Talk:Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis

Proper Treatment of Current Vaccine Information

I've edited and moved the inappropriately worded and disingenuously highlighted statements relating to the current Polio vaccine campaigns and associated challenges. It was neither fairly presented in its language or placement within the context of an article dealing with what the OPV-AIDS hypothesis is.

Theophilius Reed is right. The integrity of this entry is being editorially compromised as it has been quickly transformed into an advocacy piece. As a matter of transparency and open disclosure, I personally believe that the hypothesis is quite likely and that there is a strong body of evidence (historical and scientific) to minimally support ongoing investigation into its veracity. Recognizing my position, I expect myself to be unbiased and objective, acknowledging the significance of the opposition to this controversial theory therefore I support an appropriate treatment of it within the article. It is indeed part of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis story and needs to be told. Doing this with as little passion as possible is best.

However, I stand by my previous statement, and do not believe it constituted incivility nor a personal attack upon editor TimVickers. I strongly criticized his actions and editorial conduct, not his person. I use unvarnished language, because the level of bias he introduced into what had been an improving article signaled a lack of intention to actually improve it an objective way, but rather to editorially discredit the hypothesis in a doctrinaire manner, against the work of his colleague editors who possess competent reading comprehension and logic.

I have reassigned the aforementioned statements to their appropriate place with the article, and augmented the prose to reflect the true nature of the sources' claims, rather than what I believe was a selective misrepresentation of them. The theory is not partially responsible for failures to eradicate polio any more than theories of extraterrestrial organisms are to blame for the hysterical and panicked behavior of those who fear alien invasion. --Trick311 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to present a "neutral" picture of the OPV hypothesis - this does not mean we should present a sympathetic picture of the hypothesis. I recommend you re-read the neutral point of view policy. If we edit this article correctly we should produce text that accurately describes the hypothesis, and describes this from a mainstream viewpoint. The mainstream view is accurately summarised in the BBC and NYT stories we were discussing above, or the CDC website.

But in April last year, scientists proved that it was highly unlikely that HIV was spread by a contaminated polio vaccine. It had been suggested that HIV was initially transmitted to humans in the late 1950s through the use of an oral polio vaccine. The polio vaccine was given to at least one million people in the former Belgian Congo and what are now Rwanda and Burundi...However, three independent studies published in the journal Nature cast serious doubts on the controversial theory. - BBC

A controversial 1999 book, "The River," helped raise doubts. Its thesis was that the source of human AIDS was an experimental polio vaccine used in the Belgian Congo in the 1950's that had been grown on a medium of chimpanzee cells containing a monkey virus that is considered the precursor of AIDS. Most AIDS experts reject the theory. - NYT

The suggestion that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the AIDS virus, originated as a result of inadvertent innoculation of an HIV-like virus present in monkey kidney cell cultures used to prepare the polio vaccine is one of a number of unsubstantiated hypotheses. The weight of scientific evidence does not support this idea, and there is no more reason to believe this hypothesis than many other which have been considered and rejected on scientific grounds. - CDC website

If we produce a NPOV version of this article, a reader will both gain an accurate picture of what the hypothesis was, as well as an accurate picture that this idea is both controversial, and considered "highly unlikely" and rejected by most experts. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a NPOV version of this article lies in the future. To date the article has not provided an accurate picture of what the hypothesis both was and is. eg Rolling Stone formulation of hypothesis, River formulation of hypothesis, Zola(Hooper) formulation, recent Hooper publications(self/Martin) on formulation. Nor does the material inserted on the Ninane material provide an accurate picture. Nor the material on anti-vaccine fears being related to OPV AIDS. Both are very incomplete and misleading.

I agree wholeheartedly that the reader must understand that this hypothesis is rejected by prominent and authorative experts. However this article must also put forward the specific bases of their rejection. And also show the material raised against their rejections such as Hooper showing a cite for Ptt chimps in Lindi Camp and questioning statements that geographical range of Ptt chimps refutes OPV AIDS. And where it exists the rejection/refutation of Hooper's replies etc... "ad non-notability". There is a grand tradition on WP of editing a subject from a position of great ignorance. I for one, no doubt, will continue to do so. This topic requires more than usual of editors. See the article since its inception for evidence of this. I suggest Brian Martins website as a source of publications detailing the hypothesis. SmithBlue (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LMS?

