Talk:T-Lymphocytopenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone actually involved in or knowledgable about medicine/HIV actually add to this. It seems to be currently being used as a vehicle to support AIDS reappraisal conspiracy theories.--Jersey Devil 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to expand it and make it a little more medically relevant/useful. The bottom line is that ICL is extremely rare and there's just not much literature about it, but I've tried to cite what there is. You're correct in that the AIDS-reappraisal crowd points to ICL as some kind of "fatal flaw" in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It's analogous to saying, "Look, there are people who turn yellow and develop liver failure without evidence of Hep B infection... therefore hepatitis B virus is harmless." In other words, a complete fallacy. MastCell 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does that meant that their view needs to be expunged from the encyclopedia? --Striver 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. It means that their view needs to be presented accurately, as a minority viewpoint considered thoroughly debunked by the scientific mainstream, in accordance with the NPOV FAQ sections on equal validity and minority scientific theories. There are several pages dedicated to this view (see AIDS reappraisal for a starting point). Their view is hardly being "expunged"; on the other hand, it doesn't need to be plastered on every remotely related article either. MastCell 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you view that their view is not relevant to this article, even tough they view this as one of their more important arguments? --Striver 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No. My view is that AIDS reappraisal arguments should be discussed, in the proper NPOV context, on the AIDS reappraisal page. MastCell 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)