Talk:Peter Duesberg

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

Nazi Germany[edit]

I suggest that the reference to Duesberg having been "raised in Nazi Germany" be changed to "raised in Germany", since Duesberg was nine years old when Hitler killed himself and the Third Reich ended. Hence, most of his life as a youth occurred after the fall of Nazism. Moreover, the reference to "Nazi Germany" appears to suggest some connection between Duesberg's views and Nazism, which is a non-sequitor and comes across (as much of the article itself does) as a gratuitous slur. JonasDeBeer (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine to me with the context you left out, that the line begins by saying he grew up during World War II. Nothing in the article indicates he has any relationship with Nazism, and "Nazi Germany" is the standard name for Germany at that time. If there's a consensus to change it however, I'll do so or someone else can. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg is not denying AIDS[edit]

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

Stop it, an intelligent comment on wiki, and about Duesberg no less. Best one sentence summary of Duesberg I have ever seen. My minor contribution - Max Essex a renowned critic says something, don't forget boys and girls that Peter Duesberg ain't no slouch in the research world, his opinion on medical research is probably on a par with Max's. By the way any info on Max's qualifications that surpass Peter's - there must be some, how would a lesser light dare critique a master's work? (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Er... Max Essex actually does scientific research on HIV and AIDS. Peter Duesberg does not. So if you want to base things solely on "qualifications", then it's a TKO for Essex. MastCell Talk 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that's comment was intelligent, but the usual practise on Wikipedia is follow the terminology used by reliable sources, rather than making up our own. For whatever reason the term "AIDS denialist" seems to have stuck, despite being a little illogical. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Duesberg denies central aspects of the scientific understanding of AIDS, such as its causation by HIV. He also denies that AIDS exists as a disease entity in Africa. In those respects, "AIDS denialist" is a logical term. "HIV denialist" isn't really any better, because Duesberg (unlike other wings of the AIDS-denialist movement) does not deny the existence of HIV, only its pathogenicity. MastCell Talk 05:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes: the current definition of AIDS includes its causation by HIV. Duesberg denies this causation. Hence, he denies the existence of AIDS as currently defined by the medical community. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
few comments: Max Essex is may-be paid to do research on AIDS. Peter Duesberg is certainly not paid to do so. It does not mean that he does not do research on AIDS. The addition of "scientist", "scientific" to one work has littler justification except if one count that one is paid by interest to do so and not the other one. I don't think that the fact that Max Essex is paid to make his research makes him more or less a better voice on the subject. If it is the case most of the scientific discoveries of the 18th and 19th centuries could be dismissed on that ground since none were paid. I would remind also that few of them were persecuted for their contradiction to the "scientific community" of the time, accused of heresy and so forth... which by the way, this article is actually not far from...
Hence coming to the term of "denialist". It is a negative term that mark only the view of the author(s) and shouldn't be part of the Wikipedia. The term "medical community" as an entity to justify the opinion express in the article or the use some quote from individual like their are the only authority to the truth is again typical of intellectual censorship. So by using the word "dissident" (AIDS' dissident)is preferable since it does not state either right or wrong and clearly, put Mr. Duesberg in the camp of a minority on that particular subject -- if the author(s) of that article has the moral ground to be neutral ...
Thydenou (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of "dissident" has been described previously on this page as lending undue credibility to Duesberg's assertions regarding HIV and AIDS, and I agree with WLU's position on this. This point has been discussed over and over again, and the consensus remains in support of the current page title. -- Scray (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
your point is that people disagreeing with Duesberg and the movement called him and it a "AIDS denialist". They are your references. You are making a non neutral choice of references. Your argument is only logical if you take a side in the argument. Your answer to my comment is even worse: "undue credibility". Who has judge Mr., Dr. and Pr. Duesberg credibility? If would be the same as calling Hindu atheist because Christian called them atheist and making reference to Christian literature to prove your point. I will say it again and again, this article is not written with a neutral approach. Further proof of it, is that most of the article is spent showing how wrong Mr. Duesberg is but not one line has been written about the arguments behind Duesberg belief. It makes one wonder if the person(s) that has(ve) written the article have read any article, book written by Duesberg or simply, the articles written by the ones disagreeing to his side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thydenou (talkcontribs) 18:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The term, Denialist, is an instrument; it will lose power. You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.Bureaucracy (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Some here seem to have a marked interest in the Orwellian sounding AIDS-Denialist label being used repeatedly in conjunction with Duesberg on his page. Its intellectual sleazy (and lazy) as he does not deny the existence of AIDS. And I write this as someone who thinks the Duesberg-hypothesis is not only mistaken, but morally abhorrent. But this entry doesn't even strive for a neutral tone to make a case against Duesberg, instead relying on polarizing language to do the heavy lifting. Pity poor Wikipedia. Detmcphierson (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


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

I have to agree on both the length and the order. I understand what MastCell was trying to do (placate an irate editor), and I appreciate the chronology argument to an extent. However, although Duesberg did make contributions to science at one time, he's made the news and other reliable sources almost exclusively through his AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree the lead is too long. I guess I wasn't solely responding to an irate editor, though - I do think that it makes sense to first describe Duesberg's earlier work (which, after all, earned him his position and election to the Academy) and then move on chronologically to his claims about HIV/AIDS. That way, the article's narrative parallels the course of his career. MastCell Talk 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, but I also feel that the first sentence should establish him as the de facto founder of AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On AIDS[edit]

