Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism

Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past (see Talk:AIDS denialism/Archive 8#RfC on AIDS denialism). Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed.

Membership of Perth Group

The following information in this article, "AIDS Denialism", has no source and is factually incorrect: 'Organizations of AIDS denialists include the "Perth Group", composed of two Australian hospital workers.'

The Perth Group states at its website, http://www.theperthgroup.com/aboutpg.html, that it originally had three members and that its membership has varied over the years. There is no statement anywhere that it has two members or ever had. Since the incorrect information in the article has no source, I will remove it. I have no problem with other aspects of the article, but it cannot retain this mistaken and unsourced claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.117.135 (talk)

Lead

I've modified the lead to say "Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they resort to special pleading to explain different causes in different locations; in North America it is attributed to sexual behaviour and the use of recreational drugs while in Africa AIDS denialists claim that malnutrition and poor sanitation cause AIDS, and in HIV positive individuals with none of these factors, AIDS is attributed to the side effects of antiretroviral drugs. In each case, the denialists cherry pick scientific results that support their arguments and ignore data that contradicts it, while downplaying or ignoring unifying factor of HIV in all patients." That's fairly heavy on detail and acknowledges many of the specific special pleading undertaken by denialists. Is it too much detail? Is it repetitive, particularly given the following section? It could easily be shortened by removing everything between "in North America" and "that contradicts it" inclusive. This would read:

Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they resort to special pleading to explain different causes in different locations while downplaying or ignoring unifying factor of HIV in all patients.

Alternatively:

Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they resort to special pleading to explain different causes in different locations. In each case, the denialists cherry pick scientific results that support their arguments and ignore data that contradicts it, while downplaying or ignoring unifying factor of HIV in all patients.

Any opinions? My concern with including the individual examples is that it gives the appearance of an actual argument, but emphasizing that it requires a different argument (special pleading) for each location is also quite absurd given the contortions needed to fit the line to each data point. It's bad science, it's not even great PR, and it may still give the impression that denialists have a point when they don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use the term "special pleading" - it's a bit heavy-handed and obscure. I think it will be obvious to the reader (at least any reader familiar with Occam's razor or common sense) that invoking so many disparate and far-fetched etiologies is a bit desperate, but we don't need to beat people over the head with it. I actually prefer the older language - that is, "insofar as AIDS denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to..." I'd also prefer to attribute the rejection of AIDS denialism (and the charge of cherry-picking) to the scientific community, rather than pronouncing it in the editorial voice. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. BruceSwanson (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed hemophilia from the lead, has there been any instances of a hemophiliac getting AIDS since they implemented screening? It's not a significant population in which HIV is a problem anymore. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hemophiliacs are significant as one of the more obvious disproofs of Duesberg's claims. Because these patients didn't fall into Duesberg's "risk groups" (gay men, drug users), they provided a clear test of his claims. As it turned out, HIV-positive hemophiliacs developed AIDS while those who were HIV-negative did not. This was regarded as a fairly clear disproof of Duesberg's "risk-AIDS" claims. See, for example, PMID 7992044 ("Duesberg and critics agree: hemophilia is the best test", Science 1994). I don't think we need to mention this in the lead, necessarily, but if we get into a detailed description of why the scientific community thinks Duesberg's claims are nonsense, then the hemophilia issue might come up. MastCell ^Talk 05:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, but that turd needs some polishing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hemophilia

Apparently the basics of HIV/AIDS can trip up even professionals in the medical field. Regarding the 1994 Science article, MastCell wrote, above, HIV-positive hemophiliacs developed AIDS while those who were HIV-negative did not. But as Duesberg points out in the same article (now a footnote in the lede), HIV-negative hemophiliacs can and do come down with and die from the same diseases that HIV-positive hemophiliacs do. But since they are HIV-negative, their conditions are not defined as AIDS. Duesberg makes the further point that HIV, being rare anyway, is actually just a marker for the quantity of blood or factor VIII transfused into a patient. Some of the clinicians mentioned in the article dispute that, but in 1994 when the article was published, there wasn't enough data to prove a conclusion. Seventeen years later, that's still the case -- which is rather curious. One would have thought otherwise. Or perhaps it isn't so curious. BruceSwanson (talk)

