) HIV infection is responsible for AIDS, and b) recreational drug use etc are not responsible. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That article clearly indicates that cofactors play a major role, and notes that "Co-factors probably also determine why some smokers develop lung cancer while others do not." Are you trying to argue that recreational drug use is not immunosuppresive? That ridiculous article is dispelled by numerous reliable sources [1] "As these substances are known to interfere with antibody production and no immunodeficiencies were detected, drug-induced immunosuppression can be suspected as the most likely cause." [2] Stop attempting to propagandize and let's work together to make the article accurate and comprehensive, instead of seeking to advocate a particular point of view without regard to using quality sources, the best science and NPOV. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Drugs may be immunosuppressive, but that doesn't mean they cause AIDS. That first link is a) from 1997 and b) contains the line "Confounding factors could not be excluded in these findings." It's a correlational study, and can't rule out confounds. In this case, a huge confound is AIDS itself. A large number of sexual partners and high levels of drug use are both associated with AIDS, which is associated with NHL. Look at this article, which discusses AIDS-related NHL, and particularly how ARNHL declined as HAART became available. Heavy drug use and/or a large number of sexual partners leads to AIDS infections which leads to NHL. We even have a wikipedia page on it - AIDS-related lymphoma. In the 13 years since that article was produced, further study determined the causal path and it wasn't drug use to AIDS to NHL, it was drug use to HIV infection to NHL. Plus, the scientific community agrees HIV causes AIDS. All the random, cherry-picked journal articles won't change that. The second link is about smallpox infection, not HIV/AIDS, in addition to being a case study. Peter Duesberg isn't smarter than all the scientists in the world, and you would probably benefit from reading the multitude of pages that conclusively deal with AIDS denialism and the denialist claims - [3], [4], [5], [6], and these for Duesberg's claims in particular. If this is some sort of misguided attempt to assert that all knowledge is equal and therefore Duesberg's opinion is equal to that of any other scientist - that's not how science works and that's not how wikipedia works. Not all opinions are equal - AIDS is caused by HIV, the diversity of life is the result of unguided evolution, AIDS denialism is rank nonsense pseudoscience, and intelligent design is too. This isn't an encyclopedia of comparative mythology or post-modernist interpretations of literture (or science). It's a serious reference work based on the best sources we have and the scholarly consensus - which are both extremely firm on both these issues.

With these posts, you've clearly gone into AIDS denialist activity as you are now directly disagreeing with the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS. This is now blatant POV-pushing and explicit soapboxing for a fringe theory. AIDS denialism is paradigmatic pseudoscience. There is no wiggle room. Duesberg has no credibility and by attempting to advocate for his ideas, you are violating the purposes of wikipedia. Have you read WP:OR? We aren't allowed to "prove" or "disprove" a theory - we cite the scientific consensus. And in this case that is overwhelmingly that Duesberg's ideas have no relation to the actual HIV-AIDS connection, and that HIV causes AIDS. I'm also staggered by the blistering stupidity of suggesting all heterosexual females infected with HIV are also heavy drug users, as are all the haemophiliacs who are HIV positive and would be dying of AIDS without HAART. Stop debating, you lost as soon as you admitted you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources are not "neutral"

Sources are reliable or not, they are no "neutral". Kalichman is an esteemed researcher on HIV, with an extensive publication list. He's a social scientist writing a sociological review of AIDS denialism. He is a respected scholar writing in his field of expertise on a topic he is an active, respected researcher in - AIDS and social science. His blog lists a variety of book reviews in the right hand column.

Discover is a popular science magazine. The two sources are not comparable.

Deusberg is a paradigmatic, if not the paradigmatic AIDS denialist. The term "dissident" is used by AIDS denialists to give credibility to their views, as if they present an equally accepted alternative to the science behind AIDS. They do not present such an alternative. AIDS denialism is pseudoscience, nonsense, and the scientific community is essentially universal in its condemnation of the "Deusberg hypothesis" and all other "AIDS is not caused by HIV" nonsense. Why is this being soft-peddled?

There is no reason to supplant Kalichman's excellent, highly-reliable book with a "Discover" interview. Not even an article. An "interview". We are best to stick with a reliable source. Hence, I have reverted. There is no reason to replace a highly reliable book from 2009 with a popular magazine's interview from 2008. Particularly to replace "denialist" with the far less accurate, far more POV-pushing "dissident". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Swapping out sources so you can repeat the denialist label already noted in the first sentence is ridiculous. One scientist's opinion does not trump mainstream coverage in reliable sources many of which do not use the denialist slur. At the very least have the courtesy to leave the source that was already there instead of just replacing it with the opinion piece you happen to prefer. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous is cherry-picking a single popular source in the face of multiple reliable sources. Can you find anyone in the scientific mainstream who believes there is any merit to Duesberg's opinion on HIV/AIDS?

Calling a well-referenced book specifically on the topic of AIDS denialism an "opinion piece" is a curious opinion, and thinking it is less reliable than an interview in Discover is more curious.

