Talk:Hilary Koprowski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Please remember to sign your name with four consecutive tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will also put a timestamp on your message. |
[edit] Aids Accusations
A contributor from IP address 68.48.52.100 has continually replaced factual information from peer reviewed journals with unverified nonpeer reviewed information from sites such as www.aidorigin.com. If the contributor can cite peer reviewed sources, and not remove information from other peer reviewed sources then the contributor can put some information on the page. Otherwise, I will keep reverting it.
Dear Pjk645:
Can you elaborate on why you think it is _required_, on Wikipedia, to cite "peer-reviewed" sources? Perhaps it would help if you distinguished between "required" and "you think it is desirable".
There is significant factual information in the edits I have provided. Furthermore, my edits are significantly more balanced than the egregiously one-sided monologue that previously existed.
The book "The River", by Ed Hooper, provides a bibliography on pgs. 859-1033 with copious footnote references. There is also significant documentary information in the film "The Origin of AIDS", that makes it unlikely that Mr. Koprowski's version of the truth would survive critical analysis.
Dear anonymous editor 68.48.52.100: Regardless if "required" or "desirable", you could at least explain why you removed the previously existing citations to the peer-reviewed articles that found no trace of SIV in Koprowski's vaccine. Feel free to express your own point of view on the topic, but please respect facts contributed by others. --Axeloide 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Two reasons.
1. The testing of a given sample of Koprowski's vaccine from a "pool" simply has no meaning. Another vaccine made in a _different_ pool from the same _batch_ could have been the source of the mutation and infection. Vaccine was prepared locally in the Congo from numerous pools over a period of time, from numerous Chimpanzees. See item 1 in: http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/127/49/
2. Mr. Koprowski has been caught lying about critical facts. Example: Fundamental to the OPV theory is that _Chimpanzee_ kidneys were used to cultivate vaccine. When asked, Mr. Koprowski emphatically denied Chimp kidneys were used to make his vaccine ("Never in my life."), and further elaborated that several other specific species were used. There is now significant documentary and eyewitness testimony that Chimps were used to make vaccine. See item 4 at: http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/127/49/
Additionally,
- Given that Mr. Koprowski's counter-argument has been revealed as disingenuous on several points, it would seem logical that the proponents of Mr. Koprowski would see this erosion of credibility as damaging to the opposition of the OPV theory, and at the least have the presence of mind not to object to arcane minutia such as encampments of "peer-review" footnotes. If not, it would seem that their definition of "peer-review" is "people who agree with Mr. Koprowski, who was caught lying."
- The film "The Origin of AIDS" is available for free viewing on Google Video. I have never met anyone that has seen the film to suddenly adopt the position of Mr. Koprowski et al. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-32590729008993442&q=origin+of+aids
- Readers of this thread should be asking "who is saying what, and what is their connection to one side or the other"?. Given how egregiously unbalanced the article was prior to my edits, it seems unlikely that it was contributed by a neutral party. Proponents of Mr. Koprowski have a reputation for non-disclosure. I am not affiliated with Mr. Koprowski, nor advocates of the OPV theory, nor do I have connections to government agencies/research institutes that would be embarrassed by actions of the current/former employees that are involved with this line of work.
Moving forward, I have the following proposal. This article should be open to editing only to those who provide their real name, real email address, and real mailing/postal address of their _primary residence_, and that WikiPedia create a special class of account just for this purpose. (Similar to the "Real Name" feature on Amazon).
Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.52.100 (talk • contribs) .
Dear anonymous editor 68.48.52.100, thank you for your explanation. Here my reply:
Reason one:
- You are right in that the paper by Blancou et al. doesn't prove anything about the other batches. But the Wistar CHAT pool-13 lot was the one used in Léopoldville (now Kinshasa) between 1958 and 1960 and it's the one blamed by the OPV theory to have caused one of the earliest confirmed HIV cases. It is not only HIV/SIV negative, but it also shows to have been produced on rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys. Those species aren't linked to SIV. And the samples where provided not only but the Wistar Institute, but also by the CDC. Please refer to table 1 in that paper.
