Talk:AIDS reappraisal/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Citations needed 2 "Further Reading" 3 "Not verified" tag 4 peer review 5 Peer review 6 Allegued harm caused by dissident views 7 Antibodies to HIV 8 Please: Sort out the crazy stuff from actual arguments 9 "Collective judgment": This is a philosophical monstrosity 10 the contentions of aids reappraisalists 11 Hey Randroide 12 POV??? = 13 Added section... 14 External links 15 How can you call this PseudoScience 16 Sentence from intro 17 Sure 18 Lastly 19 Clean up 20 Clean up 21 POV tag 22 Burden of proof 23 How we getting along boys and girls??? 24 Denialists in the news 25 AIDS Realists (i.e., Reappraisers) in the news 26 Finally 27 alright guys.... 28 Neutrality tag 29 Walter Gilbert 30 Sonnabend and Root-Bernstein 31 Walter Gilbert 32 Non functional link 33 The Ultimate Answer

Citations needed

I'll start tackling some of citation-needed tags... better referencing would certainly be useful. MastCell 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your edits to the content, and most of your references are good. However, the references on HIV and STIs were related more to increased transmission risks than to epidemiological comparisons, so I cut them. Keep up the good work! Trezatium 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that false positive rates depend on the population being tested, and testing procedures vary around the world (e.g. Western blot tests are not standard in the UK, where three ELISAs are used, and the WHO recommends that fewer tests may be used in areas where prevalence is very high). Trezatium 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered taking a look at Duesberg hypothesis as well? Trezatium 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the review... I will find another reference for the HIV/STI link; there are quite a few out there. I think we're close to being able to remove the "sources" tag; I'm not as familiar with the dissident literature, so perhaps someone who is can fill in a few of the requested citations for dissident claims. I believe the Western blot detects actual HIV antigens (eg p24) as opposed to antibodies, so have changed that back; I'll triple-check this (a minor point). You're absolutely right about the effect of prevalence on test accuracy and I'll try to specify that in the article (eg low- vs. high-risk populations). I can only speak to the testing situation in the US; thanks for clarifying. I'll consider looking at the Duesberg hypothesis page, but my blood pressure can only take editing so many controversial topics in a single day. MastCell 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the HIV Western blot test detects antibodies (for example see [1]). The HIV/STI statement we need a reference for is: "the risk groups for AIDS are generally the same as those for other sexually transmitted diseases". This can easily be seen by comparing AIDS stats with STI stats, but it would be nice to have a single document to reference. The article's looking quite good now, and I agree that the "sources" tag could be removed soon. Trezatium 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Right you are about the Western blot... thanks for the reference and the correction. I've edited the article to reflect it. MastCell 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Further Reading"

Here's a thought... how would people feel about removing the "Further Reading" section? It's ballooned to an ungodly length and is one of the reasons that this article is so unwieldy. MastCell 23:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "Further reading" section consists of documents that were once highly relevant. A few months ago the article (which had become quite lengthy) was "hacksawed" and all the orphaned references were dumped in this section (see earlier discussion). It might be a good idea to consult Bob before making any major changes, since he wrote most of the original article. Trezatium 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page; thanks for the heads-up. MastCell 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "Further Reading" as the article is just too long; if these sources are directly relevant, they should be cited in the article. MastCell 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Not verified" tag

How would people feel about removing the "not verified" tag from the top of the article? I think it is almost fully sourced. The few "citation needed" tags remaining deal with the claims of AIDS dissidents; these are duly noted. If anyone can provide sources or citations for these claims (eg AIDS reappraisal literature from which the claims are taken), that would be very helpful. But I do think we can remove the scarlet letter of the "not verified" tag, since almost everything in this article (certainly all scientific claims) are sourced now. Thoughts? MastCell 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the tag was there to indicate that some of the dissident claims were not verified, but not to indicate that it was not verified that those claims were made. Initially many of the dissident claims were simply stated as fact without indicating who made the claim, and there is still some of that left. However, I think that the citation needed tags make this clear as well. So I think removing the tag sould be fine. But wait for others to chime in since this article gets pretty contentious. Nrets 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Trezatium 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

peer review

i just gave this article a peer review. i've made lots of {{citationneeded}} as this article makes a lot of claims that aren't backed up. also to note that the simple prose "HIV causes AIDS" was stepped around a whole ton. Examples i've simplfied:

“

The dissidents assert that the currently dominant view of AIDS, based on causation by HIV, has resulted in inaccurate diagnoses... Dissidents allege a lack of sound scientific method proving causation of AIDS by HIV. AIDS has been the subject of many thousands of peer-reviewed studies over the past twenty years, and a clear consensus view has developed that HIV is the causative factor for AIDS. According to dissidents, failure to satisfy these postulates, especially the first two, may cast doubt on HIV as the cause of AIDS. Skeptics of the HIV theory of AIDS claim that the process of testing individuals for the presence of HIV is flawed.

”

Also this article takes a heavy 'us vs. them' viewpoint, which seems pretty POV to me. I know the nature of the article leads towards minority vs mainstream, but i don't think that it needs to be this bad. Example from Patterns of spread:

“

Dissidents also note that in North America and Western Europe, AIDS spreads non-randomly, affecting specific groups of people, and, moreover, that it is fragmented into distinct sub-epidemics with different distributions of AIDS-defining diseases. According to dissidents, AIDS in Africa looks completely different from the corresponding syndrome in North America and Western Europe; one example that has been cited is that in Africa AIDS affects roughly equal numbers of men and women, while in North America and Western Europe it affects more men than women. Dissidents also point out that the parts of the world worst affected by AIDS tend to have widespread malnutrition and poor living conditions.

”

Every sentence starts with 'Dissidents think this' or 'Dissidents call to that'. It is a frequent fallback to this article. It sets up a kind of straw man which half the time or more is followed by an unverified claim. Combine this with it being used over 30 times in the article...you get what i mean. 'Skeptics of _______' is another phrase used too much. This needs to be changed.

There is a source from Harpers Magazine written by Celia Farber that is used 7 times, and often very very prominently. She is a reporter and not a doctor, and this source should be removed and replaced with scientific peer reviewed research. It's friggin Harper's Magazine, not a journal.

Finally, the HIV test accurancy section states:

“

Skeptics of the theory that HIV causes AIDS claim that the process of testing individuals for the presence of HIV is flawed. They assert there is a high probability of encountering a false positive, which would falsely identify someone as HIV-positive when in fact they were HIV-negative[citation needed], e.g. because of pregnancy or cross-reactivity with malaria antibodies.

”

which is followed up the paragraph after the next with:

“

Current methods of HIV antibody testing are remarkably accurate: the false-positive rate among the American public ranges from 0.0006 to 0.0007 percent.[34][35] The false-negative rate for HIV antibody testing ranges from 0.001% to 0.3%, depending on the risk factors of the tested population.[36][37][38]

”

...which is completely contradictory. it's one or the other. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My hearty congratulations for having slogged through. As to the last point, though, it's both, not one or the other: Dissidents claim that HIV testing is inaccurate, but the facts don't bear them out. That doesn't stop them from repeating the claim, of course. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Thank you for the peer review, JoeSmack. I appreciate the need for citations. Can you help find citations for some of the things you've tagged? I'm struggling a little; it seems most of the people who really believe in AIDS reappraisal (and thus might be a little more conversant with useful sources for the claims) have left and migrated to their own AIDSwiki, after realizing that Wikipedia was not a place where they could expound their beliefs free of scientific criticism and verification. At least, that's the impression I get from this and related talk pages.

I went over to AIDSwiki and its pretty much defunct (3 user pages, low content, etc.) so i don't think i'll be able to pull much from there. I'll see what i can do.

Celia Farber's article is frequently referenced because it is a compendium of quite a few dissident ideas and rationales. You won't find scientific, peer-reviewed evidence for these claims - or I should say, I haven't. If you are able to, PLEASE add it, because I agree the article would be stronger if it didn't rely on Farber's article for so many dissident claims. The AIDS reappraisal movement seems to be predominantly a social movement of lay activists, rather than a scientific movement, so I think the Harper's article is a reasonable source.

