Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Poor quality

Ok, I found the RFC, and have looked at this page with the eyes of a scientist with a strong biological background. I am open to alternatives and comments to any theory (like to do that myself, it is often needed). I have read two different versions with a pure logical mind and my remarks are the folowing:

  • The text in general is poorly written
  • The text contains a lot of activism
  • Most is written as opinions, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Every claim, especially when people disagree with the main point-of-view, needs to be appropriatly cited.
  • I have seen claims that are at least 10 years old. In the meanwhile, a lot of research has been done, and it should be replaced by more recent claims. For example: About 350 people in 1993-1995 who singed a letter from The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. First of all, many are not scientists, second of all, it was 1993-1995, how many do still have the same opinion.
  • Finally, much what is said can be condensed significantly, whch would enhance the change of getting the message about, and that is that there is some criticism to the main stream idea of the cause of AIDS.

--KimvdLinde 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to move pretty much all text to a talk subpage, and let people edited that. When sections are of sufficient quality, they can be moved back to the main page. I am not going t edit anything, but I am available in a letter stage to read again and see if the piece meets the standards that need to be set for a place like wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made my final cut-downs to content and created a copy of the article in AIDS reappraisal/sandbox Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. I just cleaned the history section, let me know what you think --KimvdLinde 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
additional cleaning - I removed the quote about "the package insert of Revtrovir" ... the language quoted was from a package insert used in the early 1990s, and no longer accurate. Additionally, the current, much lower doses of Revtrovir in use currently have significantly less side effects then the huge doses used in the initial research. -- 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [at work, no sign-in]

Clean-up Process

Nrets claims there is a "clean-up process" on 2/6/06. I have seen nothing but removal of dissident evidence, quotes and references. And there have been NO changes in the last several days. So I will pause 24 hours to watch for "clean-up." If there is none, I will continue my campaign to have a page that represents dissident positions accurately. I FAVOR a clean-up...And I'm waiting for a legitimate one. Sgactorny 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for your input on the cuts before moving on to the history section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that you've given your input - apparently, by reverting the entirety of the changes I've made, please let me request that you make no changes to the article without first gaining consensus for them on talk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Here is the changelog from when I started untill now. It would be good to set the new version as a consensus version, so please discuss below what changes you believe make this not a consensus version.

[1] The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) .

Must a consensus version have NPOV? If so, I suggest the following sentence change:
These claims are met with resistance, and often evoke frustration, censorship and hostility from those invested in the HIV-causes-AIDS paradigm.
yes, it has to be NPOV, this is an ecyclopedia, not an activist page for either pro or contra. --KimvdLinde 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, then. I am changing the sentence to the following:
These claims are met with resistance from members of the mainstream, who believe that an untreated HIV infection causes AIDS, which leads to death.
Please let me know if that seems POV or wrong in any way. The Rod 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence is hard to believe:
Though the orthodoxy claims HIV antibody tests exceed the performance of most other infectious disease tests in both sensitivity [...] and specificity [...], the reality is very different.
Does some reliable reference really show the mainstream claim that about HIV antibody tests despite undisputed evidence to the contrary? The Rod 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Another neutrality recommendation is to change the word "editorial" to "report" to avoid mischaracterizing the 1994 Science report. Since the description of the Science report has experienced an edit war, I will wait until we seem to have some consensus before making that change. The Rod 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I repeat the recommendation to change the following:
The Science editorial failed to mention the reality that the AIDS reappraisal movement is diverse, including hundreds of scientists from all over the world.
The point of that sentence appears to be to clarify that the Science article only addresses Duesberg and should therefore not be taken as a rebuttal of positions of any other segments of the AIDS reappraisal movement. So, instead of that sentence, the rebuttal section should open with something like the following:
The AIDS reappraisal movement includes a diverse range of views. In 1994, the journal Science conducted a 3-month investigation of one such set of claims, Peter Duesberg's....
Does that sound better? The Rod 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Rod, many things sound already much better. I have been writing yesterday evening off-line on several pieces to clean it up, and such, and I will later add tags to highlight unsoured information. But first I have to run and do some work. --KimvdLinde 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten substantial piece for clarity and NPOV, but it is in progress. --KimvdLinde 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the report in the journal Science goes, I'm not quite sure "news report" is quite accurate either. But it is better than "editorial". Also, there is a claim there that it was not peer-reviewed, implying that it is full of inaccuracies. Science is one of the top rated journals for publishing original research as well as literature reviews. I would find it har to believe that they would publish such a report without heavy editorial oversight. Nrets 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is what Science themselves have used, and I used that, which is the most acurate way of representing it. The article will have had editorial oversight, but news reports are generally written by science journalists without peer review as they voice opinion, not original research. --KimvdLinde 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The previous version stated that the Science articles (remember, there were five articles, nit just one) failed to address all dissident positions. However, the articles/news reports/editorial (all semantics) was not about all dissident positions, but about the position held by Peter Duesberg. I have corrected this. Also, the previous version stated that Science refused to allow Duesberg or any of his colleagues the right to reply to many of the articles claims, but he did reply, in the January 20, 1995 edition of Science, it was called "The Duesberg phenomenon": Duesberg and other voices. It can be found at the Pubmed Id of PMID 7824919 . Also, it stated that it was not peer-reviewed. It would have been reviewed by the editorial board, which is the peer-review process for scientific journals. Also, the then editor of Science actually supported Duesberg in finding funding so he could test his hypothesis. --Bob 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the corrections. I am merely cleaning up and editing stuff, without looking at the sources as this is already enough work. The editorial board is NOT equiovalent to the peer-review, wjich is done by peers OUTSIDE the editorial board (I regularly do those kind of reviews myself) -KimvdLinde 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So do I. and the editorial board do do the peer review for many journals alongside an external reviewer. --Bob 19:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Apprently they have different criteria for peer review than in different fields, as we do not consider editorial review equivalent to peer-review --KimvdLinde 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Hello. A request was made on WP:3O for a third opinion on this page. The opinion is regarding the issue: insertion of edit regarding Wikipedia edits into article. My 3rd opinion is that Said edit should be reverted....on this topic, Wikipedia is a non issue. Thank you for flying delta. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for sources

Sgactorny, could you plaese provide a source for the rejected longer version of the rebuttal to Science. As it stand now, this is a serious allegation, which needs to be sourced. --KimvdLinde 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • For the time being, I have brought your sentence here, and when you have a reliable source, we can add it again:
  • They rejected a much longer response in which he claimed editorial bias and provided scientific references to rebut most of Cohen's assertions.
  • I also made it NPOV.
  • Cohen is a science writer, not just a journalist.
  • Your claim that the editorial board is comprised of only mainstream AIDS scientists is incorrect, they are professional science editors with a variety of science backgrounds.
  • You claim that Koshland quickly learned mainstream scientists would never support research that questioned the mainstream view that HIV causes AIDS. needs also sources that the cause is indeed the unwillingness of the scietists to fund that kind of research. Also the failure of finding money needs to be documented preferably to a serious online source.