Again - there is no support for the "Deusberg hypothesis" in serious scientific circles? I'm sure you can find webpages and articles in Medical Hypotheses, but how about an actual peer-reviewed article? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the article you're referring to is clearly NOT an interview. Secondly, yes there are many scientists who agree with parts of Duesberg's arguments including other contrarian dissidents. And finally, one author's opinion should be attributed, while coverage in reliable secondary sources can be used to establish mainstream views. NPOV indicates we respect multiple perspectives, not just those you agree with and that may be in the mainstream. It's quite clear fromt eh article his views are out of favor and widely discredited within the scientific community. Let's not belabor the point. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We're losing our last, tenuous connection to reality here. There are not "many scientists" who agree with Duesberg on HIV/AIDS (citation please?) Every scientist of any notability who does actual research on HIV/AIDS is clear that they are related, in contradiction to Duesberg's claims. If there are exceptions, then please name them. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my God. Frakshownerd, you are completely wrong. Deusberg is not a dissident, one who disagrees with the scientific community with valid scientific reasoning - he's just wrong. There are whole papers written on just how wrong he is. Duesberg is not a valid AIDS scientist, and you need to provide sources to demonstrate that anyone thinks he is. His position is not one viable one among many within the HIV research community. He's just wrong. NPOV doesn't mean we portray all points as valid. You're just wrong here, and verging on AIDS denialism POV-pushing yourself by insisting on it. If you don't have sources to substantiate your point, then just stop posting. There is a limit to the amount of discussion we can have, and by insisting that Duesberg's points are considered valid in the scientific community, you've just hit one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are numerous sources calling him a dissident [7]. My view is that it's clear HIV causes AIDS, but that's irrelevant. We write articles based on coverage in reliable independent sources, not in an effort to advance our personal opinions. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a saying about things that quack. At some point (e.g., when you insist Duesberg was "right" about AZT, whatever that means; that he is a "dissenter"; that many scientists agree with him; and when you cruise Wikipedia articles, removing reliably sourced information that portrays denialists for what they are), it doesn't really matter what you say. You're advancing a POV, and in a stridently rude fashion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:QUACK you mean? Though I won't comment on the politeness of anyone's conduct, I will say that FSN is showing strong indications of attempting to POV-push the page towards a direction more friendly to AIDS denialism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the article text and sources rather than trying to engage in personal attacks. My understanding is that the toxicity of AZT is rather well understood now. Am I wrong on that? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We have policies and guidelines like WP:ADVOCACY, WP:UNDUE, WP:COAT, WP:SOAP, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for reasons - sometimes contributors push a POV rather than cite and summarize sources.

AZT is indeed toxic, at certain doses - like all drugs (in fact, like anything that's not based on pseudomagical thinking such as homeopathy and acupuncture). However, the scientific consensus is that it's toxicity is well-tolerated when used to treat HIV infection. Your question is a red herring - no-one disputes that drugs can be dangerous, which is why a benefit to risk ratio is established. AZT might be toxic, but in combination with other AIDS drugs it is extremely effective at reducing the lethality of HIV infection. If your point of view is that because AZT is toxic it therefore can't be used to treat AIDS, you are very much in AIDS denialist territory. See [8]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

At what doses is AZT not toxic? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares? This page is about Peter Duesberg, not AZT. Further, it is the consensus opinion that AZT is a near-miraculous treatment for AIDS. That opinion counts, not yours, not Duesberg's. I'm not going to debate someone who is rapidly becoming a clear AIDS denialist. I'm going to trust the NIAID over you, or Duesberg, thanks. [9]. And maybe New Scientist too. Oh, and PLoS. And the NAS, in 1988. Seriously, these myths have been debunked repeatedly. It's pseudoscience because they've been debunked...yet somehow not abandoned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, WP:NOTFORUM. Please stop with the proselytizing about AIDS denialism. This isn't the place for it. Yobol (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but WLU has passionately argued that all of Duesberg's AIDS work has been dismissed, but clearly that's not the case. His arguments on the toxicity of some of the treatments (AZT for example) and his focus on cofactors are still actively being investigated and discussed. If you don't want to be exposed to reality, then don't ask about it. My edits are based on reliable sources and not the heavy POV pushing that some of you are engaging in. Clearly Duesberg is a dissident on the HIV-AIDS connection and that's made absolutely clear in the article. What we don't need are misrepresentations, BLP violations, or slanted descriptions based only on hit pieces. He's done a lot of work and it sure seems that he's very wrong on one key aspect of it. So are lots of other people. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are trying to turn this into a discussion about how "right" Duesberg is. The dose of toxicity of AZT is irrelevant to improving this article. It is becoming clearer now that you are here only to push your POV. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your opinions are noted... And returning to reliable coverage in secondary sources: here are numerous sources calling him a dissident [10]. My view is that it's clear HIV causes AIDS, but that's irrelevant. We write articles based on coverage in reliable independent sources, not in an effort to advance our personal opinions. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want my opinion noted. google hits aren't really considered useful. I get nearly 2,000 results for "Peter Duesberg asshole" but I wouldn't advocate for the page to refer to him as an asshole. You need reliable sources, not google searches. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Nature article

Yeah, this is a bad idea. Duesberg's ideas are blatant pseudoscience. As discussed, they dedicated several articles specifically in the highest tier journals that exist, Nature and Science, to debunking them. HIV causes AIDS. Peter Deusberg is a pseudoscientist. This is clear, unambiguous, firmly mainstream opinion. There is no merit to his ideas on AIDS. Calling him a "dissident" gives him credibility he doesn't have - "dissident" implies justified disagreement on a point. Duesberg is a denialist; he denies science for a preferred reality. Are there any mainstream articles that support his beliefs? Any? I don't believe so. Medical Hypotheses doesn't count, particularly since it was withdrawn. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RE the investigation - the college didn't endorse him ( or condemn him ) and found no evidence to support him ( or contradict him ). This paragraph sounds as political as the investigation. Poor Mr Geffen - reduced to tattling and then having the teacher ignore him - that must hurt.159.105.80.103 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Kalichman from lead

I don't know why Kalichman should be removed from the lead - it's a highly reliable source and verifies the entire first paragraph. The rest of the lead is sourced, and this paragraph should be as well. WP:LEAD indicates we should source everything or nothing, and we're at the "everything" stage right now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)