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

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

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

I'm with you on "claiming incorrectly" - that's a bit intrusive. On the other hand, the narrative voice is appropriate for certain viewpoints that are essentially universal. For instance, we say: "The earth is round" rather than "According to NASA, the Earth is round." MastCell Talk 04:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not up to us to make a judgement on whether he was right or wrong, it is up to us to report on who agrees or disagrees with his hypothesis (WP:ASF and importance to distinguish between "talk about talk" and "talk about the world") -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:ASF, there is no "serious dispute" among reliable sources (WP:MEDRS, in this case) that HIV causes AIDS and that Duesberg is incorrect. We should reflect the overwhelming consensus as such without qualification by attribution. Yobol (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
How do you prove that "This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence"? This obviously leads to the question "what evidence?". Much better to attribute it to an authority (see the arguments in the essay above and the Iraq example). Who claims he is incorrect? You say "We should reflect the overwhelming consensus" how do you know it is an overwhelming consensus? A much simpler solution is to find some papers from experts in the field who have refuted the work. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What evidence? Besides the 5 in-line citations that provide the evidence? Your "simpler" solution would place a requirement for attribution that our current policies (WP:ASF) do not require. Yobol (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
PBS has made similar arguments at Phillip E. Johnson, but my interpretation is that, on the matter of fringe theories, we do not give them more credibility than they receive in the reliable sources (e.g. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources). Since we can't well specifically attribute criticism of Duesberg to each of tens of thousands of scientists whose work has disproven his theories, and attributing to only two or three would convey a false impression of parity, I'm quite comfortable with "overwhelming consensus" or similar language. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are doing you own survey (which is OR) we need a summary article that says it is the consensus. There is no need to present it as parity we just have to find the correct sources and/or word it in such a way that it does not breach WP:NPOV and WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This is starting to sound like the Twilight Zone. Are you seriously asking us to provide a "summary article" stating that HIV causes AIDS? There are more than 10,000 published peer-reviewed articles in the medical literature which support this connection. If you feel that it requires a source, then could you please identify one yourself? I'm not sure what you're looking for, any more than I'd know where to start if you asked for a "summary article" proving that the Earth is round. MastCell Talk 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
They are easy to find with a google search on some thing like [ Aids HIV scientific consensus survey site:edu ] for example see Like a Virgin? Virginity Testing as HIV/AIDS Prevention: Human ... cites Michael Specter, the Denialists the Dangerous Attacks on the Consensus about HIV and AIDS, The New Yorker. March 12, 2007. In that article (found with a Google string search) you will find "In 1987, molecular biologist Peter Duesberg published a paper challenging the consensus that H.I.V. causes AIDS." Now that took me about 5 minutes. You should be able to find many more quite easily, so I do not see why this article has to contain OR and SYN, when there are plenty of sources available to do the job within the policy restraints we have. -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying we can't say "HIV causes AIDS" without attribution on Wikipedia? Yobol (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not say we can't say "HIV causes AIDS" that (It is easy to find an authoritative source to back up that statement and if necessary to attribute it to a source such as WHO), what I said what that if MastCell want to say in the article that it is the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS we need a source that supports "the scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS". I think this conversation is starting to drift can we please keep the conversation focused on the two sentences I have highlighted as a concern? -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

You didn't answer my questions. Can or cannot the phrase "AIDS is caused by HIV" stand without attribution? And is it really your contention that we can say "HIV causes AIDS" but not that "the scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS" using the same sources for both? And finally, I disagree that any date needs to be mentioned. There is no indication that Duesberg has changed his stance at any point on this matter, and dating it as if he has would violate NPOV. Yobol (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I did answer your question: "I did not say we can't say 'HIV causes AIDS' that (It is easy to find an authoritative source to back up that statement and if necessary to attribute it to a source such as WHO)". You write "And is it really your contention that we can say 'HIV causes AIDS' but not that 'the scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS' using the same sources for both?" It depends what the sources say, one has to be careful of OR. I did not suggest dating it, as if he had changed his mind, I suggested dating it. -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
While that is certainly an "answer", it completely missed the point of the question, which was to clarify your position of Wikipedia can say "HIV causes AIDS" without the need for attribution. Answering "if ncessary to attribute" completely avoids the intent of my question. I would appreciate a direct answer. Yobol (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It depends on the context and as we were not debating the inclusion of the phrase here lets keep focus on the issue that I raised:
  • The first sentence asserts in the passive narrative voice of the article that Duesberg's theory is wrong. He may well be ...
  • The second problematical sentence is "Duesberg asserts that AIDS in Africa is misdiagnosed and the epidemic a 'myth', claiming incorrectly" ...
  • There is another problem with the second sentence [it is not dated] --PBS (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
As your answer to my question goes to your interpretation of WP:ASF, and therefore how I would reply to your other concerns, I would like to focus back on my question. Under what circumstances would the phrase "HIV causes AIDS" require attribution? Yobol (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
When the issue of a specific usage comes up we can discuss if attribution is needed, but until it does, there is no need to discuss it. Let us stick to the content of the section and the specific poits I have raised. -- PBS (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you and MastCell that the phrasing "claimed incorrectly" is likely a violation of SYNTH, but do not see a problem with the other two points. Since you appear to be refusing to elucidate your interpretation of WP:ASF with concrete examples, which is at the heart of the concerns you raise and initially brought up by you in your original concern, I see no point in discussing this further with you. Cheers,Yobol (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Duesberg's theory is wrong, that's a fact. The scientific community is united in viewing HIV as the cause of AIDS. He is as wrong about AIDS as Ken Ham is about evolution. We don't have to attribute simple, universally agreed upon statements like HIV causes AIDS, and we are in fact out of keeping with WP:NPOV if we don't give the mainstream, universal opinion that HIV causes AIDS and Duesberg's opinions on HIV are wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If Duesberg's theory is wrong and it is "a fact" then it will be easy to find a reliable source that says that says it is. Currently the article says "[Duesberg] considers AIDS diseases as markers for drug use, e.g. use of poppers (alkyl nitrite) among some homosexuals, asserting a correlation between AIDS and recreational drug use.[26] This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence showing that only HIV infection, not homosexuality or recreational/pharmaceutical drug use, predicts who will develop AIDS." If it has been disproven (BTW I think the word should be "disproved") then please quote here on the talk page, from the several sources given, the one that says the correlation has not be found (which is what I think the second sentence is trying to say) or one that say he is wrong or one that says they have disproved his hypotheses. I always understood that the problem with denialism is that denialists put forward wacky theories and no one in the scientific community is willing to waste time disproving, which is what makes it difficult for us to put in a refutation into Wikipedia without breaking WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
See the NIH summary here (scroll down to "Responses to Arguments that HIV Does Not Cause Aids"). Basically, a number of studies have followed cohorts of gay men. Inevitably, those who are HIV-positive develop immunodeficiency and opportunistic infections. The men who are HIV-negative do not develop anything resembling AIDS, nor opportunistic infections, nor immunodeficiency. Rates of recreational drug use, nitrate use, anal intercourse, etc are comparable in the two groups. That's pretty strong evidence that a) HIV infection is responsible for AIDS, and b) recreational drug use etc are not responsible. MastCell Talk 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That article clearly indicates that cofactors play a major role, and notes that "Co-factors probably also determine why some smokers develop lung cancer while others do not." Are you trying to argue that recreational drug use is not immunosuppresive? That ridiculous article is dispelled by numerous reliable sources [1] "As these substances are known to interfere with antibody production and no immunodeficiencies were detected, drug-induced immunosuppression can be suspected as the most likely cause." [2] Stop attempting to propagandize and let's work together to make the article accurate and comprehensive, instead of seeking to advocate a particular point of view without regard to using quality sources, the best science and NPOV. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Drugs that are immunosuppressive do cause AIDS, by definition. Bwass (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change other editor's text on a talk page to break up the flow of discussion like you just did. Please also review our talk page guidelines and other relevant policies to note that this isn't a forum to discuss discredited denialist views such as the definition of AIDS. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Aahahahahaha no. HIV causes AIDS, that's the clear scientific consensus. Immunosuppresive drugs may cause "immune deficiency" that is acquired rather than congenital, but AIDS is caused by HIV attacking a specific immune cell that leads to an inability to fight of normally harmless infections. AIDS denlialism is the designated term for these pseudoscientists by the way, not "dissidents". Dissidents implies some form of realistic, meaningful disagreement with the data. Duesberg and his fellow denialists ignore the data in favour of their preferred version and interpretation. We've all played this game, and don't want to do it again, consensus is unlikely to change here and would doubtless be presaged by a massive explosion of publicity as newspapers announced HIV was no longer considered the cause of AIDS. Hasn't happened yet. Stop POV-pushing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with POV, it has something to do with AIDS official definition. If someone is talking about drugs like protease inhibitors, this is about a drug that is immunosuppressive. Immunosuppression and immunodeficience are obviously related. And about Duesberg, since he has considerable academic background in biochemistry, it is dishonnest to say that he doesn't contribute with "some form of realistic, meaningful disagreement with the data". Denialism is not the "designated" term for that, because it inherently violates NPOV principles. The word "dissident" is more neutral. Definition of the word "dissident": a person who opposes official policy or belief. The word "dissenter" could also be used, but it is less common. Since Wikipedia aims to be as neutral as possible, this is called for. Bwass (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There is wide consensus that "denialist" is the most appropriate term. Using "dissident" would vioate NPOV as it implies some measure of legitimacy in the scientific community for their views that is not there. Denial of HIV causing AIDS is very much a fringe view in the scientific and medical communities and deserves no support here. Yobol (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral doesn't mean "let any idiot with an absurd opinion appear credible". Read WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE a little more carefully. We represent views proportionate to their mainstream acceptance which has clearly labelled Duesberg a crank. HIV causes AIDS, antiretrovirals treats HIV infection and thus aids, Duesberg is an AIDS denialist, we're done. Duesberg's opinion doesn't matter. The Perth Group's opinion doesn't matter. AIDS has been conclusively proven to be the result of HIV infection and is successfully treated by reducing viral loads. Duesberg's opinions on cancer are considered interesting and respected. His opinions on AIDS are denigrated, mocked and considered dangerous - to the point that several people have suggested he infect himself with the allegedly harmless passenger virus. So no, he is not a "dissident". He's a denialist. Neutral means describing him as such, much as we don't describe Hitler as "a failed artist" and the Holocaust as "a political disagreement". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, it is acceptable to denigrate a person and use imprecise terms in the corresponding article in Wikipedia, as long as the unstatistically unprovable majority says so in official publications and mainstream newspapers. I take note of that. Thank you. Bwass (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would be denigration if an editor simply disagreed with his hypothesis. However, it's not the editors who have criticized the Duesberg hypothesis, it is the scientific community. And honestly, if you don't realize the Duesberg hypothesis is discredited pseudoscience, you shouldn't be editing the article. In the most reliable sources, it is incredibly obvious that Duesberg's opinions are not mainstream, and not science. He hasn't published anything on the subject in a serious journal in years, and his ideas are not cited, except to criticize them for promoting pseudoscience. So before you proclaim wikipedia biased and assume Duesberg is some persecuted genius (which he is - in cancer research), do the research.