- I my opinion Reason one is a fallacy of type argumentum ad ignorantiam:"Since the Blancou paper doesn't prove that there wasn't any other batch that could be the origin of AIDS, then it must be true that there was another batch that caused the pandemic."
- Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that OPV-theory is wrong or unlikely. In my opinion it's a valid hypothesis. I just miss the solid proof supporting it and there must be some, since it's is widespread. Please contribute those facts.
Reason two:
- IMHO this is an ad hominem argument: " Since Koprowski has been caught lying, then everything he has said before is a lie too and everything he has done in his life is evil. "
- This reason doesn't explain why you had to remove the citation of the Blancou paper, or any of the other citations, since none of those articles was authored by Koprowski nor anybody affiliated with the Wistar Institute.
- I would be very carefull using edited video and audio material as proof of someone lying. I was impressed on how the mockumentary Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary) manipulated Kissinger's statements and used them as evidence. I'm not saying that Koprowski hasn't lied, but that I would appreciate reliable sources proving that. And as I said: the Blancou paper is relevant, because it shows that the lot of the vaccine used in Kinshasa wasn't produced on chimps, so that Koprowski is true that no chimp was used for vaccine production at least for the tested lots.
- Can you provide evidence that there was any other lot of vaccine not tested by Blancou that could be the origin of the confirmed AIDS cases in Kinshasa? If yes, then add this info, but do not delete the Blancou citation nor any other relevant paper.
On my "connection to one side or the other":
- When I edit Wikipedia there is only one side for me: Factual accuracy. Of course this is heavily influenced by every editor's background and opinions, but I think there is a way to write articles which includes facts supporting everyone's POV in a way, that the reader can distill his own conclusions. It's therefore that I respect your contributions as long as they are stated with a minimum of Intellectual rigour. An encyclopedia shouldn't read like: "Koprowski is a monster, because a documentary says so". Please provide some more facts contained in that documentary in order to support your POV, do not just refer to it as a whole.
- I personally don't like Koprowski's nor most other virologist's methods at all. But I also don't like it when people push their hypothesis without proof. That something is plausible isn't a proof that it is true.
- If you review my edits you will see that I haven't removed any reliable facts supporting OPV. (Not even the confidential WHO letter paragraph, which I think is questionable) Again: I think it is possible to write an article exposing facts which support both points of view on the OPV-theory.
--Axeloide 07:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Reason 1: I'm not saying the sample they tested "doesn't prove anything about the other batches.".
I'm saying it does not prove anything about other _pools_.
The organizers of the test already admitted that the sample they tested was not used in Africa, and that they or anyone else had not been able to obtain samples that were from the Africa _pools_. Interesting how little evidence in the form of records, serum, or samples can be provided by Koprowski.
The vaccine was made locally in the Congo from Chimpanzee kidneys. It is the process that was used to make the vaccine that introduced the simian virus, which mutated into a virus deadly to humans.
I'm not saying "Koprowski is a monster" - your words. I'm saying: he used institutionalized retarded children as guinea pigs, without obtaining proper consent. I'm' saying he has been caught lying, numerous times over. I'm saying there are questions to be answered here and he has never attempted to provide information that could provide clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.52.100 (talk • contribs) .
Dear anonymous editor 68.48.52.100, you are again not providing sources or citations... Maybe you are confusing two papers. I am talking about the Blancou paper, where "Wistar CHAT pool-13" has been tested. According to the paper, this is the pool used in the trial in Kinshasa, the place of the first documented AIDS case. Is there any record of the "passages". Isn't the "late-passage" mentioned in this paper closely related to the administered vaccine batches?
Could you please provide some sources when you say that "The organizers of the test already admitted that the sample they tested was not used in Africa". Just one citation, please. The Blancou paper states the contrary.