--KimvdLinde 22:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Another question, any substantial dates after 1991 (is needed to build the image of a continuing movement, not one that is dead.... --KimvdLinde 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In the latest cleanup of the Science article rebuttal, the quote attributed to Serge Lang states the article completely omitted mention of dissenters such as Bialy and Haverkos, as well as many points raised by dissenters. For example, the NIDA meeting of May [1994], the position of Harry Haverkos on nitrite inhalants, the situation in Africa, the fact that malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, and influenza, test false positive on the HIV antibodies test, were still not mentioned in the Science article. This is a bit obscure since nowhere else in this WP article is there mention of any NIDA meeting, there is no clear reference to malaria, leprosy, etc. and it is not clear what situation in Africa this refers to. Perhaps this quote should be put into context or removed altogether. Maybe we can say that Serge Lang opposed the Science article and link to his WP entry. Nrets 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you at one hand on the arguments you provide, at the otherhand, this is about the arguments of the reappraisal movement. Maybe those arguments have to be added to the main article to begin with. It is one of the major claims Lang made. I am not yet done with all the cleaning, the major hurdle will be the specific claims.
Along the line of the cleaning, I think it would be a good idea to make a header for the major players, such as Duesberg, spend a few lines on them and point to the pages on these people, rather than discussing everything here as well. The old version of the science section seems to be directly copied from that article. --Redhead 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually the version on the Duesberg article was originally copied from this article. There have been several other articles, many of them much more up to date, that question the dissident movement in general, but the Science piece seems to be the one that has received the most attention. Nrets 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, clear. I have been avoiding to get involved at a deep level at this, I primarily do cleaning and editing for clarity. I leave ot to other what has to be added and what needs to be removed. I prefer when things go by this talk page first. By staying an outsider, it is the only way to look at what has been said and who waid what etc etc etc and make a NOPV piece of text from that. --KimvdLinde 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 3

I archived pretty much everything from before February, and the first days of February. --KimvdLinde 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

CJD mention

Is Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease really considered an infectious disease? It's not spread person-to-person. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about AIDS, what is the link with CDJ? KimvdLinde 15:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I know what the article is about. CJD is mentioned as an infectious disease in the text of the article: There are many well-known infectious diseases which develop slowly and spread slowly, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or Hepatitis C. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I looked at the CJD article, which indicates that one can be infected Creutzfeldt-Jakob_Disease#Transmission, although not by direct human-human contact, but by eating infected material. Sounds like this is more a issue of how can infections occur. As such, the sentence seems fine with me. KimvdLinde 01:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The distinction is between "infectious disease" and "contagious disease". Infectious diseases are those caused by infectious organisms, while "contagious diseases" are infectious diseases communicable by contact. CJD is certainly an infectious disease. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're saying now - I didn't realize prions were considered infectious agents. I'm glad I asked instead of changing the sentence. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but in the wild, crazy, world of post-modern biomedicine, even wasscaly little proteins can be infectious disease-causing agents!! Revolver 10:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The very same post-modern world where viruses can cause cancers, entire chromosomes can be silenced, and neurons can regenerate. God forbid that our understanding of basic biological processes has evolved! Run for the hills! These scientists are crazy! Nrets 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
VIRUSES DON'T CAUSE CANCER!!! except for a few very rare cases, already discovered decades ago. I can find the other two things you cite believable. But prions -- they're smaller than viruses, and we already know viruses don't cause cancer. 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Except viruses are believed to cause cancer, and not just very rare cases. Visit HPV for an example that has been widely reported in broadcast PSAs in the US lately. DMacks 06:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Believing does not make it so. You can't point to one example of flawed science does not justify another. But, that's typical orthodox reasoning -- justify one wrong idea by pointing to another. And I find it almost laughable that that you use PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS as your "reference" for viruses causing cancer...geez, you ever heard of Nature or Science??? 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged suppression of debate"

I've made some changes to this section. The allegation that debate has not taken place is misleading. For example a search of PubMed for "Duesberg HIV" turns up 72 results. Given the number of dissident websites around I think you'd have great difficulty finding an AIDS specialist who's unaware of the dissident point of view. Trezatium 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but Ithink the discussin is about the magnitude of the debate, and the dissidenst argue it should be much more because they are right. KimvdLinde 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you may be surprised how many "AIDS specialists" *aren't* aware of it. Not to mention just "HIV positive" patients. And the issue is really over the larger scientific community, as well. "AIDS specialists" are more than likely completely disinclined to consider alternatives, anyway. Most everyone else I run into seems (to me) to have a vague memory or passing acquaintance, in my experience, e.g. "Oh, doesn't this have something to do with the president of South Africa??", etc. Revolver 10:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently people do not comprehend the difference between "suppression" and "the debate has not taken place". Fallacious much ? How about letting people who are actually familiar with the history of this debate and who are actually AIDS Dissidents have some input for a change, people ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DissidenceIsConscience (talkcontribs).

AIDS in Africa

"Another relationship that is sometimes cited is that AIDS is highly correlated with drug use in Western countries, while it is associated with malnutrition and poor living conditions in Africa." This is a very silly sentence. AIDS is correlated with drug use all over the world, including in many non-Western countries such as Vietnam and Russia. If heroin suddenly became popular in Gabarone then I predict the correlation would apply there as well. Also it is simply not true that AIDS is associated with malnutrition and poor living conditions in Africa; members of the middle class are often among the worst affected. I intend to remove this sentence unless anyone can suggest an improvement. Trezatium 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that they do not use that argument? Because that is where it is all about (Not that I agree with them). KimvdLinde 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing of the sentence suggests there is a genuine, indisputed association between AIDS and malnutrition/poor living conditions. Such a relationship is, to the best of my knowledge, unsupported by the evidence. Trezatium 20:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. So, it should be rewritten such that it makes clear that the mainstream does not think there is is evidence for it. KimvdLinde 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that rephrasing would be helpful. The dissident case is put across very well in the preceding sentences of the paragraph, which make valid points about genuine epidemiological differences between sub-Saharan Africa and the West (except the bit about "exclusive AIDS-defining diseases", which could do with amending). The sentence in question is superfluous. Trezatium 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Your change may be a slight improvement but I still think the sentence should be removed. You can't claim that "AIDS in Africa is a result of malnutrition and poor living conditions" implies "a non-infectious cause of AIDS". This is circular logic. Trezatium 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have actually heard this claim be made by some dissidents. KimvdLinde 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How is it circular??? If AIDS diseases are associated with malnutrition and poor living conditions in Africa, and with drug abuse in North America, this is strongly incompatible with an infectious cause. You may doubt the premises, but the reasoning is not circular. Revolver 10:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I only meant that the particular phrasing used in the article resulted in circular logic, not that the argument in general was circular. Perhaps "circular logic" was the wrong phrase to use; what I meant was "tautologous logic". It claimed that "AIDS in Africa is a result of malnutrition and poor living conditions" implies "a non-infectious cause of AIDS" If it had said that "AIDS in Africa is associated with malnutrition and poor living conditions" implies "a non-infectious cause of AIDS" then I'd have no objections on grounds of flawed reasoning. However, I would object that the association with malnutrition and poor living conditions is a matter of contention, which is why I rephrased this sentence - see revision history. Trezatium 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the new version? I think it better summarises the dissident argument. Trezatium 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! KimvdLinde 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Bogus, you people arn't interested in accuracy, you are merely propagating an agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

"Furthermore, the high incidence of AIDS and HIV in developing nations is not inconsistent with infectious disease status at all; rather, poverty could explain a lack of education about HIV transmission and the subsequent increased rates of infection." I've three problems with this sentence. Firstly, the "at all" seems a bit POV. Secondly, mainstream scientists believe there are many other reasons why poor people may be more vulnerable to HIV infection, such as greater likelihood of engaging in prostitution, less access to condoms, greater prevalence of untreated STDs, etc. Thirdly, as I've already said, the poorest people are not always the worst affected (e.g. rates of HIV and AIDS in Botswana far exceed those in Niger, though the latter is much poorer), so the link is not straightforward, according to the mainstream POV. Trezatium 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AIDS does not always lead to death