This article is a direct critique of mainstream AIDS consensus theory. Much of that critique is questioning the very scientific peer-reviewed evidence that backs it up. To say that AIDS reappraisal can't be held to the same scientific standards gives them a cart blanche to say whatever they want. And, that isn't allowed here on wikipedia, as we have WP:VERIFY.

I agree 100%. AIDS reappraisal cannot meet the same scientific standards as consensus AIDS theory; virtually all peer-reviewed science discredits the AIDS-reappraisalists. Farber's article is a reliable source for the claims dissidents make; of course, it's not a reliable source for science or scientific claims. In order to point up this distinction, I've prefaced everything with "Dissidents claim..." etc, and tried to follow it up with the actual scientific evidence which addresses the claim. Unforuntately, that's made the article kind of unwieldy, as you pointed out. MastCell 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking things from the "AIDS Wiki" is a bad idea. Besides being deliberately biased, it's much less reliable than the Farber article, which itself is a poor quality reference. There are plenty of articles written by dissident scientists to be found on numerous web sites, some of which have been published in peer reviewed journals. Try duesberg.com, perthgroup.com theperthgroup.com and virusmyth.net for starters. Or try looking through the "Further reading" list that was recently (and sensibly) cut from this article. Trezatium 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a work-around for the "Dissidents claim..." intro to every sentence, I'd be open to it. I agree it gets awkward and repetitive. However, the alternative is to present these claims as factual, when in fact they are the view of a vocal minority which is unsupported by scientific consensus. The compromise has been to present the dissident claim, followed by the response of the mainstream scientific community. It's not great for readability, and certainly if you have a better way of doing it, go for it. MastCell 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It really makes the article weak to see it, so i'll see what i can do.JoeSmack ^Talk 19:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

JoeSmack has made some good edits. However, I have two comments:

1. From what I've read, much of the early skepticism about the viral theory of AIDS did stem from a minority among the American gay community, and was in part related to (perhaps not unreasonable) distrust of government scientists. I think this deserves a mention. I'll try to find some references.
2. Several of the "citationneeded" tags were unnecessary; in each case the reference cited at the end of the paragraph was sufficient to cover everything that preceded it. Please take more time to read the references in future before adding the tags.

Thanks. Trezatium 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Added some back that i feel are still neccesary, and double checking proximity ref tags to see if the citationneeded has been fullfilled. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What i can tell it's damn messy in the Impact in South Africa section where i re-added the citeneeded tags, with cites not lining up with quotes, etc. Here is time magazine's links to Mbeki and the quote list of his quotes (the page moved, so the refs need changing for that source too). I'll come back to this, but im going out the door right now so if anyone else wants to mess around it's what i've been reading the past 1hr or so.... JoeSmack ^Talk 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on finding and fixing citations... the help is appreciated. MastCell 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for references for the South African section, try the Journ-AIDS web site. Trezatium 22:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just discovered an article called HIV/AIDS in South Africa. Currently it's very short and none of the other AIDS articles link to it. So if anyone's looking for something to do... Trezatium 22:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Bob 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegued harm caused by dissident views

The harm is allegued, for god´s sake. To say "Harm caused by dissident views" is flagrant POV.

Wikipedia is not about who is right and who is wrong. Wikipedia is about what such and such source says about such and such issue.Randroide 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "alleged". Since the section is a series of estimates of the number of deaths caused by the adoption of dissident views, that's what I've changed the title to. None of those estimates, by the way, are "zero". Do be sure to add such an estimate if you find it. - Nunh-huh 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we go with "Alleged harm"? I think that's fair. Estimates of deaths is accurate but does sound a little more inflammatory and less encyclopedic/neutral. Thoughts? MastCell 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Estimates of deaths" is perfectly accurate. "Alleged harm" is actually less encyclopedic, and misinformative, as it falsely suggests there is reason to believe that the allegations are false or inaccurate. - Nunh-huh 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh's version is more accurate, but yes, more inflammatory. I'd say stick with it if proper citations are used from credible sources. --Bob 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that "estimates of deaths" is accurate, and I think we've provided reliable sources for the claim. I differ with Nuhn-huh in that I think "alleged harm" doesn't suggest the allegations are false, just that they are alleged rather than proven. The accusation that AIDS denial kills is a serious one that AIDS dissidents often use to portray the mainstream community as alarmist or unbalanced. I happen to think it's clear that the aggressive propragation of these views has a human cost (see Christine Maggiore), but i think that if it's presented in an inflammatory fashion it's going to polarize people rather than letting them make up their own minds. As always, though, I'll go along with whatever the general feeling on the talk page is; I don't feel terribly strongly about this particular point. MastCell 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it is possible to hold that "alleged" doesn't allege doubt: that's the reason denialists want it inserted. But since there is no opposing data, it's inappropriate to suggest there is. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone with "Health effects of dissident views" which is inadequate but probably the best Wikipedia can do. - Nunh-huh 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, sir. Those deathful effects are "alleged" by AIDS Officialists and denied by "AIDS Denialists" (or AIDS Reappraisers). If you give factual status to those effects you are talking from hte Officialist POV, and thus violating POV rules, due to the fact that this is an Encyclopedia, not the CDC website. Sorry for calling you "AIDS Officialist", but you started using charged expressions like "Denialists". I propose you a less charged terminology, like "consensus" and "reappraisers" o "dissidents", for instance.Randroide 10:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to maintain the title Health effects of dissident views, mention should also be made to the life saving effects of the dissident views alleged by the reappraisers. That would be NPOV.Randroide 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I will give you an example: Suppose someone erases the "alleged" from the title Alleged suppression of debate. That would exactly the same POV issue, because Reappraisers say that such exactly occurs, but Officialists deny such thing. You can not give factual status to something that is disputed. Not in Wikipedia, at least.Randroide 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your solution is to find a citable source in which AIDS denialists deny those deaths, and add it. In the meantime, then, I guess it's back to "estimated deaths". - Nunh-huh 11:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Estimated deaths" is fine for me. The "estimated" removes any POV issue. Thank you. Randroide 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow... consensus on an AIDS-reappraisal article. Next I'll start believing in Santa Claus again. MastCell 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Case in point: I'm Jewish, and I don't believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't mean I can't contribute to the Santa Clause article. This in a nutshell is what NPOV is all about. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

HIV is common - having your immune system collapse is unusual. Taking drugs, heavy drinking, starving, TB, VD, cancer, etc will all eventually cause your immune system to collaspe. Having HIV along with the previous items causes death, not having HIV along with the previous items causes death - having HIV and not having any of the previous items and you are okay, not having HIV and not having any of the previous items and you are okay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

Yes, that's one of the dissident arguments which I believe is discussed in this article. The response from the mainstream medical community (see the NIAID source) has been that drinking, starvation, VD, TB, etc have all been around for ages, but the epidemic explosion in cases of PCP, KS, etc is a new phenomenon, coinciding with the epidemic of HIV infection, and epidemiologically correlated. Again, these arguments are addressed in the article and in the sources cited therein. If you'd like to take a crack at improving the article, by all means go for it. MastCell 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Antibodies to HIV

This section needs to be altered as it’s giving out a distorted message. By suggesting that antibodies cannot neutralise HIV implies that all people infected with are doomed. This is an unfair and wrong statement to make, especially if someone who is HIV positive reads this page. Humans have evolved alongside viruses for millions of years. Even bacteria have to deal with the threat of viral infection so all species of life on earth have developed perfectly evolved mechanisms for dealing with viruses. Therefore with this in mind, for a single virus strain to be 100% effective at killing all humans seems pretty unlikely given our past record of fending off viruses. Also, Wikipedia even has a page dedicated to HIV progression rates which states that there are individuals who are Long Term Non-Progressors (LTNPs) to HIV (i.e. immune to the effects of HIV) and never develop AIDS even without drugs. This has been scientifically proven to occur in at least 3% of people infected with HIV so it seems to me unfair to say that antibodies cannot neutralize HIV because they obviously are in LTNPs. This information needs to be taken into account because HIV positive people looking at this section will automatically assume they are going to develop AIDS when in actual fact they may never do. More work needs to be done to understand immunity in LTNPs and how the mechanisms of HIVs destructive capabilities can be negated. Without referring to this information in this section on antibodies I think debate is being stifled and the full story is not being told. Maybe the section could be renamed to resistance to HIV!! Does anyone else have any opinions on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A4705693 (talk • contribs) .