Furthermore: Can you please cite any analysis of any of the vaccines showing that they contained SIV or HIV particles? Or reliably prove that chimp tissue was used for vaccine production, instead of citing Hooper who has interviewed caretakers who seem to have witnessed organ removal from chimps 40 years ago but nothing else than that? As long as you can't provide any strong evidence it doesn't help that you repeat your statements over and over again.
My point about "Koprowski is a monster" was not if you believe he is such, but just the way you do not provide evidence for your statements, other than citing TV documentaries. Please cite original information sources, avoid citing sources which in turn are citing other sources. You wouldn't take any article seriously which would cite TV documentaries to prove the existance of ghosts. I just whish that the information contained in this article is reliably sourced.
OK then. What do we have? The main disagreement seems to come from the lack of reliable data on the following two points, being the first at the very heart of the question:
- The lots tested for SIV or HIV aren't the final vaccine as administered during the trial. SIV/HIV could or could not have been introduced afterwards during the production of the vaccine batches at the local facilities (e.g. at the Lindi camp). But up to date there is no evidence about SIV/HIV being present in the deployed batches.
- Koprowski and the trial reports do not mention the use of chimpanzees for vaccine production, but Hooper has interviewed people who worked at the Lindi camp and concludes that chimpanzees were indeed used, but his conclusions are build on indirect evidence.
Can't we just say that in the article? --Axeloide 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Part of your answers may be explained here: http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/98/29/
You still seem to be confusing the signficance of pools and batches.
It would be convenient to conclude that by testing a single pool or two pools, that the results of those tests would eliminate any possibility of contamination of all other pools. This is part of the issue confronted by those who require the data to support a conclusion: Koprowski conducted one of the largest vaccine trials in history on over one million people, and where is the documentation?
Where are the documents specifying source batches, pool production runs from the lab in Stanleyville? Dates a given vaccine pool was administered? This was why the WHO was critical of Koprowski in 1958. How can a massive trial like this be conducted, where the output is the equivalent of a post-it note on the fridge?
It is extremely likely there were numerous pools in the Congo trial, and that one or more of those pools were contaminated. This contamination of course would not appear in another unrelated pool.
To apperciate how flimsy the OPV counter-arguments are, considerhow their logic is applied in this hypothetical scenario:
+- A company makes bottled water. Some of these production runs can be identified by "batch" numbers on the bottom of the bottles.
Some consumers of the bottled water to use it make beverages. Like tea.
A consumer in Florida uses the water to make tea. The resulting beverage is contaminated (bacteria), they get sick and die. The company tests a sample of the water from the same batch, finds nothing wrong, and concludes that the person could not have gotten sick while drinking their water, and their water was not even in the beverage that made the person sick. All based solely on another sample that was back in the factory or another state or country. +-
Of course the only conclusion is, when the water left the bottling facility it was fine. There is no basis for their remaining conclusions. How could the company know if the water was not contaminated en-route? Or that the person was drinking their water or not? Or that maybe it was their water, but the cup was dirty?
But to answer your last question, perhaps there should just be two parts to the "AIDS Accusation" section, and those who disagree with one part should not edit the other, and vice versa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.52.100 (talk • contribs) .
Dear anonymous editor 68.48.52.100, one more time you are just repeating your unsigned statements without citing any sources of evidence supporting them. If you'd be so kind to read my previous comments, you should notice that I am aware that testing one pool doesn't prove that the vaccine as administered was free of SIV/HIV. But you should also be aware that this doesn't prove that the OPV-theory is true. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Those analysis, as far as I understand it, neither prove nor refute the OPV-theory. So if you claim the OPV-theory to be a proven fact, please provide sources!!
Your bottled water example is not usefull, since you know from the begining that the Florida bottle contained bacteria and that the patient drank that bottle's water. In the OPV-theory you do NOT know if the administered vaccine contained viable SIV/HIV and you do NOT know if the very same vaccinated people contracted AIDS! You are just asuming that, not proving it. BTW, making tea should imply cooking the water and few bacterial pathogens would survive this. Well maybe people in Florida do make tea in strange ways: macerating the tea-bag at 30C until it fouls? ;-) Very bad example.