This claim was removed, is it not made by the dissidents? KimvdLinde 20:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this claim is irrelevant to the issue of causation. Mainstream scientists also believe that AIDS does not always lead to death. According to the mainstream POV, antiretroviral treatment can extend life for many years after an AIDS diagnosis. Even those who don't receive treatment may die of unrelated causes. Trezatium 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, along that line. And yes, there are people who are immune.... Ok, clear.KimvdLinde 20:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Where ARE these people, and WHY are they not being aggressively studied ? Do you have a reference for this assertion ? You'd think that after 20+ years and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of researchers working on HIV/AIDS the supposedly "immune" people would be a great rescource for development of a vaccine. Yet, Vaccine trial after vaccine trial has failed spectacularly.
This is what I mean by my complain that this article is hopelessly biased in favor of the orthodoxy, people are just repeating orthodox lines and removing Dissident arguments without understanding what Dissident positions are.
Furthermore, the claim is NOT irrelevant, because the orthodoxy insists that people with HIV must be treated, with no regard for weather or not they posses immunity. The Dissident position is that antiretroviral treatment is itself IATROGENIC, yet I do not see mention of this crucial point. I'm not looking to this as a forum to argue, I am looking at this as an encyclopedic entry on the subject it purports to be ABOUT. The form this article is taking is one of consistent mis-statement of Dissident argument followed by fallacious orthodox rebuttals. This form is not encyclopedic, it is dismissive and political.DissidenceIsConscience 19:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Those people have a mutant CCR5 gene, delta 32. It is a genetic immunity, and has literally NOTHING to do with induced immunity as a result of vacination. Maybe you should next time keep those two very different forms of immunity seperated. Furthermore, I suggest you start to source your statements with external sources that back up what you claim. Verifiability of reliable sources are among the most important basics of an encyclopedia. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
DissidenceIsConscience 03:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)I appreciate being held to a standard that you obviously do not feel constrained by yourself.
I am not adding this to the article, you are adding stuff to it. Bit there are 328 hits on this on Web of Science. But here is the abstract of a review on this topic:
Blanpain C, Libert F, Vassart G, Parmentier M.
IRIBHN, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Chemokines and chemokine receptors play a crucial role in the trafficking of leukocyte populations across the body, and are involved in the development of a large variety of human diseases. CCR5 is the main coreceptor used by macrophage (M)-tropic strains of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV-2, which are responsible for viral transmission. CCR5 therefore plays an essential role in HIV pathogenesis. A number of inflammatory CC-chemokines, including MIP-1 alpha, MIP-1 beta, RANTES, MCP-2, and HCC-1[9-74] act as CCR5 agonists, while MCP-3 is a natural antagonist of the receptor. CCR5 is mainly expressed in memory T-cells, macrophages, and immature dendritic cells, and is upregulated by proinflammatory cytokines. It is coupled to the Gi class of heterotrimeric G-proteins, and inhibits cAMP production, stimulates Ca2+ release, and activates PI3-kinase and MAP kinases, as well as other tyrosine kinase cascades. A mutant allele of CCR5, CCR5 delta 32 is frequent in populations of European origin, and encodes a nonfunctional truncated protein that is not transported to the cell surface. Homozygotes for the delta 32 allele exhibit a strong, although incomplete, resistance to HIV infection, whereas heterozygotes display delayed progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Many other alleles, affecting the primary structure of CCR5 or its promoter have been described, some of which lead to nonfunctional receptors or otherwise influence AIDS progression. CCR5 is considered as a drug target in the field of HIV, but also in a growing number of inflammatory diseases. Modified chemokines, monoclonal antibodies and small chemical antagonists, as well as a number of gene therapy approaches have been developed in this frame.
Ok, it does not give 100% immunity. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There was a very interesting program on Nova a few years ago about people who survived the plague in villages in Europe passed down genes to their ancestors that give immunity to both the plague and AIDS. Mainly because both diseases basically operate the same way at the cellular level. Williamb 10:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

A couple of comments:

1. The Science "special news report" is given excessive prominence. There have been several other notable rebuttals of dissident claims that are not mentioned in this article at all (except as external links). It is misleading to concentrate only on one series of articles written 12 years ago (before the advent of HAART). How about replacing this section with one about mainstream rebuttals in general?

2. Something should be said about the influence of dissident ideas on President Mbeki and others in South Africa.

Trezatium 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. KimvdLinde 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding point 1., here are some responses from peer-reviewed journals to Duesberg's theories:
a) A rebel without a cause of AIDS (Science, 1988)
This is an interesting article. It's the first response to Duesberg in a peer-reviewed journal. "'Why won't they respond to me?' Duesberg constantly asks reporters, who then ask AIDS researchers the same question. 'I cannot respond without shrieking', says Gallo." Anthony Fauci explains that, "A number of scientists are reluctant to get into a public debate because it pits you against someone who is so far off from reality." The article contains good rebuttals of Duesberg's arguments, which still stand today. I think this is worth mentioning. Trezatium 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
b) Does HIV cause AIDS? An updated response to Duesberg's theories (Intervirology, 1990)
The abstract says, "Duesberg bases his hypothesis on the fact that HIV fulfills neither Koch's classic postulates nor several more of his own postulates for viral pathogenesis... It is made very clear that the magnitude of epidemiologic, clinical, and experimental observations and results argue for a causal role of HIV and AIDS." Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
c) Duesberg, HIV and AIDS (Nature, 1990)
d) Has Duesberg a right of reply? (1993, by Nature editor John Maddox)
Full text is on VirusMyth. Summary: "Duesberg has forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside... When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published ­ not least in the hope and expectation that his next offering will be an admission of recent error." Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
e) Will Duesberg now concede defeat? (1995, by Lancet editor Richard Horton)
f) HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled (Current opinion in immunology, 1996)
A concise explanation of how HIV/AIDS fulfills Koch's postulates; it has much in common with the first part of the NIAID "Evidence" fact sheet. Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
g) HIV as the cause of AIDS and associated diseases (Genetica, 1998)
h) Denying science (Nature Medicine, 2006)
Full text of this editorial can be read via above link. It discusses the impact of dissident ideas in South Africa and elsewhere. Not really a rebuttal, but may be a useful reference. Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And here are some other notable responses to dissident claims:
i) The Durban Declaration (2000)
Obviously needs to be mentioned in the article. Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
j) NIAID Report: The Relationship Between HIV and AIDS (1995)
Worth discussing in article. Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
k) NIAID Fact Sheet: The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS (1994-2003)
Worth discussing in article. Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
l) website (2006)
Probably worth a mention. Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinions about which of these should be discussed in the article? Does anyone know of significant rebuttals published in peer-reviewed journals between 1998 and 2006?
Trezatium 19:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that that section should be revamped completely, and be more inclusive. The current section could very well go to deusbergs own page (to replace the biased version there). Kim van der Linde at venus 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There are more replies to Duesberg listed on his website and on this blog, but I think the list above contains the most significant ones. It would be great if someone who has access to a good university library could fill in the blanks for a), b), c), e) and g). Trezatium 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Responses to the Perth Group are much rarer, probably because few scientists take them seriously. However, here are three examples:

Trezatium 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

History section

One of the changes I've made is to remove the description of Medical Hypotheses as a peer-reviewed journal, which was a bit misleading. Papadopulos-Eleopulos has had some articles on AIDS (fewer than a dozen) published in peer-reviewed journals, the first of which appears to be this one from 1989. Trezatium 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The References section contains a lot of useful, relevant articles. However, this list seems almost entirely disconnected from the rest of the article (for example, there are several references concerning animal models, which aren't mentioned once in the main text). A number of these references also appear in the NIAID "Evidence" and "Relationship" documents, so there doesn't seem much point in having them all listed here as well. What's more, the references cited within the text are inconsistent - some correspond to items in the References list, while others are direct external links. I think we need a consistent system and probably a much shorter list of references, containing only articles directly related to the main text. Trezatium 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Reference section was complete and exact before the article was hacksawed and reduced in size without any regard for the reference section. This section does need to be cleaned up and references quoted throughout the article. --Bob 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

DissidenceIsConscience 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC) A reference section in an article allegedly about AIDS Reappraisal which totally omits any references to the work of Lauritsen is absolutely rediculous and indicative of people editing the article who have a decidedly pro-orthodox POV and a lack of comprehension OF the subject matter at hand.