No, actually Duesberg was wrong in those assertions, which were a rather sad attempt to salvage his claims when they didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. To address only one aspect, the mortality rate in hemophiliacs strongly correlates with HIV seropositivity even within cohorts with the same degree of hemophilia, and thus the same blood-product requirements. If you're honestly interested in understanding why Duesberg was wrong about hemophiliacs, you can start with PMID 15090806 and PMID 7659168. If you're not honestly interested, then at least recognize that this talk page isn't a place to expound, or correct, editorial ignorance about HIV/AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, you appear to have read over the studies. I direct this question to you: does either study specify whether the HIV+ hemophiliacs studied were also on AZT after it was approved in 1987? If they don't, what is the value of the studies? BruceSwanson (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No. If you want to discuss this, I want you to read the studies. In an ideal world, you would also think critically about your own assumptions. Let's suppose - for the sake of argument - that the mortality rate among HIV-positive hemophiliacs began rising significantly in the years before AZT was introduced. Let's assume it also fell off dramatically after the introduction of modern combination antiretroviral therapy in 1996. In that case, you tell me - what is the value of the studies? MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Studies are always valid, dudes. Nothing can be taken as a truth religiously. Everything must be tested and proved. This is for both of you, MastCell and Bruce. Milikguay (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the studies. They do not indicate whether the HIV+ hemophiliacs were or weren't taking AZT after 1987. That blitzes the studies' validity completely because after 1987, HIV+ hemophiliacs in studies were almost certainly taking AZT in the high dosages used at the time. It would have been considered unethical (and possibly illegal) to require them to not take it for the purposes of the study.

As for your scenario above, the mortality rate for HIV- hemophiliacs rose too. The cause for both negatives and positives is known: contaminated Factor VIII. (And remember Duesberg's -- he's an "AIDS Denialist" and this article is about "AIDS Denialism" -- argument that HIV, being rare anyway, was just a marker for quantity of transfusions, thus the higher mortality for HIV+ hemophiliacs even without AZT.) According to PMID 15090806, AIDS deaths declined among HIV+ hemophiliacs after 1996, (the antiretroviral dosages were lower by then, weren't they?) but their deaths from liver disease remained high (dosages still not low enough). Most of the subjects, HIV-positive or not, had livers diseased with hepatitis, but of course the HIV+ were on "modern" combination antiretroviral therapy, known to impact liver function to the point of death -- depending on the dose, of course.

The conventional HIV/AIDS hypothesis contends that AZT was a critical lifesaver. I think you're trying to back out of that argument for hemophiliacs by citing the reduction in their AIDS rates (if not liver disease) after 1996 instead of 1987, and attributing the change to "modern" (i.e., lower-dose) treatments. Most of the subjects had hepatitis, but the HIV+ hemophiliacs took either high-dose, single-drug AZT, or relatively lower-dose HAART. Quitting the former and starting the latter apparently resulted in fewer AIDS cases (or AIDS-by-prescription cases, as the "denialists" would say). Doesn't that reveal the earlier higher-dosage AZT, formerly seen as a life-saver, to be a killer from 1987 to 1996? And isn't that what Duesberg argues in the Science reference? And so, shouldn't that argument have a place in this article? BruceSwanson (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That is, frankly, too concentrated a collection of misstatements and ignorance for me to address concisely; nearly every sentence is deserving of detailed correction. I forgot that you also deny the existence of hepatitis C. Although I suppose should thank you, since I am a bit closer to bingo; you've given me #53 and #54. MastCell ^Talk 04:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, Bruce. Perhaps it reveals it. "PERHAPS". But it is just an hypothesis, as most of AIDS research. How funny, by the way, that some guys take this discussions as a game. Milikguay (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, that was totally unfair. I didn't even know we were playing. Not only that, but no one ever wins that game. -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Gish gallop is a tried, tested and true way to give the impression of having an argument when you don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me another useful term! -- Scray (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't link to unreliable sources, particuarly when there are reliable sources available that not only lay out the claims, they point out where they are wrong.