The caption of the map states that the "LMS was first sited ..." what is the LMS? I can't find it anywhere else on the article using CTRL-F. Acronyms need to be defined before being used. II | (t - c) 06:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tis the Laboratoire Médical de Stanleyville. It looks like someone else just fixed the oversight - good eye. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions to intro

I find this compromise acceptable. The additional quotation provided by Vickers helps to clarify current opinion while leaving open the reality that this theory is supported by increasing evidence.143.226.27.72 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be postmodern, but we appear to have different deifnitions of "reality" (not to mention "evidence" and "theory"). MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for people to operate under whatever version of reality they wish - on talkpages. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit because implied insults are preferred to overt ones, apparently) Hooper's theory is backed by an incredible amount of in-depth research. You are intent on doing a disservice to Wikipedia's readership because a panel of fallible human beings refuses to publish his side of the story. As a person who has read his book and the vast majority of his website, I can say confidently that his theory is elegant and fits the facts far more soundly than 'a hunter got cut hunting monkeys once' does. Have either of you read his book or his website to any significant degree?143.226.27.72 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes. For reasons why we present Hooper's claims in context rather than uncritically, please see WP:WEIGHT, the findings of the Royal Society, and the dozens of articles from Science, Nature, and other such sources which refute virtually every aspect of Hooper's claims. This is intended to be a serious and respectable reference work; our goal is to represent the current state of human knowledge, not to promote rejected claims which we feel have been unjustly neglected by the scientific community. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia articulates the view that is taken by the majority of experts on the subject, as shown by the majority of the high-quality sources that deal with the topic. This is not a sympathetic point of view, but a neutral point of view - see WP:NPOV for more details. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My dear friends, I feel that by this point I have memorized WP:NPOV. The overall message seems to be that, while NPOV is paramount, each case needs to handled within its own context. As someone above stated, this is an article that requires more than is usual of its editors. At this point I will take a hiatus on deleting content and instead add some from the less well-represented side of the debate. Is there an objection to this, as long as it is well-sourced?143.226.27.72 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it does not give undue weight to a non-mainstream viewpoint and is backed by reliable sources, there can be no possible problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV we can write about OPV/AIDS all we want because this is the page dedicated to it.143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be reading a different NPOV than the rest of us. See, NPOV doesn't mean that all viewpoints should be discussed equally. You will also need to read WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:NOR. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how wrong you are. NPOV states that excessive discussion of AIDS/OPV would be out of line in, say, the AIDS article or Hillary Kaprowski's article. This, however, is where relevant info needs to be posted. Now tell me why my recent scholarly article is not allowed in this supposedly unbiased space?143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; WP:NPOV also states that articles on fringe theories should not attempt to rewrite majority-view content from the perspective of the minority view. While we can provide more detail about OPV/AIDS here, we should not treat it more credulously or sympathetically than we would anywhere else. As to the recent article(s), Tim summarizes the issue below. The juxtaposition you've used appears to be an attempt to "debunk" or counter a paper in Nature by using original editorial synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, since PMID 12655089 does not discuss Korber et al (PMID 10846155) applying this is article to "refute" Korber et al is original research, particularly since the Wain-Hobson paper only states that "ignoring recombination inflates the minimum path length connecting sequences in any data set" and Korber et al state that they removed recombinant sequences from their dataset. Unless you have a reference that specifically discusses shortcomings in the method used by Korber et al to identify recombinants, you cannot make that criticism. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's where WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH come into play. I know what the anon editor is trying to say, but it's a leap of faith that does not meet the standards of NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid criticism of Korber et al's earlier paper on the subject (PMID 9669945), which was indeed made at the time (see Schierup and Hein). This criticism was the reason why Korber were careful to account for recombination in their 2000 Science paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the reason why I didn't use language like "refuted" or "disproved." They may have tried to account for recombination, but current research still supports the idea that there are problems with any phylogenetic analysis of HIV. Hence the term "problematic" that I used.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to quote Hooper or his supporters interpreting the research that way, would that satisfy you?143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What sources discuss the specific methodology used to identify recombinants used in the Korber 2000 Science paper? You have provided a source (PMID 12655089) that states that if you do not do anything to identify recombination this causes problems, but this is insufficient, since Korber et al state in (PMID 10846155) that they did remove recombinants. You need to cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper that comments specifically on the shortcomings of this research in order to discuss the shortcomings of this research in this article. Unpublished opinions from adherents of this hypothesis are insufficient grounds to cast doubt on the findings of an article in Science. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I imagine this falls under the 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball' idea. I hope that when the truth of this issue becomes public knowledge that people realize publications like Nature and Science are run by fallible human beings and can, indeed, be wrong, greedy, and/or biased. I think I'm done here, careful manipulation of Wikipedia policy can block everything I am trying to do to make the article less biased. Farewell for now, friends.143.226.27.72 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see The Truth. How often I've heard that comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Nature and Science are "wrong" is one that will be settled through investigation and give-and-take in the scientific community, not by argumentation on Wikipedia. Our job is to accurately convey the current state of human knowledge and expert opinion. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that most of the recent papers on HIV phylogenetics cite Korber et. al on the timing of the first cross-species infection, which makes me sceptical that there is any serious doubt on the accuracy of their approach within the scientific community. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How convenient, PMID 18833279 has just been published. I'll add this to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I beat you to it... the IP was adding multiple unrelated studies in an attempt to counter that brand-new Nature paper, so I thought the least we could do was to cite the actual paper under attack. :) Looks like you added it elsewhere, though, which looks appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed. Reading this paper, and the Genetics paper it cites, I see that the idea that recombination introduces a systematic error into date estimates has been tested and rejected. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Ignoring the fact that a paper by Worobey authenticating the later work of, again, Worobey, is a little fishy, the paper concludes that the phylogenetic dating of HIV Type O is not impaired. It mentions nothing about M or the extremely rare new N subtype. "Although recombination can bias estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor, this effect does not appear to be important for HIV-1 group O." Hooper's theory focuses on "the pandemic AIDS virus (HIV-1 Group M)." Is this not an example of original synthesis? I doubt it was intentional on your part, but it does seem to be an important technicality.