I'm starting work on an "Impact" section, which will mention Lauritsen by name. I hope that helps. Trezatium 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde has done a great job with the references, but there seems to be a slight problem with this one, and I don't know how to fix it. Trezatium 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. Trezatium 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Links section

The list of dissident websites contains eleven entries. I suggest dropping the bottom three. It seems a bit excessive to include three pages from the "AIDS Wiki", and I don't think the Bauer and Culshaw sites are significant or useful enough to merit inclusion. If people are concerned about balancing things up (eight websites from each side of the debate) then perhaps they should also cut the aidsmyth blog. Trezatium 21:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the cuts made by KimvdLinde, but I suggest dropping the following links as well:
  • Articles by Professor Henry H. Bauer - not very useful; not a key dissident figure; few if any original ideas
"Not very useful"?? Have you even read them?? Just by themselves, they practically blow HIV out of the water! Revolver 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have read them, and the Culshaw articles. My argument is that they are less useful than other dissident websites such as, and your own AIDSWiki. The sites in question have relatively little content, and their arguments are largely derivative. I just thought it would be helpful to provide only the most useful links, but I don't really have a strong opinion on this. If dissidents think these are among the nine most important dissident websites on the net at least as significant as the other websites listed then the links should stay. Trezatium 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why I Quit HIV - ditto
  • - because it's a blog
  • NIAID fact sheet: How HIV Causes AIDS - this is the third link listed on the NIAID "Focus" page, so there's not much point linking to both of them; also this fact sheet is not wholly related to the topic of AIDS reappraisal.
Trezatium 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The list of dissident links is getting longer, not shorter. I suggest that both sides of the debate should be restricted to 8-10 links each. Trezatium 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link to a forum in line with the style guide that says, "forums should generally not be linked to". Trezatium 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed a link to the "Memory Hole" page, which consists solely of links. The list of dissident web sites featured in the "AIDS Wiki" is more comprehensive and better presented. Trezatium 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AZT package insert

The statement "It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with administration of Retrovir from underlying signs of HIV disease or intercurrent illnesses" appears to come from a package insert featured here. This package insert dates from 1996, and the quote comes from a study published in 1987. It's therefore out of date and is not a reliable representation of current scientific/clinical knowledge, so I've deleted it. Trezatium 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are guilty of misleading people by obscuring the HISTORY of the debate, which has just as much to do with the Dissident view as the atrocious, circular orthodoxy logic employed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The statement wasn't presented in a historical context; it was presented as evidence that AZT causes AIDS. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the statement is very old - it comes from one of the earliest studies of AZT as an AIDS treatment, and as such doesn't necessarily represent current scientific knowledge. Secondly, the statement doesn't imply that AZT causes AIDS. As an analogy, someone who has a cold and is taking cough medicine may experience drowsiness and slowed reactions. It may be difficult to determine whether these effects are caused by the cold virus or by the medication. This doesn't prove that cough medicines cause colds. Trezatium 10:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
God, that's just plain even compare "drowsiness" of cold medicines to anemia and bone marrow suppression of AZT...makes me want to throw up. Revolver 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It was not my intention to underplay the side effects of AZT, which can be severe and in some cases deadly. The analogy still stands. Trezatium 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And my registration of disgust still stands. 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Intention or not, this just underscores the fact that the iatrogenic properties of AZT are denied/ignored, which lends credence to Dissident complaints of revisionism and suppression of the facts. So the inserts have changed to reflect the comparatively low doses of AZT that are now used, this does not actually change how toxic AZT IS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DissidenceIsConscience (talkcontribs)

Firstly, the statement is very old - it comes from one of the earliest studies of AZT as an AIDS treatment,

Are you suggesting that AIDS official studies have an expiration date stamped?. It seems so.

  • The AZT of 1986 was the same molecule that the present day AZT.
  • The human body in 1986 was not different from the present day human body.

Pasteur experiments, made in the late XIXth century, are NOT a iota less relevant today. Randroide 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree that age is not sufficient reason for dismissing a piece of research. However, the point is that this particular study referred to "adverse events possibly associated with administration of Retrovir" (my emphasis). Because this was one of the first studies ever conducted on AZT as an AIDS treatment, the researchers didn't have a very good idea of what the side effects might be. Since 1987 the body of knowledge has grown immensely, and I'd hazard a guess that scientists are better equipped to distinguish between symptoms of HIV disease and AZT side effects. Still, if you want to put the comment back in then I won't object, provided it is presented in its proper context. Trezatium 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone should check the text about AZT preparations in a current year physician desk reference, that would make this question much more clear.
My 5 cents: I am the owner of a spanish 1999 physician desk reference that still includes (in spanish, of course) the famous line "It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with administration of Retrovir from...". Thank you for your answer.Randroide 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put the quote back in the article. Trezatium 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The HIV-TEK G by Sorin Biomedica

The comment on the HIV-TEK G by Sorin Biomedica is misleading. It appears to have been sourced from this WHO report. The table containing the specificity rate for this test is headed "Cumulative list of assays evaluated whose production has been discontinued" (my emphasis). So that's why I removed it from the article. Trezatium 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are a jackass for doing so. The same disclaimer is on EVERY HIV antibody kit with very little variation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I don't understand what you mean. The article said, "All current government-approved HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 96% (except the HIV-TEK G by Sorin Biomedica)". I cut the bit in brackets. This has nothing to do with test kit disclaimers. Trezatium 08:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" has removed this article from Category:Pseudoscience. I disagree. AIDS reappraisal clearly meets the criteria for pseudoscience, and is regarded as such by most scientists. Trezatium 08:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm now having second thoughts about this, having read the pseudoscience article more thoroughly and also some of the external links featured on that page. A common requirement for pseudoscience appears to be the "assertion of claims that cannot be verified or falsified". This doesn't really apply to AIDS reappraisal. The usual argument is that the claims made by AIDS dissidents can be tested, have been tested, and have been shown to be wrong.
On the other hand, this article defines pseudoscientists as "those who purport to work within the scientific paradigm, but who ignore or misrepresent accumulated scientific knowledge, fail to adhere to established scientific methods of research and who use scientific rhetoric when promoting their alternative remedies". The same article says that, "What distinguishes pseudo-scientists from scientists who are simply proposing new theories or arguing in favour of minority positions is that the pseudo-scientists do not respect the rules that govern scientific research and intellectual engagement – but instead appeal to popular fears and misperceptions." I reckon that AIDS dissidents fit these criteria. Trezatium 10:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be more accurately described as "junk science" or "pathological science". Try adding those cagetories instead.
After reading the articles involved again I think pseuodoscience is probably acceptable. Jefffire 10:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The junk science article says, "Junk or bunk science is a term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are perceived to be driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. It is these motives that distinguish junk science from pseudoscience and controversial science." I don't think that AIDS reappraisal entirely fits this definition.
Pathological science is described as "a neologism to pejoratively describe the pursuit of pseudoscientific claims as like a pathology, or disease. Such claims are said to be distinguished from pseudoscience in that they have a larger and more dogmatic following, and are asserted to be based in self-deception amongst a larger number of participants, and in this way fundamentally different from conscious scientific fraud." This seems reasonably appropriate for AIDS reappraisal. Note that pseudoscience and pathological science appear to be mutually exclusive terms.
Another alternative is controversial science. However, Wikipedia doesn't currently have categories for junk science, pathological science or controversial science. This article is already listed in the list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Perhaps it doesn't need to be listed anywhere else. Trezatium 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

DissidenceIsConscience 19:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Dissidents argue that the orthodoxy has consistently fulfilled the definiton of Psudoscience, as stated above, by pointing out the economic and political influence on research and treatment as well as the aborgation of scientific method, i.e., the lack of proper blinding and controls in orthodox research. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but if one is going to contribute TO an article ON AIDS Reappraisal, it behooves one to at least attempt to properly represent the Dissident POV, after all, this is what the article alleges it is ABOUT.