There are clearly long-term non-progressors (LTNP's); they make up anywhere from 2-3% to 13% of HIV-infected patients in the US, depending on the study population. Some of them do produce neutralizing antibodies to HIV;

EVERYONE produces "neutralizing antibodies to HIV", HIV is COMPLETELY neutralized by the immune system...that's why you can barely find it, and when you do, it barely does anything!!

the majority also have a vigorous cell-mediated immune response that likely keeps the virus in check. I've edited the paragraph in question to reflect that, in a small minority of cases, neutralizing antibodies to HIV may be produced and may contribute to becoming an LTNP. However, the idea propagated by some dissidents (eg Celia Farber) that antibodies=immunity is patently false; that was the thrust of the paragraph.

Let's see, are you going to compare HIV to chronic herpes, shingles, etc., etc.?? Those are like night and day. With the latter, antibodies neutralize the virus, to a dormant state, the immune response subsides, at some point for some reason, the virus is reactivated, and reproduces, producing very large numbers of viruses, then the antibodies come back again to neutralize it, and so on and so forth...and this is what is called a chronic herpes/shingles infection. With HIV, this is night and day. Here, it is supposedly neutralized for 10 years, and then when it comes back, there's still no virus to speak of, there's hardly any of it to find, and it doesn't do anything. Nice comparison, though. 69.252.201.61 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, current guidelines indicate that someone with HIV should not receive antiretrovirals UNTIL THEY PROGRESS. So patients are given a chance to see if they are LTNP's. If they turn out to be LTNP's, that's fantastic; they won't get antiretrovirals. Only patients who have progressed are treated. MastCell 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please: Sort out the crazy stuff from actual arguments

As crazy and downright dumb as some of the statements may seem ("HIV does not cause AIDS!!!!11oneeleven"), some of the arguments do have some merit and are accepted by the mainstream. Stuff like the chance to get HIV as a man from a positive woman in an act of sex - 1/500. A lot of people - educators who like to tell "educational lies" - would prefer such figures to remain hidden, since they might incline people to stop practising safer sex. However, one of Wikipedia's strictest guidelines is that it is not censored. The question is how to present the facts in a sensible manner. Here's my hopefully inspiring try:

A HIV-infection does not cause AIDS 100% of the time - not within the 20 Scientific consensyears of research - meaning, a number of people who do get infected with HIV, will probably never develop AIDS in their natural lifetime. This is not to be confused with the (~2-3%?) number of people who are genetically resistant to HIV infection because their immune cells lack the entry-vectors the HIV-1 virus needs. Vice versa, there are many known natural causes for immunodepression that do not involve HIV (although other viruses often play a role).

The problem with a lot of the "dissenters" (read: gays)

????????????? What planet are you on??

is wishful thinking: Since HIV and immunodepression can occur seperately, even though we *do* find a huge correlation between HIV and depression of the immune system, it *must* not be that the HIV is the cause of the immunodepression. A critical mind should be asking: Why the hell not?

Ummmm...because correlation doesn't prove causation? Because HIV is biochemically inactive? Because HIV test results over 20 years vary continuously across categories of race, age, geography, and other categories incompatible with an infectious microbe?? Because of 1,001 different reasons??

Fact is still, a large number of the people infected with HIV will die within a short time, and the medication is utterly ineffective.

I want to point out the necessity that - even in this article, which I am sure is a shitfest of edit warring and batshit insane people, me included - objectivity has to be maintained. Both sides have good and bad arguments, a lot of science has gone through the window with both of them. Point out which arguments have merit, and which ones are stupid denial and whishful thinking, and those that are "educational lies". Right now the article contains about zero good arguments for either side.

As a final note, regarding the statistics: They're basically out of my ass. I remembered them from reading them sometime, they might be out of date or plain wrong. So they are "to the best of my (lazy) knowledge" 84.75.130.173 15:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Transmission rate male --> female with unprotected sex is roughly 1/1000. 69.252.201.61 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The stuff you are talking about should be in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. This is the talk page for the page about the AIDS reappraisers, so the page is about AIDS Reappraisal, not about "mainstream" misconceptions. We, appraisers, think that there is not such a thing as "infection" by HIV. The relevant stuff you cite would be out of place here.

BTW, do your homework, study the chain of factual concretes behind the different AIDS theories (official and unofficial), start to think for yourself (a very difficult task for the mayority of the people) and maybe "HIV is the cause of AIDS" is the assertion that will start to sound to you as "crazy and downright dumb".

Consensus does NOT create reality (the philosophical principle behind my assertion is called primacy of existence).Randroide 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point, it was about the quality of the arguments in the article. Here's an example "HIV is the cause of AIDS" - Now, that may well be false, since there is no proof or mechanism known for this. But the statement "HIV does not cause AIDS" is just as false - Because you, I, nobody really, has any proof or evidence that HIV does *not* cause AIDS. Just because immunodepression can and does occur without HIV does not mean that the presence of HIV is somehow beneficial to the immune system.

This is a linguistic thing that you have to understand: AIDS is *defined* as a depressed immune system in the presence of HIV. Now what the statement "HIV does not cause AIDS" implies is that the presence of HIV does cause the nonpresence of an immune system deficiency. That is obviously nonsense: Since we defined AIDS as requiring HIV, AIDS is - linguistically - caused by HIV. Saying HIV does not cause AIDS is a falsism and that's the reason why people will not listen to you guys, even when you are right, if you don't change your marketing strategy quick. Try the following, true statement: "There is no known mechanism with which HIV destroys the immune system." That is much more precise as a way to sum up the dilemma in one sentence. 84.75.130.173 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. There is a shorter way to say your argument: You can not be prove a negative. To "prove" a concept is to provide a chain of reasons and arguments going backwards, leading to concretes. In case of a negative, there are no concretes, so a ngative (i.e., the non-existence of God) can not be proven. BTW, Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg also said what you have just said. The burden of the proof is on the consensus side. The debate is on the quality of the proof that the consensus side has presented until now.Randroide 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your argument is a little confused. We're not talking about a supernatural phenomenon (such as the existence of God), which of course cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method. And we're not talking about "proving a negative". There are any number of methods for proving that HIV causes the constellation of immunodeficiency referred to as AIDS; there is also scientific consensus that the burden of proof has been met. Most HIV scientists have moved on to things like developing antiretrovirals that dramatically improve the survival of people with HIV. The burden of proof has shifted to the dissident side. It's going to take more than conspiracy theories and linguistic sophistry. MastCell 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

MastCell wrote: There are any number of methods for proving that HIV causes the constellation of immunodeficiency referred to as AIDS

We, Reappraisers, know that the "proving" has not been properly made. The burden of the proof is on the other side.

MastCell wrote: there is also scientific consensus that the burden of proof has been met

Definitions, please:

Consensus: General agreement, majority.

General: Inclusive, of all things.

There is NO consensus. Not all the scientists agree with the "consensus" of AIDS being caused by HIV.

MastCell wrote: Most HIV scientists have moved on to things like developing antiretrovirals that dramatically improve the survival of people with HIV. The burden of proof has shifted to the dissident side. It's going to take more than conspiracy theories and linguistic sophistry.

Oh, yes. They have "moved", in the wrong direction, but they have "moved", indeed.

Sophistry?. There is a nice piece of sophistry in your text: developing antiretrovirals that dramatically improve the survival of people with HIV.