Furthermore, the part about chimps around Lindi camp not having the correct type of SIV is a strawman. Hooper states that "More importantly, however, Hahn and Worobey's assertion that the OPV theory claims that chimps from around Stanleyville were the source of the AIDS pandemic is, quite simply, false. In fact, as I have reported several times, the Lindi chimps were collected from a huge swathe of rain forest covering some 300,000 square miles - from Zapai in the north to Wanie Rukula in the south, and from Mambasa in the east to Mbandaka in the west. If Hahn and Worobey want to claim that they have sampled chimp SIVs from the areas that supplied chimps to Lindi, they would need first to collect chimp samples from right across the DRC rain forest and the savannah belt to the north. (And even then, as Pascal Gagneux has pointed out, it could be that the chimp group which provided the SIV strain immediately ancestral to HIV-1(M) has since died out.)" Can we get a group consensus for removal of this portion? I do not doubt the science, I merely doubt its applicability to the OPV theory.143.226.27.72 (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the Genetics paper's discussion, the paper generalises the results to all HIV-1 serotypes, using their data on type O to test the previous models of the effect of recombination. This interpretation is therefore theirs, not mine. Furthermore, their results have been accepted in the literature, since the Nature paper cites the Genetics paper to support the statement that "Despite initial indications that recombination might seriously confound phylogenetic dating estimates, subsequent work has suggested that recombination is not likely to systematically bias HIV-1 dates in one direction or the other, although it is expected to increase variance.".

Consequently we now have two lines of evidence, one Science paper by Korber et al that removed recombinants, and the Nature paper that got the same results, and cites later research which showed that recombination doesn't have a big effect on phylogenetic studies. This view may change in the future, but all the reliable sources agree on the date range of the early years of the 20th century, and give this result with high confidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be more accepting of their research if it at all fit the epidemiological data, i.e. if AIDS had appeared at some point in humanity's long history of inhabiting Africa and eating bushmeat before the 20th century, if OPV administration sites had not later become epicenters of pandemic AIDS, and if the supposed "cut hunter" had not mysteriously traveled hundreds of miles south before spreading his newly-acquired disease. I will give you that it is all circumstantial evidence, but there is a mountain of it. Moving on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.226.27.72 (talk)