But if you want to take this to a stupid place, yes - it is acceptable to "denigrate" a person if the scientific community considers their work worthless and this is published in reliable sources. Like The Lancet [7], [8], or Science [9], or Nature [10] - three of the most respected scientific publications in the world. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What this article needs is a presentation of Duesberg's alleged evidence and then the specific refutations, not just convenient labels like pseudoscience or dismissive declarations from those with a vested interest in the consensus paradigm. For instance, can the accepted hypothesis account for the relative infrequency that Kaposi's sarcoma is seen in African AIDS cases compared with the primary afflicted group (promiscuous homosexual males) in the U.S. during the 1980s? <Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus> Dedalus2020 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have some precise wording that can be used to improve the article with some medically reliable sources (look that up) to back it up? If so, please present it here and seek consensus. If not, then Wikipedia talk pages aren't a soapbox (look that up) for expressing personal dissatisfaction with what you call the "vested interests" (it appears you represent Duesberg's fringe (look that up) "vested interest"). If you can improve the article, then be my guest. We're always interested in improvements. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (1) Are you thereby excluding any citations from publications authored by "denialists" (dissidents) even if it is only to preface a consensus refutation? (2) Is it even permissible to include the titles of other published books authored by "denialists" (e.g., <Robert Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus>)? (3) Hypothetically speaking, if published data by medically reliable sources were to corroborate dissident contentions, would that automatically exclude that data from inclusion? Please enlighten. Dedalus2020 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. I have taken the liberty of numbering them to make it easier for me to answer and to avoid confusion. I hope you don't mind. I'll give my opinion, but others may understand our policies differently and/or better, so I'd suggest listening to them as well when they weigh in:
1. In principle "no", but they would have to be about Duesberg, not just about AIDS denialism, a position he advocates. The AIDS dissident position is dealt with in another article where such sources might be more appropriate. This article is about him and must remain on topic.
2. Only if they pertain directly to Duesberg, per my first answer.
3. "Hypothetically speaking", and factually, only if they deal with Duesberg, per my first answer.
I hope that answers those questions. To summarize: if it's about AIDS denialism, then that's the place to go. If it's about Duesberg, you're in the right place. This is not the right article to make a grand defense of AIDS denialism. That would be coatracking. Regardless of the case, mainstream sources that meet our WP:MEDRS guideline requirements will take the high seat and fringe sources will take the back seat. Under no circumstance will anything not corroborated by mainstream scientific consensus be stated as if it is true, but it can still be stated as Duesberg's (thoroughly debunked) opinion. Duesberg is an example of what happens to people who get a biography here, as pointed out in this essay to which I contributed a significant amount of detail: Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Clearly Wikipedia is not the site for a truly neutral treatment of this issue; for one thing, terms like "fringe science" and "denialism" are inherently pejorative. When <Robert Bakker's Dinosaur Heresies> vied with consensus charactizations of dinosaurs as dull-witted evolutionary failures, how was that not "denialism" of a sort? Now that most of his assessments have become part of the consensus paradigm, does the label "denialist" no longer apply? For an alternative view of the way scientific progress is achieved, see <Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions>. With these comments, no doubt I've violated some protocol. I'll let you figure out which ones... Dedalus2020 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. A "neutral" presentation of a subject (IOW without any contradiction) can only be made elsewhere, such as on private websites. Everywhere else one can find articles that cover subjects "neutrally" and without contradiction. They don't cover the whole subject, but present it from one POV, either in a favorable or a critical way. Here we are required to present all significant sides of the story using RS. That means an article will contain strongly worded content that is far from neutral.
The use of pejorative terms is allowed on talk pages, and also in articles when backed by RS. WP:NPOV doesn't mean an article is neutral, it means that editors refrain from adding their own input or slant to the content. Articles must be written from an editorially neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Editors are welcome to use slanted sources as long as they are RS. (Without using such sources we would have very little content!) As long as an idea is supported or deprecated by the mainstream of RS, articles will reveal that slant and the article may not seem neutral, but it's just doing what RS show, IOW that in the real world the subject isn't neutral. It doesn't give undue weight to fringe or minority POV. They are presented, but not as if they were majority POV.
Unlike alternative medicine, science does make progress as the evidence base improves. That means that articles here must follow along, but are never allowed to be "ahead of the curve". (Joke: Being on the "cutting edge" means one is on the wrong side of the knife.) Wikipedia's policies guarantee that it will always be behind the curve, because it is not allowed to include or promote original research. That research must be covered in independent RS first. If something that is currently fringe science becomes mainstream, then RS will show that change and it will be documented here. That also means the terms used in articles will change, and their presentation will also change. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am again disappointing of the articles and in particular, the comments to defend it. Pr. Duesberg may be wrong or right, this is not the role of this biography on Wikipedia to take position on it, I would think. However, the whole article -- and the comments purpose just do that. If there is a neutrality in this article, I failed to detect it. 21:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thydenou (talkcontribs)