The sophistry is called Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "Antiretrovirals" were introduced and survival of people with "HIV" improved, ergo B is caused by A.. False.

"Antiretrovirals" had nothing to do with that improvement. I will tell you the real causes:

1. The definition of AIDS was changed in 1993, to make it more inclusive of healthy people.

2. AZT doses were lowered in the 1990s. AZT is a lethal substance for humans. Randroide 10:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. First of all, no matter how many times, studies, whatever that come up as proof, i've found reappraisalists as unsatisfied. It's quite frustrating really, but ce la vie. Second of all, just because you say it doesn't meet scientific consensus doesn't make it true.

(in this case the def is more like) General: of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions [2]

It's funny Mast Cell just used the term 'sophistry' in this case! I just used that word for similar reasons over in the AIDS talk page for something. Small world. ;)

Randroide, you think that someone with AIDS is gonna be helped by taking Aspirin? Of course science thinks that AZT helped people, there were labs, trials and mass perspcriptions that prove it. It isn't a case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Doses were lowered because it was found people didn't have to take so much for the drug to be effective. And for the record, even water is posinous if you take enough of it, this whole lethal AZT is a strawman that just won't go away. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, as has been stated multiple times in this page, almost nobody is currently prescribed AZT monotherapy, AZT is not the only retroviral agent used to treat HIV infection and several others have been proven effective. So again, as JoeSmack just mentioned, the AZT argument is simply a straw man with no weight of its own. Nrets 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 17:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)JoeSmack wrote: Randroide, you think that someone with AIDS is gonna be helped by taking Aspirin?

Of course, if he/she suffers headache, and I am not joking (this is very serious issue).

On the other hand, perfectly healthy people "suffers" AIDS according with current AIDS definitions. YThose folks were not "AIDS patients" in the 1980´s, now they are. That´s one of the reasons of the "success" of the not-so-new "drug cocktails".

One thing is clear: No one is going to be better taking immunosuppressants as AZT. Read the Physician's Desk Reference: Drug manufacturers say openly that "side effects" from AZT are identical to the supposed effects of "HIV infection".

Only under a very, very narrow meaning of "consensus" it can be said that there is a "scientific consensus" about HIV and AIDS. Do you want to say that "there is consensus" discarding all the other menaings of the word?. O.K., go ahead. But, please, note that consensus does not create reality, and that one century ago there was also a "consensus" about the infectious etiology of Beriberi. Of course that they were wrong, and of course that there were some late 19th century Peter Duesbergs that were "out of the consensus". They were right.

"Collective judgment": This is a philosophical monstrosity

MastCell linked this text: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time.

Only individuals make judgments.

There is not such a thing as a "Collective judgment". Collectives are only a sum of individuals, and collectives, as such, have no brain and no mind, so they can not pass judgments.Randroide 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you've been reading a little too much Ayn Rand. ;) Nrets 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This (Randroide's comment) is what I mean by sophistry. "Scientific consensus" has a specific definition (narrow, if you wish). It doesn't mean every last person with a Ph.D. behind their names agree. Of course a consensus doesn't "create reality"; it reflects the best understanding available with current methods. Your arguments attempt to muddy these relatively straightforward points. The point about redefinition of AIDS is flatly incorrect, and reflects AIDS dissidents' reliance on out-of-date data. HAART (NRTI/NNRTI plus protease inhibitors) was introduced in 1995-1996, after the change in AIDS definition; the well-documented drop in mortality rates with HAART was therefore not due to redefinition. Finally, people with HIV are not treated until they progress (CD4 below 200-350 or AIDS-defining illness). To argue that "perfectly healthy" people are the ones being treated with antiretrovirals is also outdated and incorrect. MastCell 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, "MastCell", there are "perfectly healthy" people with CD4s below 350. Or maybe a CD4 count below 350 is your DEFINITION of "not healthy"?????????????? 69.252.201.61 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you're trolling from your various IP addresses, user-formerly-known-as-Revolver, but all those ???'s caught my eye. People with a CD4 below 200 are not "perfectly healthy"; they're at high risk for life-threatening opportunistic infections. Also, if you're going to make abusive comments on these pages, why not "unretire" your user account instead of using a bunch of anonymous IP's? MastCell 03:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey dumbshit. Congratulations on unmasking my identity. Must have taken all your neuronal capabilities to muster that feat. I don't "unretire" largely because I don't give a shit about this joke of a website. Contrary to your claim, there are many people with low CD4 counts who are CLINICALLY healthy. CD4 counts don't mean shit. Of course, I wouldn't expect a "dumb doc" to know that. 69.252.201.61 06:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and say ignore this fella, regardless of who he is and what he says. He's just looking for a reaction. If he continues to make personal attacks, revert his comments. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All personal comments aside, the fact remains there exist many people with low CD4 counts who are perfectly healthy in terms of clinical health. You may not be aware of this fact, and MastCell may not be aware of this fact, but that doesn't change it. Lots of things are ignored in HIV/AIDS religion, but that doesn't change reality. I'm only trying to point out when people say things are totally untrue. 69.252.201.61 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"A CD4 lymphocyte count below 200 cells per mm3 is an important risk factor for clinical progression... 4 reports provided information on the time between a CD4 cell count below 200 cells and death... Survival ranged between 7 and 38 months, and survival was longer for patients who received some antiretroviral therapy." - Literature review by Martin Schneider, Marcel Zwahlen and Matthias Egger. True, there are some exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of data don't support the assertion that "CD4 counts don't mean shit". Trezatium 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree that "perfectly healthy" youngish folks generally have a life expectancy better than 1-3 years; hence, HIV+ people with a CD4 <200 are hardly "perfectly healthy". About tone, personal attacks, etc... I think Revolver is doing a disservice to his argument by behaving abrasively on these pages (I assume this reflects, in some way, one's behavior in other venues). The tone seems depressingly typical; when an AIDS dissident "hero" like Harvey Bialy addresses an intellectual antagonist as "cabrón" and "maricón" (="faggot"), and the AIDS dissident community proudly publicizes the exchange, it only reaffirms that these ideas are intellectually bankrupt and makes it difficult for rational people to take them seriously. MastCell 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)I see no external (not wiki) source for you grave accusation against Harvey Bialy. Please provide us with that external source. You MUST do it. Thank you.

I think MastCell was probably refering to this exchange. Trezatium 09:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. That´s enough as an external source. The translation from spanish to english is not totally correct. "Cabrón" can mean a lot of different, even antinomic, things in different contexts. "¡Qué cabrón!" can even be an expression of admiration. "Maricón" can be also a jokeful epithet in some contexts (i.e., a friend saying you "Qué maricón eres" after you enjoy a lucky event).

Of course that both words can also be very offensive in an hostile context. The external source DOES NOT give us that.

Thank you for your fast answer, Trezatium.Randroide 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, Trezatium. I wouldn't make such a statement without a source, but I linked the wrong part of the AIDSwiki "debate" between Bialy and John Moore, which was careless on my part. The correct link is here, although Trezatium's link contains exceprts of the same exchange. As you can see from the link I've cited, the context is anything but a friendly, jocular one. MastCell 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

the contentions of aids reappraisalists

"and more specifically, with their dissatisifaction regarding the thoroughness of the evidence for the current thinking" A line that i inserted into the intro of the list of complaints aids reappraisalists have. There are no weasel words in the sentence. They are dissatisfied with the level of evidence. Its unfair to classify the group as a whole without focusing on the fact that their main unifying factor comes not with their personal opinions on the existence of aids and hiv and their relationship, but on their displeasure with the evidence behind the current status quo opinion on aids/hiv. If you can offer a better rephrasing that isn't, "weasled", perhaps that will work. I didn't want to delete the first clause in the sentence. I am just starting to explore this topic, but it strikes me that this article tends to overlap the opinions of various aids questioners. The other edit I made on the number of deaths caused by aids reappraisal was totally biased, and referred to no real numbers, but conjecture.