Unfortunately, even in modern Africa a few hundred people dying of infections out in the bush are not going to be noticed, particularly if the diseases they die of are known to science. It wasn't until the epidemic became large enough that patterns in the incidence of rare diseases were be noticed by health organisation in the developed world that people started to suspect that a new disease might be behind these deaths. For instance, imaging that nodding disease happened in California, rather than Sudan - would it still be almost completely unknown? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

During colonial times (the first half of the 20th century) in Africa, European doctors in Africa actually kept pretty accurate tabs on strange cases and wrote frequently in widely dispersed journals. The idea that AIDS existed between 1900 and 1950 without anything being noticed by anyone strains credulity. There is more on this front, but I cannot find the specific article I am thinking of at this time.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not really logical. End-stage AIDS actually manifests as a large collection of superficially unrelated diseases, from PCP to non-Hodgkin lymphoma to PML to toxoplasmosis to tuberculosis. Putting it all together was a matter of epidemiology and retrovirology, and it was a major challenge even in 1980's US and Europe, to say nothing of the diagnostic methods and surveillance infrastructure in early-20th-century Africa. In any case, we're arguing about whether you, personally, find the evidence convicing. It's fine if you don't - it's a free country - but this talk page is not really the place for such discussion, nor does your personal incredulity have a bearing on how we present this material on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Drop the holier than thou attitude, I understand this just as well as or better than you do. It took years for scientists to track down the cause of AIDS, but pretty much from the get go they knew SOMETHING was happening. In Africa there are recent epidemics that have been locally diagnosed based on a few cases in less than a year, there is no way AIDS could have been around since 1914. This article is a joke.143.226.27.72 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good attitude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well understand it better than I. I claim no expertise beyond an occasional viewing of House. Nonetheless, your personal opinion about the likelihood of detecting a completely novel, polymorphic, previously unknown infectious syndrome with the epidemiological infrastructure of 1914 Africa is not particularly relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true, I just wished to correct the misconception that colonial Africa was medically backwards. In almost all cases they had better tracking of epidemics and medical care than they do today in their independent states, because they had the resources of developed nations behind them.143.226.27.72 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} :) MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chimps

What of my second point regarding the chimps around Lindi camp?143.226.27.72 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the paper directly connects this point to the OPV hypothesis, it is not OR for us to include this paper in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of OR in this instance. I was merely stating that the research is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the OPV/AIDS hypothesis. Unless you are arguing that Hooper is not an expert in his own hypothesis, the article targets something that Hooper never claimed. Even from the beginning in his book The River, he makes it clear that chimps from across Africa were almost certainly used at Lindi camp.143.226.27.72 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but the problem is that we cannot decide ourselves if the hypothesis tested in this paper is the correct version of the OPV hypothesis or not - our opinions are irrelevant. Is there a reliable source discussing if the hypothesis tested in this paper is relevant? Where was that quote from Hooper published? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The one I gave above is published on his website. Can we consider that an authoritative source, given his central role in the debate?143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"More importantly, however, Hahn and Worobey's assertion that the OPV theory claims that chimps from around Stanleyville were the source of the AIDS pandemic is, quite simply, false. In fact, as I have reported several times, the Lindi chimps were collected from a huge swathe of rain forest covering some 300,000 square miles - from Zapai in the north to Wanie Rukula in the south, and from Mambasa in the east to Mbandaka in the west. If Hahn and Worobey want to claim that they have sampled chimp SIVs from the areas that supplied chimps to Lindi, they would need first to collect chimp samples from right across the DRC rain forest and the savannah belt to the north. (And even then, as Pascal Gagneux has pointed out, it could be that the chimp group which provided the SIV strain immediately ancestral to HIV-1(M) has since died out.)" http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper04/evidence.html#ref13 This site copies the argument from Hooper's own site.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this could be used to support the statement that "Hooper continues to dispute the accuracy and relevance of these studies to the OPV hypothesis.", making this a very brief summary tries to deal with the problem that you obviously can't give equal weight to his website and Nature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your wording is more elegant than mine.143.226.27.72 (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if this edit was supposed to be related to this conversation, but I think it is. The edit was still original research and synthesis. If I'm wrong, then Tim, please revert my revert, if it makes sense. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit was Hooper's research and Hooper's synthesis, not mine. OR and SYNTH do not apply here.143.226.27.72 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any discussion of Hooper challenging the 1918 hypothesis as a disproof of the OPV theory. Could you please quote this?143.226.27.72 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Hooper has done no "Scientific investigation" of the OPV hyopthesis, it would be unjustified to quote him at length in this section. His responses to the various pieces of genuine scientific research on this topic are covered in the final paragraph of this section. Such a summary is the best way of dealing with his opinions, which are not part of the scientific literature, so cannot be given equal weight to the real science on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hooper is a published scientist and respected journalist. His book The River was enough to excite pretty much the entire scientific community into holding two different conferences addressing his findings. He is virtually the progenitor of this theory, and it is not out of line to quote him with regards to it. He has done more scientific research on the matter than anyone else. Science does not just happen in journals like Nature or Science, it happens in investigative journalism and the sort of exhaustive primary-source reviews that Hooper has gone through. Two weeks ago he responded to the 1918 claim in a rational and well-supported manner. It is not unreasonable for a small blurb about it to be put into this article. Your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules is far too narrow.143.226.27.72 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed? No. We can't give weight to it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys need a new Wiki page: WP:NSON (Not Science or Nature). That way you can quote it at everyone trying to help out who doesn't get their only information from the "scientific community."143.226.27.72 (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Once Hooper's "research" is published in a scientific journal, then it can be discussed in the section on scientific research. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of science is that it's self-correcting. It's not so much whether something is published in Science or Nature, but whether anyone still believes it to be true. Hooper's idea was very interesting and had the hallmarks of a good scientific hypothesis, including falsifiability. It was tested, and the accumulation of results falsified the hypothesis. That's science. Now, in this sort of situation, the progenitor of the falsified hypothesis sometimes continues to lobby and inveigh about its correctness. Such efforts are notable, but not part of the scientific process. Are you aware of any recent scientific research which has supported Hooper's claims? Recent investigations have steadily supported its incorrectness, as far as I can see. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