Our policies require us to be neutral, i.e. to give due weight, to the majority position that Duesberg is a denialist against the fact that HIV causes AIDS. Please review our policies before responding. Yobol (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It is the sources that call Duesberg wrong, not Wikipedia. We follow the sources. It is generally only sources that do not qualify as RS that call him right. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly discussed, there is no consensus for any of these suggestions, and no sources either. The scientific community considers Duesberg to be wrong, that's what the page should suggestion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since you are making reference to it to protect the position of this article, can you please define and describe what is the "scientific community"? Than following it, can you please explain how you have dig up the preference and position of the "scientific community" on that subject? I would hope that you have for claim a bit more than the few article that you claim as a reference. Also, in the extract of John Cohen in the article, there are two interesting points. He writes that "few researchers find his basic contention..." and "Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments ... ". If you have "mainstream AIDS researcher does it mean that you have "dissident AIDS researcher"? And if you have "few researchers", it means that he is not alone in his belief. Thus, please can you have that survey on the "scientific community" or take a more neutral ground on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thydenou (talkcontribs) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The opinion of the scientific community is represented through the citation of reliable sources. There are no peer-reviewed journals that support Duesberg's opinions regarding AIDS. AIDS denialism is a denialist position, arguing against well-established science using spurious arguments and ignoring data that does not support their position. Dissidence requires engagement with the evidence and disagreeing it, not simply waving it away. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are not "neutral"[edit]

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

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

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

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

Swapping out sources so you can repeat the denialist label already noted in the first sentence is ridiculous. One scientist's opinion does not trump mainstream coverage in reliable sources many of which do not use the denialist slur. At the very least have the courtesy to leave the source that was already there instead of just replacing it with the opinion piece you happen to prefer. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous is cherry-picking a single popular source in the face of multiple reliable sources. Can you find anyone in the scientific mainstream who believes there is any merit to Duesberg's opinion on HIV/AIDS?
Calling a well-referenced book specifically on the topic of AIDS denialism an "opinion piece" is a curious opinion, and thinking it is less reliable than an interview in Discover is more curious.
Again - there is no support for the "Deusberg hypothesis" in serious scientific circles? I'm sure you can find webpages and articles in Medical Hypotheses, but how about an actual peer-reviewed article? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
First of all, the article you're referring to is clearly NOT an interview. Secondly, yes there are many scientists who agree with parts of Duesberg's arguments including other contrarian dissidents. And finally, one author's opinion should be attributed, while coverage in reliable secondary sources can be used to establish mainstream views. NPOV indicates we respect multiple perspectives, not just those you agree with and that may be in the mainstream. It's quite clear fromt eh article his views are out of favor and widely discredited within the scientific community. Let's not belabor the point. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
We're losing our last, tenuous connection to reality here. There are not "many scientists" who agree with Duesberg on HIV/AIDS (citation please?) Every scientist of any notability who does actual research on HIV/AIDS is clear that they are related, in contradiction to Duesberg's claims. If there are exceptions, then please name them. MastCell Talk 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh my God. Frakshownerd, you are completely wrong. Deusberg is not a dissident, one who disagrees with the scientific community with valid scientific reasoning - he's just wrong. There are whole papers written on just how wrong he is. Duesberg is not a valid AIDS scientist, and you need to provide sources to demonstrate that anyone thinks he is. His position is not one viable one among many within the HIV research community. He's just wrong. NPOV doesn't mean we portray all points as valid. You're just wrong here, and verging on AIDS denialism POV-pushing yourself by insisting on it. If you don't have sources to substantiate your point, then just stop posting. There is a limit to the amount of discussion we can have, and by insisting that Duesberg's points are considered valid in the scientific community, you've just hit one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are numerous sources calling him a dissident [11]. My view is that it's clear HIV causes AIDS, but that's irrelevant. We write articles based on coverage in reliable independent sources, not in an effort to advance our personal opinions. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a saying about things that quack. At some point (e.g., when you insist Duesberg was "right" about AZT, whatever that means; that he is a "dissenter"; that many scientists agree with him; and when you cruise Wikipedia articles, removing reliably sourced information that portrays denialists for what they are), it doesn't really matter what you say. You're advancing a POV, and in a stridently rude fashion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:QUACK you mean? Though I won't comment on the politeness of anyone's conduct, I will say that FSN is showing strong indications of attempting to POV-push the page towards a direction more friendly to AIDS denialism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please focus on the article text and sources rather than trying to engage in personal attacks. My understanding is that the toxicity of AZT is rather well understood now. Am I wrong on that? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