Bruce, you keep citing Peter Duesberg as if his opinion on HIV-AIDS mattered. It doesn't. We're not here to debate whether HIV causes AIDS and pointing to Duesberg as a source hinders your argument, it doesn't help it. We realize you are convinced that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or whatever. We don't care. The scientific consensus is clear - HIV causes AIDS and Peter Duesberg doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to either topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep on disregarding and demeriting opinions and well based studies of a World Renown researcher as Peter Duesberg (at least, here in the European Union he is highly regarded). He is not a "saint" for me, but his words should be taken in count, as he is risking his career and prestige by exposing his opinions. And what's funny is that he is not the only one. Of course, Bruce should start to find other guys investigations, so we can read and conclude that Duesberg is not the only one in the Denialist Research. But you all should remember this: "The best propaganda, after a funeral, is demerit and censorship". Milikguay (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Wikipedia is not censored. We're just following content guidelines as spelled out in length at WP:MEDRS. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Duesberg is not an AIDS researcher. That's why. It's a commonality to essentially all AIDS denialists - none actually work with AIDS. This is actually referenced in the page itself. Would you go to Peter Duesberg for advice about computer security? Or how to send a man to the moon? That's why no-one listens to Peter Duesberg about AIDS - in addition to grossly misrepresenting the evidence available. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly where the guys who defend the official AIDS theory make their mistakes. They use sophisms to uphold their answers when something "dangerous" appear. For instance (and this is something NO ONE ANSWERS ME PROPERLY), why the opinions of a PhD. in Biochemistry, postdoctored in Virology and Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology like Peter Duesberg are not relevant?? Because he has not a postdoctorate degree in HIV?? Where should you go to study or investigate for becoming a Grand Lord of the HIV research?? That's what annoys me the most about this matter. This "Godlike HIV-ists or HIV experts" behavior as Grand Inquisitors, as if the only important opinion of the subject is what they propose.

So, I will answer WLU question. No, I won't take advise from Duesberg because he is not an expert in computers or space aeronautics. But as he is a world renown investigator in Cell Biology, Postdoctored in Virology and PhD in Biochemistry, his opinions on this subject should be taken in count. I repeat, I'm not saying "he is right". I'm just saying "should be taken in count".

Another point (and this is so funny, because at the beginning of this page, you find the "FAQ" and that stuff, but even from that place the sophisms camperly take place) on which every guy with enough knowledge (and I mean REAL KNOWLEDGE, because many people here are probably philosophers, historians, sociologists, but few are scientific editors, I know this) of science will laugh, for the statement that "Kary Mullis opinions are irrelevant, as he is the inventor of PCR but not an AIDS researcher". Paradox!!

Kary Mullis's PCR is used for the modern diagnose of AIDS (I believe you are all awared of that, don't you?) But himself claims that "it does not work for doing that, it is not for detecting HIV".

So, as WLU made some rhetorical questions and I took some time for answering them, as a gentleman (using my own logic, not shielding me in external links or Wiki Guidelines), I ask this question for every random editor who wants to answer it: ¿who will you believe, Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR method, who claims that his creation is not able to detect HIV (for several reasons which he explains, look for them if you like); or you will believe the guys who make money by manufacturing/selling/using PCR? Milikguay (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate the question. Suffice to say that Duesberg's views have been taken quite seriously, and investigated and tested quite rigorously by HIV/AIDS researchers. In the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, though, piece after piece of evidence became available refuting each of Duesberg's claims. Today, in 2011, no one takes Duesberg's claims seriously, but that's not "censorship" - it's a function of the fact that they've been investigated and systematically shown to be incorrect. The fact that Duesberg and others persist in advancing these claims in the face of overwhelming evidence of their falsity is probably what has led to use of the term "denialism". MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Milikguay, I have answered your question - Duesberg isn't an AIDS researcher (he's at best an "informed" armchair theorist who is now grinding an axe) whose opinions are flat-out rejected by the scientific community. So why should we care about his opinion when there are thousands of researchers with specific expertise and active research programs on HIV who say he is wrong, repeatedly? We shouldn't. For you to claim I'm hiding behind guidelines means you don't understand the purpose of wikipedia. We are not a forum for debating, nor are we a place to publish original research. We cite the real experts, we don't shout "BIG PHARMA" then ignore everything we disagree with. Milikguay, you've had your questions answered repeatedly - through reference to sources and the extremely important policies and guidelines. If you don't like the answers, you are in the wrong online venue and should leave. The P&G are ways of ensuring wikipedia maintains a high standard of scholarship and keeping the nutters away. This tends to piss off people who embrace nonsense and pseudoscience, but frankly we're not really interested in what they have to say.