These 'investigations' are so flimsy and unscientific that Hooper can easily counter them without even going to the effort of a study. He has countered every single 'investigation' rationally and logically, the latest being the 1918 hypothesis. Journals refuse to publish his papers or even his letters, despite the many papers that are published by his opponents. If his claims are worth countering in Nature, why can't the claims themselves be published? If anything we can be emboldened by the fact that investigations are starting to move in a constructive direction with the 1918 hypothesis, rather than simple strawman attacks. Is it not noteworthy that Hooper's opponents feel the need to 'disprove' his hypothesis in a new way every year?143.226.27.72 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now we're back to your personal opinions, which happen to be at odds with those of the scientific community. I think we've been around this block often enough that I'm simply going to ask you to read the talk page guidelines and respect them. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You have taken me around this block. To make this article worth reading instead of the deletion-worthy pile it is right now, we need consensus or there will just be an edit war. To have consensus, I must convince you that the neutral point of view is not what this article has. Hence, my arguments. Do you have a different suggestion as to how I can go about this, or are you saying that an edit war is preferable? 143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy- and source-based arguments about the content of the article are welcome - in fact, this talk page is designed for them. Your past few posts are devoid of such arguments and simply consist of your opinions on the low quality of research published in Nature. That's unlikely to move anyone toward consensus. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe instead of wp:TALK you should read wp:NPOV, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:3RR. Nowhere at those policies does it state that an article is not worth reading until it fits your personal standards, that edit warring is ever even an acceptable threat, or that your POV is the NPOV. You've been blocked very recently for edit warring here before for the same reasons as you are revisiting now, so this time an admin might not wait for the full "war" cycle before you get blocked for longer than last time. We can only discuss research which has been published by peer reviewed journals because of a need to maintain a parity of sources within the article. NJGW (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey NJGW, I don't know where you came from or why you are involving yourself in this, but I am currently engaging with three fairly intelligent editors: MastCell, OrangeMarlin, and TimVickers. I find them to be reasonable individuals (for the most part) and I feel that we will eventually come to a consensus. Your militant language is not necessary here, I have read and comprehended all the pages that you have linked. My interpretation of those pages is different from those of others. My probation came from a lack of understanding of the 3RR rule, and it will not be repeated. Reading your page, it seems that your expertise is best applied elsewhere. Others have successfully 'contained' me here, if you will. :)