AZT is indeed toxic, at certain doses - like all drugs (in fact, like anything that's not based on pseudomagical thinking such as homeopathy and acupuncture). However, the scientific consensus is that it's toxicity is well-tolerated when used to treat HIV infection. Your question is a red herring - no-one disputes that drugs can be dangerous, which is why a benefit to risk ratio is established. AZT might be toxic, but in combination with other AIDS drugs it is extremely effective at reducing the lethality of HIV infection. If your point of view is that because AZT is toxic it therefore can't be used to treat AIDS, you are very much in AIDS denialist territory. See [12]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

At what doses is AZT not toxic? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Who the fuck cares? This page is about Peter Duesberg, not AZT. Further, it is the consensus opinion that AZT is a near-miraculous treatment for AIDS. That opinion counts, not yours, not Duesberg's. I'm not going to debate someone who is rapidly becoming a clear AIDS denialist. I'm going to trust the NIAID over you, or Duesberg, thanks. [13]. And maybe New Scientist too. Oh, and PLoS. And the NAS, in 1988. Seriously, these myths have been debunked repeatedly. It's pseudoscience because they've been debunked...yet somehow not abandoned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, WP:NOTFORUM. Please stop with the proselytizing about AIDS denialism. This isn't the place for it. Yobol (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but WLU has passionately argued that all of Duesberg's AIDS work has been dismissed, but clearly that's not the case. His arguments on the toxicity of some of the treatments (AZT for example) and his focus on cofactors are still actively being investigated and discussed. If you don't want to be exposed to reality, then don't ask about it. My edits are based on reliable sources and not the heavy POV pushing that some of you are engaging in. Clearly Duesberg is a dissident on the HIV-AIDS connection and that's made absolutely clear in the article. What we don't need are misrepresentations, BLP violations, or slanted descriptions based only on hit pieces. He's done a lot of work and it sure seems that he's very wrong on one key aspect of it. So are lots of other people. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you are trying to turn this into a discussion about how "right" Duesberg is. The dose of toxicity of AZT is irrelevant to improving this article. It is becoming clearer now that you are here only to push your POV. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Your opinions are noted... And returning to reliable coverage in secondary sources: here are numerous sources calling him a dissident [14]. My view is that it's clear HIV causes AIDS, but that's irrelevant. We write articles based on coverage in reliable independent sources, not in an effort to advance our personal opinions. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want my opinion noted. google hits aren't really considered useful. I get nearly 2,000 results for "Peter Duesberg asshole" but I wouldn't advocate for the page to refer to him as an asshole. You need reliable sources, not google searches. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Nature article[edit]

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

Removal of Seth Kalichman from lead[edit]

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

Semmelweis Awards[edit]