The majority view is that AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience, or at least wrong science. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on how to write about what most people believe to be pseudoscience, and we should stick to them. The dissident POV should not be misrepresented, but neither should it be presented unchallenged. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the article must make clear that AIDS dissidents are very much in the minority. Trezatium 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
So far all you have given is your opinion, and nobody really cares what your opinion is. You lack integrity as far as being able to properly represent the subject matter this article is based on, and you abuse wiki policy in order to support your lying and misrepresentations. The wiki guidelines do not say to basically lie about AIDS Reappraisal, which is what you have done here, consistently and repeatedly, and it doe not say to conclude practically every subsection of the article with an opposing dismissal, based on your fallacious misrepresentations. You troll here and mire this article in order to perpetuate your own personal agenda, which is not what this article is about. The article is titled AIDS Reappraisal - if you do NOT understand the subject matter and have no references FOR what this article is about, you should not be contributing material dismissing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Stop vandalizing the fricken page, then we'll listen to what you have to say. --mboverload@ 08:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Need to credit AIDSWiki?

Revolver added a credit to AIDSWiki, but I don't think this is justified. He cited one sentence about Casper Schmidt, which is hardly sufficient to merit a credit. In any case, the sentence in question was originally placed in this article by Revolver back in July 2003, a long time before he created the AIDSWiki. Trezatium 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Credit for specific quotes, and so can be added as inline references using the footnote system. IAnd if they originate from other sources, those should be mentioned. Kim van der Linde at venus 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I'm okay with that. 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


The Pseudoscience cat has now several time been added and removed. I think it should not be on the page. Not conform the main stream is not the same as pseudoscience, and some of the discussion is definately taken place within the scientific community. So I think we should remove it from that category. Kim van der Linde at venus 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no serious scientific debate about this at all. Where did you get that idea from? Jefffire 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There is some debate, although minimal. Does that make it pseudoscience? Kim van der Linde at venus 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Generally when the worlds top scientific institutions and the World Health Organisation disagree with you it's a pretty good indication. Jefffire 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, actually not. That is a good indication for the consensus, not for whether there is debate or not. If consensus by was a reason not to discuss things, new discoveries would not be made. Kim van der Linde at venus 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You are confused as to what I meant. There is absolutely no serious scientific debate at all on this issue. What "debate" there is is the preserve of quacks and kooks. The article does not need to pander to their sensibilities by not describing it as pseudoscience. Jefffire 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You see what I'm getting at, Kim??? 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still undecided on this issue. As I noted above, most definitions of pseudoscience require deviation from the scientific method (the OED says, "a pretended or spurious science; a collection of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method"). This may apply to many dissident arguments, but not all of them. After all, Duesberg has had quite a few of his AIDS papers published in peer-reviewed journals (though not recently). Trezatium 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it has very much become a pseudoscience. It is clear that the evidence is against it and it proponents have become wackier. However I do agree that "junk" or "pathological" science might be better, but they do not exist as categories. As a result pseudoscience serves as a very adaquate category. Jefffire 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the case for its inclusion in the category of pseudoscience has just been made. Trezatium quoted the definition of pseudoscience from the Oxford English Dictionary - a collection of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method. AIDS dissident theories fall into this category. --Bob 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Dissident scientists argue that the orthodoxy fulfills this criterion. Do you even know what the Dissident arguments ARE? DissidenceIsConscience 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Conscience, why are you wasting your time at this hole in the ground?? Come to AIDS Wiki. 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, become their second editor! - Nunh-huh 06:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me rephrase: I take great personal offence at that comment. 21:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, AIDS-reaprassial should be listed as a pseudoscience because there is currently a strong scientific consensus that it is a pseudoscience. Wether that consensus is correct is irrelevant, as wikipedia is not original research. Obviously the dissidents themselves do not agree with the pseudoscience label, but it is still the majority view and consensus, and as such meets wikipedias guidelines for pseudoscience. If you disagree with wikipedia's guidelines, then wikipedia is not the place to argue that debate. There are wikipedia talk pages for discussing wether the wiki guidelines should be the way they are, but this page is not one of them. 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging of "Existence" section with "Koch's Postulates"

I've merged these sections to accommodate the changes made by Knut-Inge. Trezatium 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this change makes sense, since the Perth Group's isolation arguments relate to Koch's second postulate (while Duesberg challenges postulates one, three and four). Trezatium 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "Impact" section

I think I've done enough editing here so I'm going to withdraw into the background and let others have a go. But I hope they'll act on some of my suggestions. This has the potential to be quite an informative article.

Before I go, I'd like to repeat my proposal for a section about the impact of AIDS dissident ideas. It is important to record that these ideas have cost many people their lives. In particular, if the South African government had started providing antiretrovirals sooner then thousands of deaths would have been averted. The new section should have a global scope but I think it should concentrate mainly on South Africa. The following documents will be useful:

Trezatium 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

AIDS Dissidents would counter by saying that the orthodoxy has basically commited genocide, and that your "impact statement" is just another orthodox method of suppression of debate of the FACTS, as opposed to furthering a political agenda. After all, the orthodoxy has managed to get almost all of it's funding via. various government entities. Indeed, for all the "scientific" "proof" the orhodoxy claims to have, it simply can not deny that "the probably cause of AIDS" was announce via government press conference prior to ANY peer-review or debate whatsoever. Not a very respectable or scientific way to further the cause of science, but great for acheiving political goals and agendas. DissidenceIsConscience 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to reply as a scientist who knows how the inner working of peer review work. The time between the finish of the actuall peer review and the publication can be several months. The paper has to be prepared, proof read etc. I guess they have speed this up as much as possible, but it does take time. Therefore, the announcement before publication does not imply it was not yet peer reviewed. I can see that it was not a smart thing to do, although at the otherhand, people really wanted to know what the cause of that misterious disease was. Kim van der Linde at venus 06:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, committing "genocide" by reducing mortality would be rather a unique approach. - Nunh-huh 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Dissident POV is that the announcement was a political one which influenced the allocation of rescources and corrupted the peer-review process by lending credence to Gallo's claims prior to proper peer-review. Gallo was a federal employee at the time, so this declairation, Dissidents argue, was tantamount to science by press conference. Also, one can hardly seperate Gallo, the criminal and fraud, from the orthodox assertions regarding causation, Dissidents argue that Gallo has such a profound record of being caught fabricating research and stealing other people's work that it calls into question the causation issue from the very beginning. Once can hardly represent the Dissident POV adequetly and omit all references to the fact that Gallo has been censored by the scientific community for theft and fraud, anyone else but a federal employee working in the scientific comminuty with this kind of record would have little credibility IN the scientific community, yet Gallo's "discovery" is deemed acceptible to people working in the field of HIV/AIDS, and this is an important part of Dissident criticisms OF the orthodoxy. DissidenceIsConscience 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a large number of accusations and you need to provide proof for them before anything of that can get into the article. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Believe it. Gallo's a liar and a crook. Read the Congressional hearings. Read Science Fictions. Read anything. 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

DissidenceIsConscience 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Fair enough : AIDS Reappraisalist are generally familiar with this and have been for decades now.