I look forward to editing this article further and working with you all.Thechosenone021 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your addition was generally reasonable; certainly the AIDS reappraisalists seem to feel that the evidence hasn't been adequately evaluated. Perhaps we could get a comment from JoeSmack regarding his concerns about your edit and how we could reach some consensus. MastCell 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, hi there. I removed the wording to the title because it was argued over earlier on this talk page, and I presumed that someone stepped in after a while to push it back to something else. What you did by openning discussion here on the talk page again was the right thing to do. As per the wording "and more specifically, with their dissatisifaction regarding the thoroughness of the evidence for the current thinking" it just sounded like cruft; the line before "The community is united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS" said it all to me. You don't think that the concept of HIV causing AIDS doesn't include evidence? I thought every word added there was unnecessary. As per that thought usually an alarm in my head goes off 'weasel wording', and so I marked it as such on the revert. (I also saw on your user_talk someone talking about vandalism, sorry if I infered that further).

My feelings about your additions: I think that Concerns over Reappraisal's Effects is softer sounding than Estimated numbers of deaths caused by dissident views. It does refer to real numbers, 'thousands of lives'. There are refs attached to that number; im guessing you missed it because it was a number like '1,000' but was 'a thousand'. Both refs are detailed, i did read them. Now, as per the other wording The community is united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS and more specifically, with their dissatisifaction regarding the thoroughness of the evidence for the current thinking. I think it is just very redundant. The community is united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Sounds the best to me. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My point being that though there may be estimates of numbers, the previous title suggested that there was death caused by discussion and that the deaths were so concretely connected to discussion that they could be counted to an exact total. that is just too strong an implication for any serious scientific inquiry.

I also felt the inserted phrase was redundant, but didn't want to remove the previous clause, though it is unsourced and undoubtedly a generalization. Many aids reappraisalists appear to question the success and saftey of retroviral treatments, or accept that HIV is a cause of aids, but just one of many. Their true uniting factor is their discomfort with the completeness of our understanding of AIDS.Thechosenone021 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (oh and the vandalism thing on my talk page, while admittedly was deserved, had to do with one of those wikiality jokes, and was not like, an attempt to destroy the fabric of truth that is wikipedia.)

Yes, the phrase about "disagreement that HIV causes AIDS" is a generalization. The problem is that AIDS reappraisalists are a diverse group: some don't believe HIV exists, some do, some focus on antiretroviral toxicity, some push a drug-related hypothesis, etc etc. It was an attempt to summarize the common ground of the movement for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. It can't really be sourced, since it's a generalization about thousands of individual viewpoints, but if there's one common factor about AIDS reappraisalists, it would have to be that they don't think HIV is the cause of AIDS. Like I said, I have no strong feelings about adding the sentence about dissatisfaction with the evidence; I think this is also true for the vast majority of AIDS reappraisalists. Bascially the question is how to best sum up the diverse viewpoints that make up the movement. About the section title, it's not my favorite (I think it's a little inflammatory), but as JoeSmack pointed out, it was arrived upon after extensive discussion on the talk page, so I've accepted it. MastCell 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Randroide

Talking about "veracity" is not kosher??? I'm not making a claim about the veracity of anything!! Read closely. I'm making a claim about what DEFINES DISSIDENTS. And saying that what defines a dissident is to deny the veracity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is a simple statement of fact, and I fail to see how it's not "kosher". Sorry, I just don't think you've thought this subtle point through well enough. 69.252.201.61 06:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV??? =

I thought I had seen everything here at Idiotpedia, but this takes the cake.

Look up the meaning of the word veracity in a dictionary.

There are two concepts involved here:

CONSENSUS: roughly meaning, the vast majority of members of a group have come to a certain conclusion VERACITY: roughly meaning, truth of a claim or conclusion

Do the vast majority of dissident DENY the consensus? In other words, do they DENY that the vast majority of scientists disagree with them?? NO! Of course most dissidents know they are in the minority. Denying the consensus would be tantamount to saying "everyone agrees with us", "most people think HIV doesn't cause AIDS", etc., etc. This is absurd. It's patently obvious that we're in the minority. I don't deny that. Most dissidents don't.

What we DO deny is the VERACITY of the consensus. In other words, we deny the conclusions of the consensus that HIV causes AIDS.

A subtle difference. I know, one SO subtle that it likely goes way above your peon head.

THINK ABOUT WHAT I HAVE JUST WRITTEN FOR FIVE SECONDS BEFORE REVERTING, DUMBSHITS. 69.252.201.61 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 12:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you talk about the "veracity" of the consensus position you are saying that the consensus position is the truth, and that´s POV.

Another issue: Some of the words you are using are unacceptable in this venue. Please be civil. Thank you.

Added section...

... on how HIV-positive AIDS dissidents were treated when they actually progressed to AIDS and decided to take antiretrovirals. MastCell 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic, but perhaps the section is a bit long, especially given that it's based on only one source (a news article). Trezatium 10:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Toooooo long AND anecdotic. For Ayn Rand´s sake!: Only one journalistic source to support the entire section. Is this encyclopedic?. Would you accept a similar section in AIDS about VIH+ Dissidents talking about how much they improved once they left official treatments?. That section could also be easily written, the sources are there. Please change the title to "Anecdotic reports about..." or something like that. Thank you. Randroide 10:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Randroide, and suggest cutting this section to about half its current size, if we decide to keep it. Trezatium 11:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough... I've excised the section from the article and moved it here (see below); if we come to a consensus about what it should say and whether it should be included, we can put in back in the article. I guess I've always been interested in the reaction when dissidents are confronted with evidence that HIV does cause AIDS, HAART works, etc... but I see Randroide's point. Just because it interests me doesn't make it encyclopedic, and certainly anecdotal evidence could be provided from both sides. Maybe, on reflection, it makes sense to remove the entire section as unencylcopedic. MastCell 16:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly purely anecdotal insofar as one considers it as evidence that the dissidents are wrong. But I didn't think that was why it was being included - that's been demonstrated scientifically, and doesn't need anecdotes. But though anecdotes are not science, they are history. Insofar as this information is included to illuminate the activities and attitudes of dissidents, rather than the fact that AIDS medications work, I think it a worthwhile addition. After all, the article purports to be about "the AIDS reappraisal movement", not merely about their claims. - Nunh-huh 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Former AIDS dissidents have noted that, after they themselves developed AIDS, they were blackballed by the dissident establishment to which they had belonged. Writing in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Bruce Mirken spoke with several HIV-positive former dissidents about how they were treated by the dissident community after developing AIDS.^[1]

One HIV-positive former dissident noted that, after being convinced that HIV was harmless, he began having unprotected sex with his HIV-negative partner. Subsequently, both developed AIDS and Kaposi sarcoma; although responding well to treatment with antiretrovirals, the former dissident noted, "I brought Peter Duesberg into my home... I have to live with that."^[1]

Another former dissident noted that a number of HIV-positive people in his dissident group were dying of AIDS, while "I had never personally known anybody outside of the dissident groups who had died [of AIDS]." After developing a number of opportunistic infections, this person left the dissident community and began taking antiretrovirals, with a dramatic improvement in his health and well-being. He noted, "I bet the dissidents could find some way to explain this — they always do — but to me it made perfect sense: the meds were helping me get better."^[1]

Both former dissidents noted that they were treated with "hostility and scorn" by the dissident community when they began taking antiretrovirals and their health improved. Describing the AIDS dissident community's reaction to the "inconvenience" of people like himself, one former dissident described the strategy thus:

a) Debunk the guy's credibility. b) Find several arbitrary factors that may perhaps be present in his life to attribute this decline in health to. c) Chastise him for not following a more wholesome lifestyle d) Harangue him for any medical choices he might make that counter the party line. e) Then claim they don't have all the answers and that the dissidents are not missionaries.^[1]

One HIV-positive former dissident described the movement as a "cult" similar to Scientology, noting that the AIDS dissidents demand the kind of party-line orthodoxy that they often attribute to their opponents in the mainstream scientific community.^[1]

One of those former dissidents confess the use of recreative drugs ^[1], pointed by Peter Duesberg as the cause of AIDS ^[2]. No information is given about recreative drug use by the other former dissidents. Other of those former dissidents is reported to practice unprotected promiscuous sex ^[1], resulting in repeated infections, a practice pointed by Kary Mullis as a possible cause of AIDS ^[3].