I believe he was/is one of the foremost retrovirus researchers. When he found that retroviruses were a deadend in cancer research he was the first to annouce that he had been following a deadend - he probably could have sucked a lot more money out of this but choose to publish his true findings. He, and probably lots of other scientists, forfeited lucrative careers. Thus the Semmelweis Award was earned long before HIV/AIDS came along. Mentionig that a major award - for honesty in research - has been given should be mentionable, since he probably is due two. (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How about adding that information to Kalichman's article? I have wikilinked the heading. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP is referring to Duesberg as the retrovirus researcher who won the award, so have created a new section. Hardly a "major" award though, googling it shows much of the coverage of this "award" is due to it being awarded to Duesberg and Celia Farber for their AIDS denialist work; in effect, the award is notable because of Duesberg (and other denialist associations), not the other way around - and therefore does not belong in the article. `Yobol (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
So it's sort of like the Darwin Award or Ig Nobel Prize, except it's from promoters of fringe science to other like-minded persons? Why don't we have an article on this subject? Semmelweis Awards We could then create a category of recipients. It would be like posting a bullseye on them saying "I'm a crank"....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear, this "society" awarded Duesberg and Farber to praise them for their work with AIDS denialism. See some AIDS related posts on their website. They're an AIDS denialist group, or at least a strong supporter of the movement. Yobol (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I understood you. It was my response that wasn't clear! My bad. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the folks here should make the effort to search and send at least 10 minutes reading, so at least we might know what the Semmelweis organization is about. Duesberg and Farber were not given the award because of their "denialist" work - it was because they resisted an attempt to prevent freedom of research. Science research on profitable money-maker is cutrrently discouraged in universities, government, private corpoartiona and wikipedia - Semmelweis is not in favor of this - a lone voice in the financial universe of medicine. (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please at least read some even if you have been told it is "unreliable" - much of their work is protecting whistleblowers in hospitals and labs.... I missed the Yobel comment about the award being for their work in "denialism". Not quite - far too sensitive and quick on the trigger. The award was centered around the investigation of Duesberg for having the chutzpah to publish a paper. The issue is censurship of research not what the research is. If you bother to read the article - linked - you will quickly see that the investigation was a sham and the college had to back down from their own sham investigation - a Semmelweis core belief. (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If Duesberg tried to hinder, block, stop research into AIDS/HIV, Semmelweis would try to slap him upside of the head. Their denialist credentials are slim - they just don't like the tactics that AIDS supporters think are cute when they use them - ie they are grownups. (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Duesberg and Farber were not given the award because of their "denialist" work...". Uh huh - right. /sarcasm Any further attempts to troll this board with off topic material - including continued promotion of a non-notable award from an AIDS denialist supporting organization - will be removed per WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM or met with WP:SHUN. Enough is enough. Yobol (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OMG!!! Yobol, that link is really dangerous reading. Thanks for sharing it. The Semmelweis Awards people reveal an appalling lack of scientific and medical understanding about this matter and actually make statements that would encourage and promote actions that would continue to endanger millions of lives, much akin to the damage already done by South African president Thabo Mbeki, which has cost huge numbers of lives. The Semmelweis Awards really do deserve an article here where they can be described and their nonsense documented. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Dangerous reading?" Who elected you part of the commissariat for intellectual hygiene. I think your comment may be one of the dumbest things I've ever read and I'm sure you think yourself quite sharp. (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There is, of course, a complex backstory behind the Semmelweiss Society's award to Duesberg and Farber, but the internal political machinations of the AIDS-denialist community and a marginally notable Society are probably not germane to people interested in constructing a serious, respectable encyclopedic reference work. If anyone is interested, more information can be found at (search the site for "Semmelweis"), but I would not advocate adding any of this to Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Even isn't a RS for our purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed as well. I think an article on the foundation might be something for someone to do though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there already was an article on the Semmelweis Society, created almost three years ago. At least initially, the society doesn't seem to have had much connection to the AIDS dissident/denialist movement. The current list of topics on their website/blog does lean a little heavy on the topic of AIDS, but they discuss non-mainstream (and allegedly suppressed) theories on Multiple Sclerosis as well, among other things. The society itself was apparently founded by a group of disgruntled doctors who felt they had been wronged by "sham peer review" for a variety of different reasons, none (that I can find) connected to AIDS or AIDS denialism. So I don't think the society or award are notable solely for their connection to Duesberg, and likely do deserve a mention in this article. --Lewis (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the tag cloud on their "Issues" page, their #1 "issue" is AIDS. Very odd for a society supposedly formed to protest certain medical peer review, don't you think? They are clearly an AIDS denialist supporting group, and that they support other denialist certainly wouldn't seem notable to mention here. Yobol (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
See MastCell's comment above. My recollection is that this is a very minor group that originally had whistleblowing and sham peer review as their focus. It underwent a split several years ago over the issue of AIDS denialism after one of the members brought a full-time AIDS denialist activist into the society. A takeover ensued, followed by a mass exodus of original members, legal unpleasantries and general good times all round for the small number of people involved. If the "society" still exists, then probably as an alternative letterhead for the aforementioned denialist activist. Way too minor for inclusion here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon! I've tried to do a little more research based on your recollections, and while they do still seem to exist (or at least did recently enough to give another — non-AIDS-related — 2010 "clean hands" award) their heyday does seem to have been during the period of time when they made the award to Duesberg, and it's not entirely clear that they're still active. They have a number of different websites, some older than others and quite clearly abandoned, and while their most current one (the blog linked above) does seem to be at least somewhat active, it too is showing signs of age (e.g. a 2009 copyright notice in the footer) and their "annual report" consists of a scanned copy of the $40 invoice for their organizational registration with the state. It's interesting that the Semmelweis Society article predates the award to Duesberg, since I agree that the group probably wasn't notable enough to warrant the article. I'm still not convinced that mention of the award should be excluded from this article, though. That seems too much like letting personal opinion get in the way. An award is an award, and the organization giving the award is certainly notable enough now, if even in virtue of the connection to Duesberg. I appreciate the concern regarding undue weight, however.. so I'd like to do a bit more research to see if we can find reliable sources indicating the way the organization is perceived by mainstream groups. I don't think there'd be any issues with undue weight if we added something like "In 2010, Duesberg was a co-recipient of the 'Clean hands' award from the Semmelweis Society, an organization considered to be an AIDS-denialist front by X, Y, and Z." We just need to find X, Y, and Z. --Lewis (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This page goes into a lot of the details I think you were recalling, Keepcalmandcarryon. I'm still just reading through it now, but thought I'd share. --Lewis (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Here are even more details. It's odd that the article there didn't show up when I searched the AidsTruth website. I'll try Google instead, since their site search seems to be somewhat lacking. --Lewis (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing any addition to the article is going to require original research using some very low-quality sources like "californiaconservative". I don't think that one article on AIDSTruth, even though that's a bit more reliable, is sufficient to establish notability of this award. Sorry; I'm going to oppose this one unless we have a high-quality source like a major newspaper. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I was all set to disagree with you about the notability of the award (my point above was only about how it should be included in this article; I had been taking it as a given that the award was notable enough, even if primarily in virtue of the controversy surrounding its being given to Duesberg) but looking over the web sources in more detail, it does indeed look like every single mention of the award is either on some version of another of the Semmelweis Society's own websites, an AIDS denialist/dissident website, or AIDSTruth. So now I'm not even sure the society is notable enough to warrant its own article in the first place, let alone a mention in this one. I'm going to propose that Semmelweis Society be deleted, since that should either resolve the issue (by declaring that the society is not notable) or prompt a discussion (and possible more research) from uninvolved parties to establish the notability of the society and/or award. --Lewis (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I've started Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Semmelweis_Society to deal with this matter in a broader context. --Lewis (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable. I've made a brief comment there. Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the Semmelweis Society itself was deemed to be not notable enough for an article, I think that probably settles the question of whether the award should be mentioned in this article. Thank you for going through this process with me, Keepcalmandcarryon (and others), and for keeping an open mind even while holding firm to your position. I'm satisfied that we gave the award (and society) a fair hearing, and if anybody pushes the issue in the future please don't hesitate to contact me to weigh in. I probably won't be keeping an eye on this article or talk page, as this subject isn't among my normal areas of interest. --Lewis (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you, too, Lewis. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We have solved the problem by deleting an article. Gee whiz. (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Proven as Wrong[edit]

The scientific consensus is that HIV is the causal pathogen that leads to AIDS;[6] Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect and disproven by the scientific community.[1][7][8]

It states that the scientific community has "disproven" the Duesberg theory, but this would entail proving that HIV causes AIDS, which has not happened. I suggest we change the wording to: "Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect by the scientific community." Because the fact is, his theory hasn't been disproven.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

HIV causes AIDS. There is no significant dissent in the medical community on this fact. This is POV pushing at its worst. Yobol (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There most certainly is significant dissent, quit pushing your ideals on me and whining POV simply because you don't agree. The HIV/AIDS theory has not been proven and there are scientists that disagree with it. I'm sorry but you are wrong.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Failure of South Africa[edit]

In the lead it states : "The failure of South Africa to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner, due in part to the influence of AIDS denialism, is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections." It isn't the government's responsibility to provide drugs and medical treatment at all, much less in a timely manner. I think to say the government failed is a gross overstatement. I suggest changing the wording, perhaps saying that the government might have prevented the deaths, but as it stands, the article implies that the government is responsible for the deaths. I think this is in violation of WP:NPOV and should be changed.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first internal citation for this statement (13) seems to be broken.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem accessing either doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5 or doi:10.1093/afraf/adm087. From Chigwedere et al:

More than 330,000 lives or approximately 2.2 million person-years were lost because a feasible and timely ARV treatment program was not implemented in South Africa...We contend that the South African government acted as a major obstacle in the provision of medication to patients with AIDS...Access to appropriate public health practice is often determined by a small number of political leaders. In the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of a failure to accept the use of available ARVs to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner.

From Nattrass:

if MTCTP and HAART had been rolled out nationally at the same rate as in the Western Cape...the only province which, for most of the post-apartheid period had been controlled by the opposition, and had, in defiance of national policy, started a pilot HAART project with médecins sans frontiéres in 2000....then an additional 343,000 AIDS deaths would have been averted.