It seems like DissidenceIsConscience stopped reading the scientific AIDS literature in the 1980's. Gallo is by no means the sole person claiming that HIV causes AIDS. There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that have since confirmed and reconfirmed the original hypothesis. I can highly doubt that the vast majority of current AIDS researchers, virologists, clinicians, epidemiologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, etc. are not in it for political gains, but to further our understanding of the causation of this disease and to save lives. Are you saying every AIDS-related paper has been a result of a corrupt peer-review process and scientific fraud? This sounds like a vast conspiracy theory! Nrets 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

DissidenceIsConscience 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)When scientists build upon work based on fraud and lies their integrity deserves to be called into question, especially when they make excuses and create obfuscation and lame justifications for it. Again, this article purports to be about AIDS Reappraisal, I have yet to see any honest representation of AIDS Reappraisalist Therory here; just a series of straw-man misrepresentations of what AIDS Reappraisalism is, followed by orthodox POV dissmissals. Compleatly omitting mention of Gallo's fraud and criminal activity while he was head of the NIH, and ignoring the fact that most of the researchers you mention get their funds to conduct their research from the government prety much speaks for itself.

Much to your dismay, but scientists are not "idiots" who blindly build upon fraud. Much of what we now know about HIV and AIDS has been confirmed independently, from many different angles many times over by many laboratories. As I said, if you started reading and understanding some of the scientific literature it will become evident that the majority of the dissident arguments are far out of date and have been proven wrong many times over. However, any time anyone provides a logical argument agains all these reappraisal positions out come the accusations of censorship and dismissal. Nrets 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
DissidenceIsConscience 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)I am not going to get into a pissing contest over how much orthodox material I deal with on a daily basis concerning HIV/AIDS, I will, however, point out again that misrepresenting AIDS Reappraisalists as not being thoroughly familiar with orthodox research, and that dissident arguments are all "dated" is in fact misreprentative and dismissive, not to mention rather over-generalized and vague. The issue was Gallo's fraud and unethical activity, obfuscate much ?
Gallo's unethical activity is discussed at length in the article about him. And I'm not here to defend him. What you are implying by your remarks is that because Gallo was believed to be engaged in unethical behavior, then we must dismiss the whole HIV causes AIDS hypothesis. For that matter, if you read James Watson's "The Double Helix" it is not entirely clear that Watson and Crick's discovery about the structure of DNA was reached by the most ethical of means, yet I don't see anybody ready to toss out the whole idea. If you have some more current views supporing the dissident arguments then add them to the article, but the vast majority of them are over 10 years old, and have all been addressed by mainstream science. Nrets 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Was the definiton OF DNA originally created as a survey mechanism by a government entity ? Was Watson a top-level federal official ? Did Watson announce, prior to any peer-review, that he had single-handedly "discovered" the relationship therein, and influnce how massive federal funding for his peers would be appropriated - to look primarily where HE wanted to look, to the detriment of all other compeating hypothesis ? Did Watson's definition rely on influencing the re-definition of DNA to fit his presumptions and to further his politcal career ? Watson was never so cozy politically.
It was announced singlehandedly, prior to any review, in a flashy news conference, complete with an unveiling of a large scale DNA model. They did take a lot of credit for work that several others had heavily contributed to. Of course this took place in England and funding was different then. But allegations about Gallo are not that he made up the data, rather than he presented other people's work as his own and took the credit for it. Anyway, as I said before, all this is mentioned in the Gallo article. Nrets 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, some people would question whether Kary Mullis really deserves sole credit for inventing PCR, but this has nothing to do with whether PCR works. The key point of Crewdson's argument is that the French researchers, rather than Gallo, deserve credit for discovering HIV. All of the experiments that Gallo conducted have been repeated numerous times and have reinforced the case for HIV as the cause of AIDS. As Nrets says, this kind of discussion belongs in the Gallo article, not here. Trezatium 19:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Some people" ? Like who ? Has there ever been any questions to who it was that made the discoveries Mullis made ? His employer at the time gave him his due credit, and the Nobel committee did as well. This is an example at what lengths orthodox apologists will go, and what low they will sink to, in order to support their failed hypothesis and the exposure of their fraud. The Gallo statements BELONG here, not your revisionisms; it directly pertains to what AIDS Reappraisal is based on. This article is supposed to be about AIDS Reappraisal, not YOUR interpretation and distillation of it, constantly followed by your orthodox dismissals placed as the finally word at the end of each subsection. THIS ARTICLE IS A FARCE AND YOU LACK INTEGRITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The link I provided to the Kary Mullis article supports my assertion that "some people" have questioned whether he deserves sole credit. Trezatium 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added another item to the list of "Challenges". Does this help?Trezatium 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Concorde Study

OK I'm back, and I've removed the new section about the "Concord" Study. For one thing, I don't entirely trust the opinion of someone who doesn't know how to spell the name correctly. In addition, this article cannot contain every detailed argument by either side of the debate; nor should it attempt to. Rather the article should stick to very concise summaries of the main arguments, with references and external links pointing to more information. Hundreds of articles have been written about Concorde, and it is far from the only study of AZT monotherapy (for example see here). If we start trying to include every relevant bit of information then this article will rapidly become massive and unwieldy. DissidenceIsConscience claims this article misrepresents dissident viewpoints. If that is the case then he/she should put things right. But in doing so he/she should stay within the word limit of the current article and not add lengthy new paragraphs. Trezatium 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Influence" section

I've written a draft for the first part of a section to be called "Influence of AIDS reappraisal" or something similar. I've put it on a subpage so people can make their own edits or comments. Please note this is only a first draft. I'm aware that this is a very sensitive topic, but I hope people will contribute constructively. What I've written already is quite long and I don't think it should be made much longer, unless I've omitted something really important (which is quite possible). One of the sentences contains some blanks that I plan to fill in as soon I locate the relevant reference (which I know exists). I can supply references for the rest of the content as well. If people think this section is a good idea then I'll have a go at writing the rest of it at some point, unless others get there first. Note that this "Influence" section is not intended to replace the "AIDS dissident community" section or the proposed "Mainstream response" section, which would probably come afterwards. Trezatium 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is the first time I've created a subpage so if I've made a mistake then please correct. Thanks. Trezatium 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added the details of the survey I mentioned. The researchers (Hutchinson, Begley, Clark, Boyett, Jardine and Kellerman) were all employees of the CDC, so their survey does have some credibility. As far as I know it's not available online, but I hope people will trust that I've reported it accurately. Trezatium 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Have now added a link to the abstract online. Trezatium 12:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged scientific misconduct

In light of the discussion above, I wouldn't object to the addition of a subsection called "Alleged scientific misconduct" or something similar, as part of the "Challenges" section, provided it is kept very brief and summarises both points of view. It does seem that some (though perhaps not all) dissidents believe such allegations comprise a significant part of the AIDS reappraisal argument. Trezatium 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of History section

I suggest that we work towards moving all of the material in the "Brief history" into an expanded "AIDS dissident community" section and the new "Impact" and "Responses" sections. The structure of the article would then (eventually) be:

  1. The AIDS dissident community
  2. Challenges
  3. Impact beyond the scientific community
  4. Responses from mainstream science
  5. See also
  6. References
  7. External links

Trezatium 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the "Responses" section may be superfluous, provided the most important documents are mentioned elsewhere. Trezatium 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


i added two videos to the see also section, but they where removed [2] with this comment:

Remvoing discuession forum and propaganda videos. Please keep it at around 8 links for each side)