You have your answer. Accept it or leave. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit reverted

Orangemarlin, please explain what about my edit you don't like, and also, you put "Reverted good faith edits" as your edit summary, you shouldn't go rant on my talk page as if you thought I was vandalizing. Thank you for discussing. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and failure to come to explain will mean your revert will be temporarily undone until you discuss. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm not the only one who finds you a difficult editor. I've never seen a page with more warnings. My rejection of your edits was more than adequately explained in the edit summary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the edit summary does a fine job of explaining my objections as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@Orange, What changes are incorrect? What changes "are WP:WEASEl." You need to specify. And you also need to stop with your ad hominem logic, because the only reason your talkpage isn't filled with discussions starting with a warning sign is because you delete anything you consider derogatory on your talk page.

Dbrod, you had no edit summaries. Actually, no edits. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to OM's edit summary reverting what you added, sorry for the confusion. If you look a little harder, I have edited here before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry I thought you were talking about your own summary. Whoops. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite a while now, and Orange still haven't specified what parts of my edits he did not like. I'll temporarily redo the edit just so that he'll come back to discuss, because he's gone right now. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And your edits got reverted again. It's your job to provide a reason to keep them. Sorry dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, stating something on talk without getting anything close to a consensus is not de facto support for your edits. No wonder you've been warned a huge number of times on your talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude. I told you to specify what parts of my edits you don't like nearly a week ago, and you never answered. I temporarily redid the edit just so you'll come back. I didn't hurt you so calm down, nothing to get angry about. Please just say what parts of my edits you didn't like, so I'll know you reasons instead of just vague comments like "it's not good" or "it breaks policies" with out stating what change does what you don't like. It's like saying, "I don't like the bible because it is unmoral." Those reasons are too vague. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And don't pretend you forgot to look at what I said, because it says as clear as day on your talkpage that your discussions are watchlisted. Seriously, your lack of explanation wont disappear on its own regardless of how long you're ignoring it. Please just come and discuss... what can you possibly lose from it? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on you to provide a reason as to why your edits improve the page. I am sure they do not, and so is OM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like the bible because it is immoral" "It is the bible's job to explain why it isn't immoral, not my job to explain why"