---

External links

I trimmed some external links for the following reasons: AIDSmyth is a blog, a non-preferred external links. The two "general" links seemed not particuarly germane to the topic; and the "Why I Quit HIV" is a personal testimonial which, again, seemed to add little to the other dissident resources. In general, I'm a minimalist about external links; however, if others have a problem with those removals, feel free to put them back. MastCell 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you call this PseudoScience

"AIDS reappraisal" is not Pseudo Science. "AIDS reappraisal" means hey, lets at least consider the possibility of another cause, and dedicate some funding to research into that area. Calling it "pseudoscience" is a political buzz word which is making an incorrect carte blanche statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs) .

Creationists try to make exactly the same argument. The point is that, according to the vast majority of experts, more than enough research has already been done. It is unreasonable to call for reappraisal of a theory that has so much evidence in its favour. Trezatium 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.37.250 (talk • contribs) .

Err... OK. The article says (or said, before your edit) that "The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community and public health workers." The point is that the scientific community considers these arguments pseudoscientific. Do you dispute that? Your opinion, while certainly not unimportant, is not really relevant to the above text from the introductory paragraph. MastCell 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence from intro

I've cut the following sentence, which was added by 72.141.37.250, from the intro: "AIDS dissidents argue that the failure of modern science to provide a cure for AIDS is enough of a scientific reason to search for other potential causes." That could certainly be included, but should probably go under "Points of contention", rather than in the intro, since it's fairly specific. And of course, one could argue from the mainstream scientific perspective that, while there's no cure yet, a large array of highly effective treatments have been developed based on the HIV-AIDS model. MastCell 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, its going in. Thats the central point of dissidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.37.250 (talk • contribs) .

If you say this is the central point of dissidents, please provide a reliable source stating this fact. Or state it such that it reads: "According to Virusmyth.com, a dissident website..." Nrets 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nrets. User:72.141.37.250, please re-read my above comment before reverting. I'm not saying it shouldn't go in. I'm talking about where to place it. It is by no means the "central point" of dissidents; rather, it's one argument for reappraisal of HIV-AIDS. If you don't believe me, go back and read the reference you cited to support the sentence. It's full of dissidents badmouthing the NIH, corrupt scientists, poor statistics, flawed trials, etc etc, and there are only a handful of mentions of the lack of a cure. So, as I said above, it deserves inclusion, but not in the intro paragraph; characterizing it as "the central point of dissidents" is unsupportable, at least with the citation you provided. MastCell 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure

I will gladly sign my name. First, I'm disputing the neutrality of this article.

When the discoverer of HIV himself tell's the scientific community: "There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more, and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later." (Miami Herald 23 Dec. 1990)

        You listen.

My particular citation is from: Dr. Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus of Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley: "We need research into possible causes such as drug use and behaviour, not a bankrupt hypothesis." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

Also, that is a fact. The goal of AIDS dissidents is to achieve funding for alternative causation studies. This has always been the goal. The evidence supporting that claim is clearly self evident and does not require additional sources.

Yogiudo

I've added your sentence to the "Points of contention" section. The point being made was not that this statement should be omitted, but that it should be put in the right part of the page. Trezatium 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yogiudo

The source I provided contains citations from a nobel prize winner, the scientist who isolated the first cancer gene, the inventor of the HIV test, and the discoverer of HIV itself.

Good writing requires you to reference specialists in the field, particularly those who have had significant contributions to the field in question.

Mullis and Duesberg are already mentioned in the page, and several of Duesberg's papers are referenced. The inventor of the HIV antibody test was Robert Gallo, who's not a dissident. Trezatium 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Luc Montagnier (co-discover of HIV), the statement you quoted was made sixteen year ago. Here's a more recent quote: "Infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) results in the progressive destruction of CD4 T lymphocytes, generally associated with progression of the disease.The progressive disappearance of CD4 T lymphocytes leads to the lack of control of HIV replication and to the development of severe immune deficiency responsible for the occurrence of opportunistic infections associated with AIDS." (Source) Trezatium 19:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously if he is an important figure in the field of HIV we should always remember and consider his other beliefs. Otherwise he is a flip-flopper.

Is Luc Montagnier a flip flopper ?

Clearly you your information is out of date, Luc Montagnier and his team discuss the possibility of co-factors again in his 2002 essay "A History of HIV Discovery"

[3]

Science 29 November 2002:

Vol. 298. no. 5599, pp. 1727 - 1728

DOI: 10.1126/science.1079027 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs) .

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you need to stop baldly misrepresenting your sources. I re-read Montaignier's piece that you cite. Here's a quote from the piece you cite: "We are left with the salient fact that HIV was identified and shown to be the cause of AIDS less than 2 1/2 years after this disease was first identified." I could not find any significant discussion of alternate causes of AIDS in the piece. Montaignier is not an AIDS dissident; he clearly subscribes to the belief that the virus he discovered causes AIDS. So, do "you listen" to that, or only to the statement he made to the Miami Herald 16 years ago? MastCell 20:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hurray - some rational debate! Trezatium 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay you want more sources, fine:

In the beginning of the HIV epidemic, Kaposi sarcoma was a common stigma in AIDS patients and one of the leading causes of death. While Kaposi sarcoma is seen less frequently since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy, lymphoma and other malignancies are an increasing therapeutic challenge. The incidence of HPV-related anal carcinoma and its precursor lesions is rising so dramatically that screening programs as they are already established for cervical carcinoma should be implemented. The role of HPV in UV-associated tumors is not yet determined. Additional risk factors like smoking and HCV co-infection seem to play important roles in the high incidence of lung and hepatocellular carcinomas. While fewer patients die from opportunistic infections, we face a growing problem with malignancies in HIV-positive patients.

PMID: 17036250 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

It is clear that those pesky co-factors arnt going away.

In addition, the use of Nitrate inhalent has also been on decline due to laws that have prohibited the sale of those chemicals - which I might add occured roughly around 4-5 years before the use of antiretroviral therapy became widely used. Would you like a reference for that too?

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/inhalants/inhalants_law1.shtml

Unless you can prove that the effect of co-factors are not applicable then the justification for further studies into causation of AIDS is still an avenue which is being sought by AIDS dissidents. It is infact the central core of the discussion, and its merit is as current as your last keystroke.

Yogiudo

Furthermore, unless you can justify the non existance of co-factors in the progression to AIDS then this article is not neutral and biased. I am thus re-instating the neutrality issue of this article until co-factors are elimitated from the current medical paradigm surrounding AIDS, or until you remove the tag again. - unsigned

Can you really be unaware that Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by infection with Human Herpes Virus 8 in HIV infected people? That's mainstream, not dissident! And unfortunately for your nitrate theory, the use of nitrates isn't associated, even statistically, with the diagnosis of AIDS. Your argument that nitrates are a cofactor because their use declined while AIDS increased in fact is an argument against your proposition. Your complaint about co-factors is difficult to unravel. What are you trying to say, in relation to this article? What does justifying "the non existance of co-factors" mean, and what does it have to do with "neutrality"? - Nunh-huh 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of co-factors co-factors influencing the rate of disease progression is not disputed. Trezatium 20:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

HIV progression to AIDS has not, nor cannot be separated from co-factors because HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. Can you cite a single example of progression to AIDS in the absense of co-factors?