I dont know about the 8 links per side rule... but the videos are relevant since they are a exelent representation of the AIDS reappraisal movement, one of them being hailed as their best work. I do not view it as a good faith action to label them as "propaganda videos", when they are videos about this subject, under the section of this subjects proponents. I will re-add them. --Striver 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another user again removed the videos [3], adding this comment:

Not the place to pimp poorly-made videos/another wiki without alot of content

The videos include long interviews with the most prominent proponents of this theoury, the quality is high, including computer special effects, and it raises most of the important questions of this movement. The motivation for removing the videos is clearly not correct. --Striver 22:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am persuaded by your arguements and will not remove them. --mboverload@ 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, a pleasure to co-edit with you.--Striver 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine: Out of Control

I do not think that the to is a good one, and definately is not one that fulfills the criteria of WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it more than fulfills the spirit of WP:RS (which is a guideline, not policy, in any case). Harper's is a highly respected journal. And the newest cite I put in also supports the article's contention (and there's more). I think the proliferation of [citation needed] over this article is just meant to discredit the views of the reappraisers by implying, bizarrely, that the views do not exist; they are easily googleable. IronDuke 04:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact tags are there because most of it is unsourced, and as far as I know, wikipedia has a policy that information should be verifiable, hence the need to reliable sources, especially in controversial article as this one. Just information added to an article does not fullfill the requirement of verifiability, which has resulted in the tag at the top of the page as well as the citation needed tags. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I count about forty references/footnotes. I haven't looked at the majority of them, but I'll be about as surprised as I can be if they don't support the article's contentions. Remember: this is not an article about whether, for example, HIV does or does not cause AIDS. It's an article about whether some scientists think it does or does not. Easily verified. IronDuke 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it will be not to hard. Would be nice if this article would become nicely sourced all over. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just being lazy, I admit that

But I couldn't be bothered to sift through the entire artical to find the answer to this quesion, when it was unclear I'd even find it there:

What is the explanation given by the dissidents, for the fact that most scientists beleive AIDS is caused by HIV? Financial interests? Hypnotised by aliens? Woscafrench 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, dissidents prefer a multi-factoral explanation. The list goes something like this:
  • Scientific fraud (Gallo and Popovic)
  • Unwillingness to admit a mistake (US government agencies)
  • Greed (AIDS researchers)
  • Gross incompetence (most of the world's physicians and epidemiologists)
  • "Epidemic hysteria" (people diagnosed with HIV)
Perhaps not - does anyone actually believe in what this article says?
I'm just waiting for everyone to snap out of this "trance state" so that ...since the epidemic is psychogenic, the prediction can be made that the group will decide when it should be over (when they have "had enough"), a decision which will be broadcast to the group members through the media, so that after a suitable lag period (based on the time needed for the T-helper lymphocytes to be restored to previous levels of functioning) the epidemic will resolve and the incidence will descend from epidemic to endemic levels... And to think all this research was un-nescesary. Nrets 00:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, YES, a lot of people DO "believe" in the epidemic hysteria hypothesis, as a lot of evidence supports it. 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Participation in a vast conspiracy (pretty much everyone, but especially pharmaceutical companies)
Have I missed anything? Trezatium 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add a section about this? Trezatium 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Subtle but important bias in article, and the likely susceptibility of more

I'm writing this because I think it is important and I don't see it anywhere else on the talk page. I believe that there is an inherent danger for this page to become a weapon for either side of the argument, in terms of public opinion. This is because a) people have grown to trust wikipedia, and although it might not affect a significant portion of the public, we shouldn't take for granted that many people will read it, b) emotions run high on both sides of the argument c) the debate is often very technical, and very dependent on not simply the existence of many sources, but also the quality and veracity of those sources, and the questions of quality and veracity are themselves complicated. In this situation, because it will take a huge effort to elaborate on point-counterpoint arguments, the article will be, for quite some time, if not indefinitely, a very short summary of these arguments, and even the smallest editing details will lead people to draw conclusions one way instead of another. For example, there is a danger that the article will appear to be in favor of whichever side is given the last word on any given subject, in lieu of the fact that the reply to that last word may exist and is simply not yet written down here. Solving these problems are difficult, and I'm not at all sure how to do it, which is why I think it should be discussed.

The "last word" bias already exists heavily - almost every section is arranged in such a way that the "dissadents" give a point of contention with mainstream theory, and then mainstream theory answers that point, followed by the next section. This makes it look simpler than it is, as though the answer to the dissadent's contention has been debunked. This is especially suspicious when a person like me, who knows little on this subject, knows of a further argument. For example, the article sites "numerous studies - conducted in Africa", besides the fact of this being a vast summary (almost necessary in an article this short), and having no citation, I know of articles that discuss the possibility of widespread corruption within organizations and companies that oversee such research, which include in some cases the elimination of control groups. While this is obviously open to debate, that debate should itself be alluded to somehow, and in all the relavent places, not necessarily just once.

The other bias that seems obvious to me at this point, is that the citations are very lacking in these rebuttals to dissadent arguments. This is understandable, as obviously someone has to do the work, and you are more likely to do the work for whatever side you agree with than the other side, but still, someone needs to do the work, otherwise the rebuttals appear as though they are simply thrown on the page by someone who just didn't want to stand by and let the dissadent's point of view go unanswered.

The point counter-point problem is difficult to solve, and seems inherent in many wikipedia articles, and, let's face it, any article on a debated subject. The most obvious long-term solution is to exhaustively include all notable points, counter-points, counter-counter-points, etc., but this is obviously very difficult, and is not a strategy for making the article unbiased in the short term. My best suggestion for a short-term solution would be to followup each section by a very neutral analysis of what the arguments rest on, so that the ball more clearly rests in the court of the readers and editors. For example, in the "AIDS treatment toxicity" section, we could write, "The weight of the argument regarding antiretroviral treatments lies in the strength of research performed on these treatments. The evaluation of this research bodes obvious consequences for pharmaceutical companies, governments investing time and effort in the research, the careers of those scientists who argue for or against those treatments, and the emotions of patients who have been positively or negatively affected by them. These consequences will just as obviously impact any given review of the research, and even the veracity of the information that such reviews are based upon."

I believe it is true that many "dissadent" or "out of the mainstream" views are merely conspiracy theories, but those cases usually involve dissadents who have very simple arguments that can be easily defeated, I don't believe that is the case here, and I don't believe this should be treated as such. It is quite obvious that pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets, deep motivations, and that there are governments and activists who, once swayed in a direction will exert massive powers over public opinion. I'm not trying to argue that the dissadents are correct, as I don't think I have the answer to that question, I'm trying to argue that there is some substantial reasoning behind their logic, even when they are arguing against many years of research. Essentially, that research needs to become the topic of this article.

Another note: The original AIDS article states HIV causing AIDS as fact, which I can understand is difficult to avoid...but perhaps more importantly, the reappraisal section is very small, and includes very little of the information found here, which this topic look like an aside, or, in other words, a conspiracy theory of little note.