But I will explain anyway. The "completely" in "some denialists completely reject the existence of HIV" is meant to clarify how they are denying more than other denialists. The "generally" in "they generally attribute it to some combination" is meant to clarify that not all of them use all of those excuses. The "overwhelming majority of the" in "The overwhelming majority of the [[scientific community]] considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive," is added, because without it the sentence sounds like as if the scientific community is some small organization to readers who are new to the subject. The comma is there to improve grammar. The "improbable" in "AIDS-denialist claims as improbable [[pseudoscience]]" is simply true, for the scientists who do reject the denialism do see it as improbable, if you check the sources. The "fringe theories" in "based on [['''fringe theories''']]" is put there because the denial is unlikely and only motivated by religion, but generally doesn't claim for the existence of any kind of conspiracy. The "misinterpretation" in "misinterpretation of mainly outdated scientific data" is put to clarify that the data was never ever meant to say what denialist think they say. The "outside of the scientific community" in "AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the [[Internet]] outside of the scientific community" is added to clarify that it isn't spread in the part of the internet within the realm of the scientific community. The "evidence" in "Despite its lack of scientific evidence" clarifies that it is evidence, and not merely acceptance, as denialists never literally made any evidence. I'll get to the others later. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mate, stop trying to add important info or grammar/semantic improvements to this article, as they will just accept info THEY LIKE AND ADMIT. Months ago I tried to add critical new facts and related info about this subject (at least, in Europe is considered CRITICAL information), but they just simply ignored them, bypassed them... So, you are wasting your time. This place is more for defending a cause rather than accepting that worldwide recognized scientists are taking new ideas about AIDS. Some weeks ago, I added new points of view (mostly dissident ones) presented in peer reviewed journals of Europe, accepted by several important societies... But no! So, there are two possible conclusions for this: Or the European scientists and their journals are pointless and stupid... Or in this page can only be accepted "selected kinds" of info... Is up to you, mate, to figure out which one... By the way, it would be nice to know, at least, your nickname. Regards to all of you, from Edinburgh, UK. Milikguay (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean this? Let's review. No reliable sources. Giving undue weight to something not confirmed by anyone. I could go on. I don't like or not like anything. I want exquisitely reliable sources that support any statement in a medical article. You brought what could be generously called crap references. You gave links to a variety of medical societies and journals, but not one single article or statement. Except the thoroughly debunked (and by thoroughly, I mean 99.99% of the research debunks it) Duesberg denialism. And frankly, the strawman that we hate European science is laughable. We hate bad science. The fact is that almost every European virologist (and when I mean almost, I mean something around 99.99%) are not AIDS denialists. You tried to edit in your opinion supported by not one bit of evidence. So, I would suggest you take your conspiracies and bad faith to the Society of Science Denialism, Homeopathy and Creationism. You'll find a good audience there! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As usual, OM has crystallized my thoughts perfectly. Try reading some policy boys, rather than claiming conspiracies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And where is, can you enlight me, Orangemarlin, the source upon which you base that the 99.99% of the European Virologists are not AIDS denialists and that the 99.99% of the research debunks Duesberg's works??

I gave you these abstracts: Results of Epidemiological Surveillance of AIDS Cases in Tuscany by Branca, Pacini and Ruggiero. ¹, Meta-Analysis and Update on the General AIDS Epidemics Predicted for Africa by Duesberg, Mandrioli, McCormack, Nicholson, Del Popolo, Rasnick, Fiala, Koehnlein and Bauer.² (an updated work which confirms many of Duesberg's predictions), Effects of Cadmium and Gc-Macrophage Activating Factor (GcMAF) on Intracellular HIV Targets in Normal and Transformed Human Breast Cells by Gabriele Morucci and Tiziana Punzi. ³ and Toward Improvements in HIV Epidemiology by Galletti, Pacini, Moracci and Bauer. ⁴, all of them peer reviewed, published in several European Science Magazines. Peer Reviewed Journal "Infection" (sponsored by the German Society for Infectious Diseases, Paul Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy, German Sepsis Society, Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, with the cooperation, among several important societies, of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, European Society of Chemotherapy Infectious Diseases, Swiss Society for Infectious Diseases) was the first one to publish this information; you can read the abstracts or the magazine itself [Infection, March 2011 http://www.springer.com/medicine/internal/journal/15010] if you wish. Do you consider this "bad science"? Under which criteria? Because, according to the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases [1](by citing a name) it is not... Enlightme, please! I'm just a Biotech Engineer from Edinburgh. Regards to all of you. Milikguay (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As you say, those are abstracts - they are definitely not reliable sources, not peer-reviewed publications. Presentation of an abstract at a meeting (and publication in a "proceedings" from the meeting) involves neither full peer-review nor endorsement by the society sponsoring the meeting. Financial support by a foundation or other entity does not indicate endorsement of results, either. As OrangeMarlin has said, you really need to review the criteria for reliable sources; it is clear you don't understand them. -- Scray (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, what do all of the authors listed above have in common? They are not HIV researchers. Theirs could not possibly be considered expert opinions by encyclopaedia editors. There are certain standards for scholarship in the scientific community and on Wikipedia. The work these people produce does not meet them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Milikguay, you really don't even know what you're talking about if you consider meeting abstracts/posters "peer reviewed" literature that meets WP:MEDRS. These are commonplace in publications associated with specific meetings and the threshold for inclusion is almost always extraordinarily minimal. I've never known anyone that had an abstract denied for a meeting... This edit was not appropriate per long-standing editing policies/guidelines/consensuses. — Scientizzle 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your comments, in particular that abstract acceptance at a meeting is a very low bar (and not sufficient for reliable source status. In the interest of accuracy, some meetings are pretty selective; apropos this topic, less than half of the abstracts submitted to CROI are accepted (here is a comment on the 47% acceptance rate in 2001; thus, hundreds were declined). -- Scray (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken--there is certainly wide variance between scientific fields and within a given field's array of meetings. Just to clarify, for Milikguay if nobody else: the process of abstract selection is fundamentally different from peer review. Even for selective meetings there is almost never substantive reviews of methodologies and data interpretations that approach those of submitted publications. This is because meeting presentations play a different (though important) role than peer reviewed manuscripts: providing a format for presenting in-progress unpublished data to stimulate discussions and collaborations. The abstracts presented at meetings run by societies with their own journals are often collated into the published journal; I know of no case in which any peer review occurs in this publishing process beyond the permissive initial meeting approval. — Scientizzle 13:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on, guys... you know that "expertise" is defined differently in the AIDS-denialist world. After all, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos was described as an expert on HIV/AIDS because she studied mathematics as an undergraduate - and all science, including biology and virology, is based on mathematics. Also, she has an undergraduate degree in physics, and "physics" and "physician" come from the same Greek root, so she's an expert on HIV/AIDS. QED. (Note: these are actual claims to expertise made in court; see [2], sections 45 and 77). MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great point, MastCell. Consider, too, that anyone can get a grant and do some epidemiology or mass spectrometry; it takes a great mind to disprove the virus-disease association using Jacques Derrida. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! I'm not intending to offend someone here, but I can't figure out how will you be able to understand a scientific text if you don't find out the point of a simple wiki-discussion post?? I've wrote those abstracts (that were presented, by the way, with the allowance of the International AIDS Society were published for the first time by the peer reviewed European Magazine "Infection". Whether you like it or not, it is a renown peer reviewed source (at least here, in Europe) sponsored by important science entities I've cited above. So, I don't know why can't we add here some important epidemiology new data that proves many of Duesberg's Hypothesis to be correct, making a direct challenge to the official hypo... Is not "misrepresenting" or "cherry picking". Is just to accept the truth...