The reliable sources support the use of "failure" to refer to government actions. — Scientizzle 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The source says that 330,00 lives were lost from 1999-2007, that is not 2.2 million a year. Also, the government didn't fail to do anything, it is not it's responsibility to provide medical care to everyone.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Jacksoncw, I think it would be helpful to look at the sources, because they make clear why this was considered a failure at the governmental level. I suppose one could argue, from the American conservative perspective, that a government has no responsibility to provide healthcare to its citizens (although in South Africa, much of the country's medical care is government-provided). But the Mbeki administration went much further - they actually refused to distribute or restricted the distribution of freely provided nevirapine, and obstructed the country's receipt of Global Fund grants intended to pay for antiretroviral therapy.

The Mbeki government also put pronounced political pressure on the country's nominally independent medical bodies, including the Medicines Control Council and Medical Research Council, when these organizations produced scientific opinions favoring antiretroviral treatment. So it goes well beyond simple apathy or neglect to an active governmental effort to block access to HIV therapy, informed largely by AIDS-denialist claims. This is all in the cited sources, incidentally, and it's why they characterize the issue as a governmental failure. MastCell Talk 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A person-year is not the same as per year.
It's merely your opinion, Jacksoncw, that the South African government has no "responsibility to provide medical care to everyone"...why should that dictate the content of this article? — Scientizzle 18:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mastcell That must have been in the link that I can't get to, @Scientizzle the South African government is a Republic and not a Socialist regime, therefore they are not required to provide universal healthcare, read Common Sense by Thomas Paine.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Er... the provision of universal healthcare is hardly limited to "Socialist regimes", except perhaps in the rhetoric of the American right. But maybe we should chill out on the political theory, since this isn't really the place. MastCell Talk 20:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Chapter 2, Section 27 of the South African constitution actually says that the state must provide health care, so umm, yeah.... And we go with sources, not opinions around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

All we know that the anti-HIV drugs create even more deaths and no one was ever cured. So my estimates are that if not Peter, all those 2,2 mln will be dead by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

is AIDS deadly or curable????[edit]

'The failure of South Africa to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner, due in part to the influence of AIDS denialism, is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections.' can you claim such bullshit? I can claim the opposite with the same precision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your answer can be found immediately after that sentence in the article, flanked by square brackets. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Insulin injections don't cure diabetes. But if we stopped providing insulin to diabetics, there would be many thousands of preventable deaths. Does that help you understand the issue? MastCell Talk 15:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay mastcell nice logical fallacy. Your sophism is noted. But you clearly dont understand the issue or your ignorance. there is a prominent difference between diabetes and aids. With the proper insulin diabetics can easily live out the rest of their lives to average life expectancy. Full blown Aids is a death sentence no matter what prescription is taken. The purpose of such medication is to extend their lives until their immune system withers away. Their lives are rarely pleasant and could be described as attenuating once the medications start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's try for a fact-based discussion. Your first factual assertion is that diabetics can "easily live out their lives to average life expectancy." Sadly, you're wrong; adults with diabetes have a life expectancy 7 to 8 years shorter than that of non-diabetic adults (see PMID 17563022). In the era of modern antiretroviral therapy, the risk of death for HIV+ people is greater than that of the general population, but not dramatically so (e.g. PMID 18594040). Thus, both diabetes and HIV/AIDS are chronic, manageable diseases, which can be rapidly fatal without modern medical therapy and have a smaller but demonstrable impact on life expectancy if adequately treated. Neither is a "death sentence" in any sense except that in which any chronic health condition is a "death sentence".

You move on to vague assertions about the poor quality of life of people receiving antiretroviral treatment. I suspect you've had far more exposure to AIDS-denialist "information" than you have to actual people living with HIV/AIDS. In any case, quality of life varies greatly (for example, an HIV+ homeless intravenous drug user co-infected with hepatitis C is likely to have a very different QoL than an HIV+ business executive infected through unprotected sex). I don't get the sense you're interested in a serious discussion, but if you are, we can go from there. MastCell Talk 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Role in cancer research[edit]

Duesberg made important contributions to cancer research, but to say he was the first to isolate an oncogene is slightly strong, especially with a recent Newsweek article on Duesberg as the only reference. Duesberg did not originate the idea of the oncogene or of the cancer-causing virus, and he was not the only author on the papers from the early 1970s in which the RSV-cancer relationship was explored. SpectraValor (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally biased!!![edit]

I have never read such a biased article on Wikipedia. This article is more hit-peice and quite a bit less information. Why isn't there one of those disclaimers at the top that says "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? Honestly....

Well, it is my theory that this site is run (overtly or by means of PR companies or other means) by professionals who assure quality control, and serve up a great deal of useful information in order to run hit peices like this on figures they want to attack.

It makes me feel guilty for coming to this site so often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for your crackpot conspiratorial nonsense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
But that's exactly what one of the Illuminati would say, once someone starts seeing the fnords... :P MastCell Talk 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article is an outrage. Dr Peter Duesberg is not a mass murderer who killed millions of Africans and other AIDS patients. He is not an AIDS denialist. He denies HIV virus is the sole cause of the disease. Unlike other scientists he is not a dogmatist in believing that hiv virus theory has been proven. He does not take money from the drug companies to say hiv virus is the cause of AIDS. I have worked with AIDS patients most of whom were impoverished intravenous drug abusers. The whole hiv causes AIDS bull is at best a dubious theory and at worst a conspiracy to earn profits for the health care industry and drug comapnies. The hiv test is a fraud since it only is evidence that you have antibodies to the virus. Not that you are "infected". Wikipedia hates anyone in alternative medici who disagrees with the absolutism of orthodox medicine.→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonErber (talkcontribs) 13:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We go by sources, and, again, see my comment above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I really think this article ought to have a tag "the neutrality of this article is disputed" like there are on other wikipedia articles. This article also ought to present both sides of the issue and then that tag can be taken away. It is very one sided. Sorry you are so dogmatic.JonErber (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific concern this will go nowhere. Also, please read WP:NPOV. We don't do fair and balanced, we don't present both sides, we present what sources say. Sources are clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My concerns are specific. My concerns are your characterization of Peter Duesberg, if you wrote this, as some sort of scoundrel responsible for the deaths of many Africans and others. I am sure there are people who agree with Duesberg. The characterization of him as an AIDS denialist when numerous people have made it clear that he does not deny AIDS, he denies hiv virus is the cause of AIDS. By the way a few years ago on Hillary Clinton's wikipedia page she was described as "polarizing". I complained about it and the person who wrote those words argued with me on the talk page. Then his superior at wikipedia reversed the decision of the person who wrote those words. The words "polarizing" were taken off her page. I am going to see if can go "over your head". You're very close minded. There are a lot of sources that agree with Duesberg and I could provide them.JonErber (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck going 'over my head' whatever that means. He has been described in reliable sources as an AIDS denialist. The material is all well sourced. If you bring sources that 'agree with Duseberg' please be sure they are not fringe pseudoscience conspiracy nonsense. We all wrote this, not just me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain to me why some wikipedia articles have the heading "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? If you say that is because both sides of the dispute are considered legitimate and anyone who disputes that hiv virus causes AIDS is automatically a conspiracy "pseudoscience" nut job then I have to say my opinion of wikipedia has really gone down. Your characterizations of people who question hiv virus being the cause of AIDS is an ad hominem attack. People once thought the world was flat and anyone who disagreed was viewed as outside of the mainstream. I think this talk page is a lot more objective and has both sides of the story than the article page. I think also you expose yourself to any fairminded person as someone who does not understand that science is not based on absolutism. It is hard to believe someone like you is writing about this topic or people you say are :"we all".JonErber (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Go read WP:NPOV. I need not 'understand the science' (though I do). I go by sources and you have to as well. It is not an ad hominem attack to call a crackpot a crackpot. Oh, how is your going over my head to my superiors at wikipedia going? If you do go to some noticeboard please inform me. (I welcome it). Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So you would actually write on the article page Duesberg is a crackpot? What do you mean "oh how is your going over my head.."? This talk board is not some message board where things get down and dirty. You shouldn't be permitted to write for wikipedia. I would flag and report your comments now if I knew the procedure. I think you're being permitted to write for these pages reflects discredit in wikipedia. JonErber (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