Sorry, this is wordy and I'm adding even more here: It is also important, I think, to expand the history so that we can see why people are suspicious of mainstream thought in the first place. For example, Professor Duesberg was thoroughly castigated and virtually exiled from discussion of the subject when he first brought up these contentions, in some cases even refused the right to reply to arguments against him, which illustrates the emotional inertia that may make many people wary of arguments that involve "consensus of the majority". Cesoid 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The AIDS article states that that HIV causes AIDS precisely because that is a fact. This topic is a conspiracy theory of little note. So so far, so good. - Nunh-huh 03:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be on the "this isn't a conspiracy theory" side of a debate, because there are so many contentions worthy of the label "conspiracy theory", but given nothing more than the notability and relavence of the people listed in the The AIDS dissadent community (if it is in fact true), it would be extremely hard for me to dismiss this as such. Please offer more useful comments as to why this is a conspiracy theory if you think it is. To summarize my motivations here: I don't want wikipedia to marginalize the voice of a minority when that minority has arguments that are not easily written off. To me, the definition of consipiracy theory is just that, an argument against majority opinion that can be easily refuted. For example, while UFO sightings cannot easily be proven to not be aliens, it is usually quite easy to refute that there is significant evidence for such claims. Or, for another example, you can easily refute many anti-evolution claims by simply better explaining what evolution is. The arguments in this case aren't like that, they are not explained easily as misunderstandings, or as overstepping assertions, they are substantial, regardless of whether it proves true that HIV causes AIDS, among other statements contested. Cesoid 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Those advocating this particular conspiracy theory aren't generally clinicians, and are neither as numerous or notable as you seem to think they are. In fact, the minority has no arguments that merit serious consideration. I'm not sure on what basis you are characterizing them as substantial: they're not. If you think they are, you don't understand them. - Nunh-huh 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not say they were "numerous". They at least seem to be notable, because those listed are quoted as contributing substantially to AIDS treatments. Perhaps this is wrong, if so, maybe it would actually be useful to put that in the article. Also, how is a clinician in a particularly good position to debate this? Their work is based upon AIDS research. While I'm sure they know substantially more than, for example, me, they can only base their diagnosis on available testing procedures, and base their treatment on available treatment research.
What should be more obvious than any of these points, is how it is not helpful to discuss this with single-sentence token arguments, or worse, assertions that your opinion is correct merely because it is correct, or merely because I must not understand. If you think about it, those are the true earmarks of a conspiracy theorist.
Also, there are many assertions here, not just whether or not HIV causes AIDS flat out. You can also ask whether it causes AIDS alone, or whether, for example, AZT is a good treatment for it. These debates are all separable, and efforts to combine them hardly argue in favor of a coherent standpoint. Some of these points are argued by more than a small minority. For example, Mothering magazine, a very widely read publication, talks about pregnant women who refuse to use AZT because they believe it does more harm than good. There are studies suggesting that Vitamin A supplements work better than AZT. Again, maybe they're wrong, why not document their wrongness instead of just stating it as fact?
For what it's worth, I think that denial of the existence of HIV is a conspiracy theory. Cesoid 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
One problem is that you think "debate" is a useful tool to settle these questions. It is not. Data, experience, history, are. It is particularly unavailing to have debates with those who are unfamiliar with the data, experience, and history that demonstrate the falsehood of the denialists positions. The only solution for those who have fallen for their fallacious arguments is to familiarize themselves with the data, which demonstrate the efficacy of treatment and the soundness of the knowledge of causality on which that treatment is based. - Nunh-huh 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cesoid, since it seems like you are making comments in good faith here, I'll try and address some of your concerns. I think that you hit the nail right on the head when you say that many of these debates are in fact separable. Whether AZT alone is the best treatment for AIDS is in fact debated within the mainstream medical and scientific community, and that is why more research is needed to find more efficacious and less harmful treatments, but this can be said of any kind of medical treatment. Whether there has been some scientific misconduct by some AIDS researchers, fine, scientists a can be as prone to corruption as much as anybody else, but this doesn't meen ALL AIDS research is corrupt. The problem with the AIDS rappraisal movement is that they tend to take these arguments to basically mean that all AIDS research is wrong, that the whole hypothesis is invalid, that all scientists are frauds only seeking fame and fortune and power. Therefore, this article tries to take all of these arguments one by one and show evidence for and against in turn. If anything, this article disproportionatley represents the dissident argument, since the amount of evidence against each of the dissident positions is much larger than the evidence in favor, yet these are equally represented in the article. Nrets 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing with the thrust of your reply, we ought to clarify: There is, in fact, no one who contends today that AZT alone is an appropriate treatment for HIV infection or AIDS! It's not debated at all! AZT was, however, more than twenty years ago, the only treatment available. - Nunh-huh 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Many studies have found that AZT monotherapy is better than nothing for people in late stage disease. It would still be prescribed if no other drugs were available. However, combination therapy (which often includes AZT as one of three or more components) is much, much better still. AZT monotherapy is now almost never used except to help prevent pregnant women infecting their babies, though in most cases combination therapy is a better option. No one denies that, like many pharmaceutical drugs, antiretrovirals can cause nasty side effects. Trezatium 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's probably important to restate it: No one considers AZT monotherapy optimal therapy today. No one. - Nunh-huh 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of other articles on controversial theories that are widely regarded as pseudoscience, such as intelligent design, take the same argument-counter-argument approach as this one, with last say always given to the mainstream side. I think that the Challenges section currently works OK. A while ago the article did try to cover arguments from both sides in more detail, but most of that material was removed for being too lengthy. I don't think there's much point going back. The external links listed at the end of the article provide a very thorough account of all the detailed arguments. It would be better for this article to concentrate on history, context, personalities and so on, which after all is more in the nature of an encyclopedia. Trezatium 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lang Archive link

"I'm not commenting on if this should even be here or not."

"Even be here or not"??? What is this, damned if we do, damned if we don't??? If I don't include something like this, you'll accuse us of making accusations without evidence or citation, but when we DO include hard evidence, you remark that it's unclear "if this should even be here or not." Give me a ****ing break. 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of HIV tests

See Talk:HIV_test#Criticisms

(I've removed the copy of the HIV test discussion. Otherwise every contributor to it would have to keep copying their comments from one talk page to the other. Trezatium 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

after reading all the above discussion I have to commend you Trezatium, you have much more patience than I will ever have...

AZT skull and bones

These articles show tha AZT label with skull and bones

...and this is the symbol
of course, those who bother to read it will discover that that's not the drug label. - Nunh-huh 05:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong, sir. It is the standard symbol of chemical hazard, and just that same symbol (just the same) appears on the labels of AZT made for research, not for human use.Randroide 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, I am not wrong, it's not the drug label. And misrepresenting it as the drug label isn't going to persuade anyone. Many substances used as drugs are appropriately characterized as toxic, in the quantities used in a laboratory, which is the label pictured; but I suppose simply saying that wouldn't be as sensational as pretending that a skull and crossbones appears on medication bottles. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, you know as well as I do that the dosages for the laboratory quantities labelled with skull and crossbones are less than those given to patients. 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Um... laboratory quantities don't have dosages. "It has a skull and crossbones, it's a bad substance" is a specious argument. I'm surprised you'd want to make it. - Nunh-huh 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is ludicrous. Almost any drug will have a toxic label when supplied for research use. Even ibuprofen. This just shows that it is possible to overdose with these substances. In the US, substance is defined as toxic if its LD50 is less than 50 mg/kg [4]. The LD50 of AZT is 3084 mg/kg [5], which means that it is not even near the threshold for toxicity. The typical adult dose of AZT is 600 mg/day. Which would mean that this dose would be acutely toxic to an adult weighing about 0.5 lb. Or that an adult weighing 160 lbs would need to take 372 times the normal daily dose to suffer from acute toxicity. When talking about toxicity of AZT, the relevant measure is the long-term toxicity which causes the side effects, which is why AZT is rarely used anymore. But to go ahead and make a statemnt that the AZT drug label says it is toxic and has a skull and crossbones is misleading. Nrets 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not making any statement. That would be "original research". Peter Duesberg made that statement, and he is an AIDS reappraiser. If you want to source a published counterargument, go ahead. Your explanation about doses is not good enough, because that would be... "original research".Randroide 12:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Its not original research, this is just reading the drug labels properly. The clinical insert in AZT given to patients does not have the skull and crossbones. Nrets 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)