Potential WP:BLP violations removed.

Please, I beg of you... I've done this question a long time ago, no one gives me a clear answer. Must he/she be american, from the CDC or the NIH and a supporter of the AIDS official theory to be considered a reliable investigator? The peer reviewed journal must contain officialist theories to be considered reliable?

I'm not accusing anybody of conspiracies here (fringe, the american word). But I'm only asking a little bit of honesty and open-minded non-biased criteria (as required in everything related to science subjects) in this important matter. That's all, fellows. Greetings from Edinburgh.Milikguay (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell yourself. [3] ← this is the link to the PubMed citation of the ICAR2011 abstracts. They are meeting communications. As discussed above, clearly & repeatedly, this is not the same thing as peer reviewed manuscripts. A comparison might be a letter to the editor published in a similar journal. For some of the open-access journals the bar for a letter to be published is very low, others set it higher. In all cases, however, letters to the editor are not "peer reviewed" in the understood sense of the term, colloquially, professionally, and on Wikipedia. How do you not understand this? — Scientizzle 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the end of this discussion. Milikguay clearly refuses to understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements and is attempting to promote denialism on the talk page. Further plaidoyers will be removed in accordance with WP:TALK. I would also advise Milikguay to consult WP:BLP and take care when comparing living persons to fascist dictators, denialists or not, sarcastically or not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Milikguay (talk · contribs) edits

This is getting frustrating. The editor keeps bringing the same poorly sourced commentary, synthesizes new conclusions, and makes rash edits. This has been discussed for a couple of weeks, and we're not getting anywhere. There is no consensus to use unreliable sources to make those edits, in fact, there is a strong consensus that the edits are not acceptable. All we get is strawman arguments about Ph.D.'s in virology, employees of the CDC and FDA, or Americans (gulp, Americans???? Didn't a French team find the HIV virus?). This is tendentious editing. If Milikquay as something to bring that we can all agree is notable, reliable, and informative, then bring it. But these pathetically unreliable sources....stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Well, if you refer, Orange, to that previous discussion... Yes, alright. My fault. The only thing happening is that, sometimes, I can't understand some criteria used. I always asked from the elder editors of this page to create a list of which sources can we consider "good ones" and which others "bad ones"...