JonErber, discussions like this have played out countless times before on these pages. Seriously, please take the time to examine WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and the FAQ at the top of Talk:HIV. You might also be interested in Myth of the Flat Earth. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 09:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for those links. I actually do not think that hiv has nothing to do with AIDS. I actually think it might very well be a necessary but not sufficient cause of AIDS. But to say hiv causes AIDS and leave it at that is an oversimplification. Genetic factors I would think make some people more likely to get sick. As well as the drug use, amyl nitrate used in the gay community, as Duesberg has talked about. Also I cannot understand the use of the word "infected with the virus". I have read "reliable sources" which pointed out the test shows the presence of antibodies in the blood, not the virus itself. I can understand wikipedia not wanting to post things here than might spread the disease. But there has been a great deal of hysteria also. I might read some wikipedia pages dealing with AIDS but not necessarily Duesberg.JonErber (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What you think (your acknowledgement of a potential 'conspiracy' and that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS are, BTW fringe views at best) and what I think does not matter. What matters is what sources say. We are not here to discuss our views, be they the ones accepted by science or conspiracy theories. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously your arrogance, your haughtiness, your pretense to speak for wikipedia is innapropriate for any site that claims to be scientific. Wikipedia is not run by your decree. I am going to see what I can do about your conduct and your insults which have no place on any credible site. If nothing is done then I will conclude unfortunately that a site, wikipedia, I once thought of as being outstanding is actually gone to the gutter. This will be my last reply to you, or the last time I inform you of anything.JonErber (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source literally called him a crackpot yes, then the article should. I was using the term figuratively. This talk page is for improving the article, not the posting of conspiratorial ramblings. If you want to report my actions feel free, it is done at WP:ANI. Feel free. Remember to let me know when you have on my talk page. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In case it's not obvious, the article and Dbrodbeck do a good job of representing mainstream views in reliable sources on this topic (and addressing the article is, after all, the reason this WP:Talk page is here). It is very clear that HIV causes AIDS, and continuing to deny that fact (as Duesberg did) in a pseudoscientific way is a fringe position. -- Scray (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So it has been proven absolutely that hiv always causes AIDS, unless treated with medications, nothing else causes AIDS, there is no other factor? I did not realize wikipedia always allowed only "mainstream" views. I suppose then Noam Chomsky should be considered a "crackpot" too for his views about political science(not linguistics). I'll take a look at his page.JonErber (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, for the umpteenth time, read WP:NPOV. We don't do fair and balanced, we simply do what sources say. HIV causing AIDS is about as much in question as evolution by natural selection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel you have violated wikipedia civility rules. I made a post on the help page but nowhere else. The people who responded though just addressed the issue of my dispute about the way the article is written and advised me to read up on wikipedia policy on the use of reliable sources. I'm not going to put in a complaint at this point but I feel you need to show more courtesy on this page and not make snide remarks. I'll let you know if I put in a complaint.JonErber (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You may feel that all you like. I see no violation, though of course I am biased. If you want to report me somewhere feel free, but remember to notify me. Oh, for others interested, JonErber has been told pretty much what we here have told him . Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Check out what Duesberg thinks/suspects would "cure" AIDS in Africa ( ie more food, better sanitation, better housing, work regulations..... ). These measures would eliminate most of the symptoms of AIDS ( TB,etc). If TB is cured by better living conditions maybe before 1913 ( when TB was the top killer in the US) most Americans died of AIDS. I can't believe this supid article is still up. (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion to improve the article? Remember this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


Duesberg received acclaim early in his career for research on oncogenes and cancer.

None of the listed cites really seem to back the assertion of "acclaim". Perhaps the word "notice" might be more appropriate? Originalname37 (Talk?) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that his early work was acclaimed; after all, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences on the strength of his early work with oncogenes, which is quite an honor. MastCell Talk 19:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an overheated op-ed[edit]

I came to this entry for some neutral biographical information on a polarizing scientific figure of whose AIDS-drug use hypothesis I find without merit and even morally questionable. But I wanted facts, not reaffirmation of preconceived biases and ham-fisted sterotypes. Instead, I was greeted with an entry punctuated with incendiary language more fitting for an op-ed; moreover the highly judgmental language advances nothing that can't be conveyed in a more neutral tone. While keeping in strict accordance with the meaning extant, I've taken the liberty of toning down some of the more dubious phrasings, which seem to serve no purpose that I can surmise (save perhaps to make Duesberg a martyr?) Other than that I really hope a knowledgeable party could add pure information about the man's career and positions, which unfortunately is sorely lacking. Detmcphierson (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Peter Duesberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thesis link[edit]

Should the thesis be linked from the infobox?

I thought that external links from the article body (which I assume includes the infobox) are not allowed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


The paragraph/part about his actual work is so small and talks so much about so called "aids denialism" and references it multiple times, instead of actually referring to his work, that this reads as more of a "hit piece" than serious information. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is, after all, what he is most noted for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

is it? So does that make it more encyclopedic? What? Is this rumour mill now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Duesberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)