I've been watching this conversation for a few weeks now. I thought you might benefit from an outside source telling you that your last statement was over the line on several points... but if you can't realize that the "militant language" is a mirror reflection of what you said then that's a bad sign. My point on 3rr was that if you've "warred" on the topic before, an admin doesn't need to see "3r's" for a block, and wp:consensus states that your understanding that consensus cannot exist until you say so is mistaken. I find the others here to be very reasonable as well, and very patient for having gone in circles with you so many times. Consensus does exist here, as does denial of that consensus. NJGW (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to debate with you Wikipedia's many flaws, others have told me that this is not the place. I do, however, appreciate your concern for the quality of my discourse on a website.143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers: You agreed to me quoting Hooper's refutation of the relevancy of the study claiming that there were no SIVcpz carrying chimps near Lindi camp, why can he not be quoted disputing the relevancy of the 1918 claim?143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's used as an example of his opinions. I'd agree with you substituting a different opinion for that one, if it were a better example, but quoting him at length on several different topics in a section on scientific research would be wrong, since his opinions are not scientific research. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

His opinions are based on scientific research, but we've been there before, I guess. He does say that other scientists share his opinion on SIV recombination. I will look for quotes from these people, if such are permissible.143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooper has been published in scientific papers

Respected editor Tim Vickers, having read all of the naterial on Martin's and Hooper's sites, may like to explain; why he thinks Hooper has not been scientifically published, why the re-playing of the Hooper - Ninane interview durring which Ninane says he worked with chimps is not included in the section dealing with Ninane working on chimps or not, why the discovery by Hooper of a scientific paper putting a chimp at LMS in the 1950s that was from outside the area of chimpanzees found near Kisangani, is not included as part of Hoopers objections to "Origin of AIDS: contaminated polio vaccine theory refuted". Nature 428. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.177.245 (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hooper's only significant contribution to the scientific literature is PMID 11405924, which is a report of his presentation at the conference in 2001. The contents of this 2001 presentation can't be used to rebut research that was published this year. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your idea of significance seems curious. Please show cites that all the following publications,(except the one you have allowed) are insignificant.

From the archives of this discusion:_______________________________________________________________________________

Hooper also published in Nature; Zhu T, Korber BT, Nahmias AJ, Hooper E, Sharp PM, Ho DD (1999) "An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin of the epidemic" Nature 391: 594-597 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6667/abs/391594a0.html;jsessionid=C0A2FE731B713D5E9BCAF15B41BC5DB9 (Letters to Nature) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Society of London published Hooper in: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, volume 356, 29 June 2001 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/rs/papers/index.html

Lincei (meeting Origin of HIV and Emerging Persistent Viruses) published Hooper in: , 2003, Vol. 187, ISBN 88-218-0885-8 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper03/Hooper03.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The above show that Hooper is a recognised expert, in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:SPS, on OPV AIDS hypothesis, specifically the details of the Koprowski OPV trails based in Stanleyville. His restatements of the hypothesis are eligble to be included in the article including as responses to scientific research. I agree that apropriate weight will have to be created. SmithBlue (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And another scientific publication of Hooper: "Experimental Oral Polio Vaccines and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 356, No. 1410, Origins of HIV and the AIDS Epidemic (Jun. 29, 2001), pp. 801+803-814 SmithBlue (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I await your response to the other questions asked. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What research has Hooper done? Which of the above links lead to peer reviewed studies? What do OPED pieces from before 2003 tell us about research published in 2008? This has been covered before and is starting to get disruptive. NJGW (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To suggest, as you seem to be, that only peer-reviewed studies are admissible in this article is inaccurate. If such misleading and inaccurate claims are continued they will amount to disruption. The phrase from the archived material presented above that I suggest you research is "Hooper is a recognised expert, in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:SPS, on OPV AIDS hypothesis". As you will learn Hooper's self-published research is acceptable in the field in which he is an expert given that he has been "published" in the scientific sense. The alternative is that "the OPV-AIDS hypothesis" is not presented fully in the article devoted to it. Which is against WP policy. You use the term "OPED" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed - do any of the articles cited above fit this description? - in any case please show WP policy that rules out the articles cited above. What research has Hooper done? - Historical research questioning the veracity of the claimed history of the Stanleyville OPV trails. I take it you have read the material at his website http://www.aidsorigins.com/ ? 203.59.177.245 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

wp:PARITY NJGW (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it from your reply that you conceed all the other points I raise. I also take it from your reply that you have an understanding of the OPV AIDS hypothesis and to do that you have read Hoopers materials. How else could any of us here hope to present a balanced article on OPV AIDS?