I am really starting to hate the dilettantish methods of old-style virologists like Koprowski. He seems to have been in such a hurry that nearly no documentation nor vaccine samples exist of his campaign in Congo. This isn't good practice at all and it is nearly impossible to clarify such important questions as those aroused by the OPV-theory.
Why don't we move all this section to the right place: Linkig to OPV AIDS hypothesis from here with an as much NPOV as posible short notice. If you have the urge to discredit Koprowski because of his methods please feel free to add a new section in this article, but PLEASE do cite sources! --Axeloide 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is appropriately scoped in the context of Mr. Koprowski.
Have you ever considered that documentation of the Congo trials does exist, and was not published?
Ed Hooper made this exact point in The River.
I find unlikely in the extreme that a person with Mr. Koprowski's talent and attention to detail would conduct such a massive trial, and not keep or publish detailed records.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Koprowski could have ended the discussion years ago with disclosure of a few boxes of paper that supported his position, but he has not. Why would a person who believes in his efforts and pursuits so strongly not provide this information, choosing instead to endure inevitable troubling questions that will persist long after the legacy of his contribution to the greater good has passed? There is no logical explanation for Mr. Koprowski's actions and inactions in response to the information that continues to surface.
Disclosure. Transparency. Informed consent. Truth. All of these - missing - from a project that were substantially funded by the public.
Dear anonymous editor 68.48.52.100, you are once more expressing your assumptions ("existence of hidden docs") without providing any sources. This is an encyclopedia, not an investigation of your own. Maybe you aren't familiar with the official policies of Wikipedia, so please make sure you have read the following documents. The three most fundamental official policies are:
- Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
- Wikipedia:No original research "...articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments..."
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "Readers are left to form their own opinions."
... and regarding this article the following is also to be considered:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately"
IMHO the OPV-theory is still NOT conclusively refuted and deserves a better treatment than just a few conspiracy-theorists making wild assumptions without caring about citing solid evidence.
There is probably enough evidence about Koprowski's dubious methods, specially prior to his trials in Congo. If someone knows about any citable document proving this, please do contribute this info. I'd be very interested in reading the whole WHO letter mentioned in the article's last paragraph, just to know the context and author of the cited sentence, but I can't find any transcription nor facsimile. But according to my understanding of Wikipedia policies it's not good practice to assert that chimp tissue was used in CHAT vaccine production if there is no evidence supporting it, other than two "low-level" technicians who assume 40 years later what doctors might have done in their labs.
Of course OPV-theory is strongly linked to Koprowski's biography, but it is a topic of its own and I didn't know about the existance of the "OPV AIDS hypothesis" article until yesterday. A compact description of the OPV controversy and a link to it's dedicated article should be fine.
--Axeloide 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph containing the claim that a classified WHO letter accuses Koprowski of being unethical. If an unbiased source for the letter (so any legitimate source other than the aidsorgin website which is run by the author of the original theory and has no governing body to ensure its accuracy) is provided then I will allow it to be restored. As iit was, there wasn't any source for the claim.
Try watching the documentary. The WHO paper in question is in full view of the camera. Unless, of course, you think that's faked too.....
[edit] Amusing, no?
I love the irony of an anonymous demanding that others deliver their real names. Sorry if that seems inflammatory, but it really struck me as quite entertaining. 68.215.226.236
[edit] What is best included in the AIDS accusation section?
In general terms: 1. What types of information are best included? 2. What degree of detail is best for this section? 3. What is the acceptability of material from Ed Hooper's website and his book? 4. What is the acceptability of material from the film documentary The Origin Of AIDS ? Please include reasons "why" in your answer. Not a usual request, but for now please avoid giving examples in your response. SmithBlue 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