Anyway, now I'm presenting new info. Is something presented by the denialists. Is Etienne de Harven's position of HIV as an HERV. It was published last year and caused some disrupt among them, specially with the Perth Group. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons presented it. Well, they are not the most reliable source of the world, but it is a somehow acceptable source from the denialist guys. We should remember that is quite difficult to find published works/hypothesis from them, so even if it was presented by the jpands, not the brightest peer reviewed publication, makes it a little bit more respectable than what's usual.

What I'm intending to add in the "history" section of the article is Etienne de Harven's hypo, presented by the jpands last year. De Harven is one of the few known scientists of the denialist world (he is a pioneer in retrovirus research, worked alongside Charlotte Friend and many of his investigations were published by the National Institutes of Health), and he states that HIV, rather than an exogenous virus, could be an non-pathogenous-by-itself HERV (human endogenous retroviruses), according to the available data. Besides, his name should be included between the denialist community, as he is the president of Rethinking AIDS nowadays...

By the way, in that paragraph related to Lynn Margulis, well, three points into the brackets are missing. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a discredited journal that hardly qualifies as a reliable source; the journal's sole purpose is to push a right wing agenda, including publishing AIDS denialism.. Don't even try to use it, unless you get consensus. Speaking of which, stating "what I'm intending to add.." implies that you still don't understand or appreciate WP:CONSENSUS. You seem to think that putting a statement here, that gives you permission to put in the AIDS denialism POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If de Harven is such an important role in the denialist community, there should be plenty of actual RS that document so. We should not and cannot rely on poor sources such as JPandS. Yobol (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Milikguay, it would really help if when you're not sure if a source meets Wikipedia criteria that you post in an article's talk page before you add information from it. When it comes to controversial articles such as this one, it would be helpful if you discussed any changes you plan to make (beyond grammar/spelling) on the talk page before you edit the article. To be really straight with you, if you keep trying to force things into the article without discussion it is likely that non of what you contribute will stick. I know you feel passionate about this subject and I hope that you can find a way to contribute, but you have to follow the proper channels. Noformation (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advises, guys. I'll try to learn from you and do my best. I think we should accept De Harven's hypothesis into the "History" section. Is recent, interesting and in the history of the denialism, is important because caused a greater disrupt between denialists groups. I know that the jpands is not the finest source, but is somehow "acceptable" considering that, most of the times, denialists hypos never reach publication not even in the most biased and bizarre scientific magazines nowadays. In French Wiki, his hypothesis are present in the main article. And we should add his name between "the denialists" as he is the most important european denialist (considering that Duesberg lives in USA). He is the honorary president in Rethinking AIDS, I've just read it. Milikguay (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikguay (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Find an acceptable source, and it can go in. JPandS is not acceptable. Certainly if he is such as prominent as you make him out to be, then he will be identified as such by independent reliable sources. What appears in the French wiki is not really of our concern. Yobol (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to find something better. But I disagree with you in this point, Yobol: we really should care about the worldwide vision about the subject, as Wiki intends to be a global encyclopedic reference, specially because of this: English is by far the most spoken language worldwide, so the English Wiki Portal should contain a wider spectrum of the matter, not just the American or British vision of this. In Europe, for example, the term of reference is mostly "HIV Denialism" rather than "AIDS Denialism". But I think you've discussed this before, I won't go into that. What I'm just saying is that there are important denialists in Europe, too, not just in America. Etienne de Harven is one of them. Anyway, I'll look forward for best information. Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? AIDS denialism is rejected in Europe and Asia too. You look at it from a Euro point of view and think that somehow Euros have miraculously discovered that AIDS is not caused by HIV? That is blatantly untrue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)