WP:Parity; content guideline - WP:SPS; official English Wikipedia policy. Please take discussions on policy to appropriate forum.

Given your assumed readings on OPV-AIDS at Hooper's site perhaps you would like to answer the questions I ask above above concerning Ninane and also about the scientific article placing a Ptt chimp at Camp Lindi durring Stanleyville trials? 203.59.177.245 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Given your command of acronyms, I suspect your experience here goes beyond the history of your current IP. So you should have an idea of how things work here. This is not a forum for general discussion or debate about Hooper's claims; the relevant acronym, if you like, is WP:TPG. I'm not sure why you keep citing WP:SPS; it enjoins us to self-published sources very cautiously, if at all, and also tells us that anything worth saying is more likely to be found in independent, reliable sources (e.g. the peer-reviewed literature). As such, it seems to undercut your argument rather than support it. MastCell ^Talk 07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS says we can use Hooper's self-published material. If you can see a way to write this article without mis-leading readers without using it then please share. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-misleading article?

Here is my take on the current problems with this article.

Material from scientific articles is presented as refuting the hypothesis when in fact that material has been accounted for in the hypothesis either prior to the publication of the article or in a re-formulation of the hypothesis. (I see that MastCell doesnt like this - Popper might) Here we mislead the reader.

Material on the squabble over historical facts (a la Ninane) arbitarily truncated at positions that favour one side or another. Again we mislead the reader.

The content of the molecular and phylogenetic refutations is minimal - this stuff is why the hypothesis has little support. Tim Vickers, at least, has the ability to explain how this science works. Here we leave the reader under informed.

The supporters of the hypothesis have long claimed "suppression of dissent", which is notable given some of the supporters. This material is absent from the article. We leave the reader mis-informed and under-informed.

Comments? I would appreciate suggestions as to how we can avoid misleading the reader - that is the over-riding rule at WP isn't it?203.59.177.245 (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Found Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. It may provide a format for a clear presentation of the OPV AIDS hypothesis controversy. And writing that it becomes obvious that this article which does not even present a full statement of the hypothesis is rather OPV AIDS hypothesis controversy 203.206.90.197 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: a simple google led me to an srticle by Hooper who in my opinion quite adequately undermines the supposed dating of HIV to pre OPV in Africa: in vitro viral exchange of RNA (or even between Chimps caged for years together: also Chimps from disparate regions (shipped up river etc and housed together and remember that this just doesnt happen in the wild!)... plus given the number of tissue cultures taking place: remember they vacinated millions around Africa... plus the inaccuracy of extimates of genetic change over such a short time period (OK for say using DNA to find a date for the Toba catastrophe) but for this sorry... the OPV campaign in Africa from widely dispersed Chimp tissues remains a coincidence that in my book is just too statistically significant... im opinion therefore the burdon of proof in this case shifts to a burden of disproof for OPV AIDS: HIV from (multiple) Chimp SIV through thousands if not tens of thousands (at least) of Chimp tissue cultures to millions of innoculations... do the math! ... article is inadequete for reasons of the scientific community protecting itself: as Hooper suggests: Nature and Scuience journals etc just wont publish pro OPV HIV artciles... thsi sort of info needs to go into the article unfotunately... the article is saying that the alterntive is a that few hunters over time scratched, bitten, eating or fucking Chimps was the alternative source of HIV? DOH! The statistical significance of the African OPV campaign is just so overwelming and a few poor quality scientific establishment articles supposedly "refuting" the hypothesis dont add up --- yet!!! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific problems of "Scientific Investigation" section

When I read a section with this heading I, and (I argue) most readers, expect it to either:

(a) Clearly present a historical view of the developments in the area

or

(b) Present the current scientific material as it relates to the current understanding of the area.

or

(c) Do both (a) and (b) making clearly obvious what is history and what is the current understanding.

Do the other editors here agree that this is a common and reasonable expectation? And, that to not not meet these expectations, without warning the reader, is likely to result in the reader being mislead? 124.169.119.27 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)