Just a single case. I'll bet you can't. That is because there is no such study. "There is no such study which has proved that HIV progression to AIDS in the absense of co-factors occurs in HIV+ individuals"

co-factors include:

• nitrates
• IDU
• malnutrion
• drug use
• multiple parasitic infections
• multiple STDs
• Use of HIV/AIDS drugs
• Use of blood transfusions. Factor VII (this line added by User:Yogiudo after the below comments)

Yogiudo

Dude, it's called hemophilia. Or did you forget to list that in your "cofactors"? Or how about Ryan White, anyone? Anyhoo, since hemophiliacs have acquired HIV and progressed to AIDS (and died) in the absence of the above "cofactors", shall we remove the "POV" tag? MastCell 21:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My point up top wasn't that I wanted "more sources"; I wanted you to accurately represent the sources you use. You're arguing that smoking causes lung cancer, and Hep C causes liver cancer - no argument there. However, that doesn't cast any doubt on the role of HIV in AIDS. The point is that those cancers are more common in folks with HIV, since the immune system plays a role in containing and preventing them, and HIV suppresses the immune system. Plus people are living longer and not dying of opportunistic infections, thanks to HAART and prophylaxis, so AIDS-related cancers are becoming more of a problem. There's absolutely nothing in what you've cited that casts any doubt on the HIV/AIDS model. About nitrate use; I can cite data that McDonald's stopped using lard to fry their French fries a few years before AIDS death rates dropped. That correlation proves absolutely nothing about causation. Finally, please re-read WP:NPOV; you seem to be under a fairly substantial misconception that because you're not convinced HIV causes AIDS, this article is POV. Cofactors exist; they are not the cause of AIDS. There is scientific consensus on that; hence it is not POV to say so. MastCell 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot one. Not to mention that death of AIDS defining illnesses is well documented in HIV- hemophilliacs.

Try again. You know as well as I that hemophilia is disputed by Dr. Duesberg and others. Yogiudo

You said "Cofactors exist; they are not the cause of AIDS." Can you give me a reliable source for that please?

No problem... just keep adding every known mode of HIV transmission to your list of "cofactors", and you've got the perfect circular argument. I said there's scientific consensus that co-factors exist, but they're not the cause of AIDS. If you really need a source, check the NIH/NIAID fact sheet, or any of the "mainstream" scientific links at the bottom of the article. MastCell 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistics are not good science. You said "About nitrate use; I can cite data that McDonald's stopped using lard to fry their French fries a few years before AIDS death rates dropped." Which is what the entire HIV/AIDS paradigm is based on - statistics. HIV+ + Kaposi's sarcoma = AIDS. Kaposi's sarcoma + HIV- = Kaposi's sarcoma. Of course there is 100 percent relationship between HIV and AIDS. That is because, by definition "AIDS" cannot exist without the existance of an HIV+ test. Furthermore, explain AIDS without HIV. Because that is also well documented and does exist. We should probably update your mention to Koch Postulates since those are not furfilled by the existance of AIDS without HIV.

Your argument is circular. Not mine.

I have said, "There is no such study which has proved that HIV progression to AIDS in the absense of co-factors occurs in HIV+ individuals" Clearly, this does not rule out HETROSEXUAL CONTACT.

You cannot cite an example of non DUI, non hemophilia, hetrosexual individuals who have HIV+ without multiple STDS (or living in conditions of extreme poverty and parasitic infestations such as what you see in africa) progressing to AIDS in the absense of HIV drugs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs) .

Sigh... has it occurred to you that dissident arguments are also based on statistics? Since you categorically discount the value of statistics, I'm not sure what the point of arguing this is. Epidemiology is based on statistics. You're reciting every out-of-date dissident argument under the sun, starting with your mischaracterization of Montaignier's views and moving on through Koch's postulates. Please read the Wikipedia page on Koch's postulates. They have been fulfilled, and besides, plenty of other pathogens are accepted as disease-causing in spite of not fulfilling the postulates completely. Viruses are particularly notorious for this; virology did not exist as a concept or field when the postulates were devised, so they don't function optimally for viruses. Nonetheless, perhaps you could point out which postulate you regard as unfulfilled? MastCell 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No Until you can supply me with a cite for:

You cannot cite an example of non DUI, non hemophilia, hetrosexual individuals who have HIV+ without multiple STDS (or living in conditions of extreme poverty and parasitic infestations such as what you see in africa) progressing to AIDS in the absense of HIV drugs.

I will not back down. I have clearly given you a way out here. Proof of progression to AIDS in the absense of those listed co-factors. NONE OF WHICH INCLUDE HETROSEXUAL CONTACT

You can't do it because the study does not exist. What is the harm in doing such a study? Just to "find out". Surely it would "prove" HIV causes AIDS if such a study was done. How come it has not? I dont know that answer but in the name of GOOD science, it SHOULD be done.

- Until it is done, then this article should try to present the information as neutrally as possible, to avoid the dissemination of bad information to the masses - either way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs).

OK... so you categorically disbelieve in the field of statistics. You've mischaracterized your sources (Science/Montaignier). You repeated the old saw that HIV doesn't fulfill Koch's postulates, but won't explain what you mean or provide specifics. Your comments are starting to sound less like rational debate and more like trolling. How about the lab technicians and physicians who have become accidentally infected through handling live virus or infected patients? What was their cofactor (or were they all promiscuous drug users?) The reason the study you suggest has not been done is that there is scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS. "Good science" doesn't involve wasting resources on things that have already been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Finally, you really need to re-read the NPOV FAQ. Specifically, pay attention to the parts on "equal validity" and minority views, and the section on "pseudoscience", which states that we should "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." The article does this; AIDS reappraisal is characterized as a minority view which the community holds to be pseudoscience. I'm sorry you disagree, but that doesn't make the article POV. MastCell 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this study is okay: "How about the lab technicians and physicians who have become accidentally infected through handling live virus or infected patients?" Provided of course they did not take anti HIV drugs. The experiement you suggested has not been done either.

Additionally, I think that some of the major current events, such as Duesberg being involved a major South African adventure to prove or disprove the cause of AIDS is also important information, and should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs).

I think it's worth emphasising that this page is not supposed to be a discussion forum for establishing whether or not a particular scientific theory is correct. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article, so our task is a great deal simpler. All we need to do is establish what is believed by notable mainstream scientists and dissidents. For example, it is indisputable that most HIV experts believe that heterosexual HIV transmission does occur, and whether you or I disagree with them is irrelevant.

But since you asked for examples, how about 117,887 reports of heterosexually-transmitted AIDS in the US alone, plus another 44,208 cases of HIV that has not yet progressed to AIDS (CDC report, Table 17)? As this BMJ article explains, "A heterosexual contact patient is currently defined as a person who denies other risk factors—that is, homosexuality, injecting drug use, blood recipient, and has had heterosexual contact with a person with HIV infection or AIDS or at risk for AIDS—that is, male homosexual, injecting drug user, blood transfusion recipient. All other cases among self reported heterosexuals not meeting this definition are placed in the undetermined category."

Studies providing epidemiologic evidence are cited in this fact sheet, and there are even several famous examples of heterosexual transmission in the List of HIV-positive people - most notably among porn stars. Trezatium 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- Porn stars are well known to have the fast life. The fast life is inside one of the major risk groups attributed with AIDS. 72.141.37.250 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lastly

Now that the guns have stopped firing, and the debate has raged on, it appears clear at this time that a section could be added about the dissidents proposed experiment.

Unless somebody can provide me with a citation that proves it should not be added as it has been disproved by previous experimentation, I think it should be added. Perhaps something Neutral like:

Many dissidents most notably Dr Peter Duesberg have proposed an experiments to prove that HIV, in the absence of disputed co-factors does or does not cause to AIDS. These experiments include studies such as:

• Injecting himself with HIV
• Injecting a cohort of willing participants with HIV
• A cohort of heterosexually positive willing participants in the absence of co-factors

... etc ...

The proposed experiments have not been done yet so they may or may not be able to provide additional information to the scientific community. or The proposed experiments may or may not be able to provide additional information to the scientific community.

I think it is relavent because it is an important element to AIDS reappraisal and has been raised by numerous dissidents. It may also be relavant because it is one of the major fuelers of the controversy.

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs)

That would be fine, so long as you can supply citations to Duesberg actually proposing said experiments. If they're just experiments you think should have been done, then it's original research, which is forbidden. If you have some sources for Duesberg proposing experiments, we could add such a section ("Proposed experiments", etc). We would have to note the ethical issues; i.e. no physician or laboratory in their right mind could ethically allow people to inject themselves with HIV. Also, to sign your comments easily, just type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post - it will add your name and the time. MastCell 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the report might even be a good cite, http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/panel/chapter9.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.37.250 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the tip Yogiudo 23:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs) .

I will wait for others to potentially counter before adding any said item(s).

I do think it is at least humourous that someone might claim something which is unproven to be unethical. I hope you share the irony in that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (Yogiudo • contribs) .

Er... it is proven. That's why it would be unethical. Just because you choose not to accept that doesn't give me, or the NIH, the right to infect you with a potentially deadly virus. If you told me you didn't believe rabies was harmful, and wanted to inject yourself, it would be still be unethical of me to provide it to you. Hey, rabies has been around for much longer than HIV, and science has yet to produce a cure... it requires a "cofactor" (animal exposure)... how do we know it's the rabies virus and not, say, the neurotoxic properties of bat saliva that cause the disease? Maybe this could be tackled with the same amount of energy as the HIV/AIDS "lie" someday? Or better yet, go after hepatitis C - people often have "cofactors" like alcohol abuse or IV drug use, you can write off the people who acquired it via transfusion as another "cofactor", deny the existence of people who acquired it occupationally... science has yet to produce a vaccine or cure (proof positive the virus is harmless)... why are we giving the hep C virus a free ride? MastCell 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

With regards to your comments on Hep C and Hemophilliacs: If HIV is transmitted in blood and other bodily fluids, one would expect health care workers who are most likely to be exposed to these substances to be infected quite regularly. Of 733,374 AIDS cases reported in the U.S. through the end of 1999, only 25 are believed to have been occupationally transmitted. And, this conclusion is from negative evidence (i.e. health care workers who are HIV-positive, but not homosexual, drug abusers, haemophiliacs or blood transfusion recipients are assumed to have been infected occupationally). The CDC has reported not a single case of confirmed occupational transmission in surgeons and paramedics (CDC, 1999).

Not one paramedic, emergency medical technician or surgeon in the U.S. has contracted AIDS from on-the-job exposure (CDC, 1999). Out of 733,374 total U.S. AIDS cases through 1999, only 25 are thought to be occupationally acquired, based on presumptive evidence as described previously (CDC, 1999). In Canada, out of 16,235 AIDS cases through 1998, only 3 are reported as occupationally acquired (LCDC, 1998), based on circumstantial evidence (CCDR, 1992). Consider that the 1 million needle-stick injuries among health care workers in the U.S. each year result in about 1,000 cases of hepatitis among health care workers annually. That means that in the 18 years of AIDS, health care workers contracted 18,000 cases of hepatitis and 25 cases of AIDS. Pretty strange if HIV is a blood-borne virus!

72.141.37.250 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So you obviously read the various materials and publications. Yogiudo

So what.

Just because something might be unethical does not mean ignoring evidence which is also unethical makes the latter "ethical". The execution of 700,000 africans per year via toxic AIDS drugs might also be considered unethical if HIV was not the cause of AIDS. The stakes of human suffering are high enough to mandate the need for scientific experiement to rule in or out HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. Experiements the scientific community is strangely unwilling to perform such experiements.

Just trying to recoup on today's rants, it all smecks of Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point. To be pithy: please don't. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, todays rants prove that it all smecks of a biased article. Unless you can provide proof (not original research) on why AIDS reappraisal should not take place. Citing your "ethical conserns" this article smecks of bias and has lack of any clear neutrality. Considering the central point of dissidents (and even the mainstream) has never been proved or disproved, not because it cannot be done - but because it might be unethical. As we clearly know from very well documented history the development of the nuclear bomb - ethical concern is never proof that can be used in place of experiement.

(72.141.37.250 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

The term pseudo science is: A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to rules of reasoning.

Labeling AIDS reapprasial pseudoscience because of an unwillingness to measure does not count as being "unmmeasurable". Thats final. Its neutrality has been clearly disputed.

(Yogiudo 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

Sigh. Your comments suggest you have still not read the NPOV FAQ. AIDS reappraisal is the viewpoint of a tiny minority which has been roundly rejected by every major scientific and medical organization. To not reflect that fact in the article would be POV. A good article on this topic will present AIDS dissident arguments, reflect the fact that this is a minority viewpoint widely considered erroneous, and summarize the impact of the movement. That's what we're trying to accomplish here; your input is welcome.

I have read the neutrality policy and my complaint is within the scope represented by that document. The document cites: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views." I would argue that since this article is about AIDS reappraisial that it is infact perfectly logical that this article should present the body of information in such article in a more neutral way. For example a page about Holocaust Denial should not be a platform to bash Holocaust Denial but rather disseminate any such information as neutrally as possible. This, rather is within the scope of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs)

Exactly - AIDS reappraisal is a minority view. Hence, we do not need to give it equal validity to the mainstream view. If you look at the actual page on Holocaust denial, it follows a very similar model to what we have here - views are presented, then it's made clear that Holocaust denial is a fringe/minority viewpoint regarded as erroneous and unfounded by the political/social/historical mainstream. MastCell 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's revealing that you place a low priority on actually reading the sources and documents involved. As far as occupational exposure, post-exposure AZT has been used to prevent occupational HIV transmission since 1988,[4] which partially accounts for the low transmission rate. The accepted chance of acquiring HIV from a needlestick is 0.3% per exposure. Seems low, but then for Hep C it's only 1.8% per exposure (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 Jun 29;50(RR-11):1-52), and again, no one's making a fuss about hep C virus being harmless. If you take into account the prevalence of HIV in the population, number of needlesticks, and rate of infectivity, and the effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis, the number of cases of occupationally acquired HIV makes sense.

By the way, I missed your explanation for pediatric AIDS. What "cofactors" do such children have? And before you tell me it's because their moms all used drugs or something, please review these studies:

• European Collaborative Study, Lancet 1991;337:253, PMID 1671109
• Update of European Collaborative Study, Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997;16:1151, PMID 9427461
• Abrams et al, Pediatrics 1995;96:451, PMID 7651777

...Which demonstrate that only HIV status, not maternal drug use or any other factor, predicted which kids would go on to develop AIDS.

And before you line up to volunteer to be infected with HIV, consider reading the article about how dissidents are treated when they "inconviently" develop AIDS. It would seem they either die of preventable disease rather than accept treatment, or accept HAART, get better, and get vilified by the dissident establishment. MastCell 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can cite many instances of children, and other biological organisms inheriting poor immuno systems from environmental causes "co-factors". Many of these causes are also predictable. Many are also similiar to AIDS but lack an HIV+ test. These do not require additional citation in this forum. You are correct, this is not a forum. However it is important that this article present information as neutrally as possible. I suggest that we consider a disclaimer for this article to also warn of not taking any such information in such article as professional medical advice.

I am happy to review new materials. I thank you for providing me with new information. Obviously, I have not encountered the said items. As a non expert in this field I am not able to know all of the facts. But the lack of such clear references in the article made to said viewers may justify's the neutrality clause because said article does not provide some of those references. I would argue that providing such information to said viewers does not breach a scope of such article. Since I am not an expert on such material, I can only suggest that a vote should be made for the neutrality status of this article. Voting will provide a democractic way to decide on the status of such articles. Yogiudo 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Wikipedia is not a democracy).JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you believe that the kids inherited some unspecified immune deficiency from their mom (besides HIV), maybe you'll consider this: identical twins born to an HIV+ mom, where one twin acquires HIV in utero and the other does not (the rate of mother-to-child HIV transmission is not 100%, so there are such cases). These twins are genetically completely identical, and have the same inheritance. Yet only the twin who is HIV+ develops AIDS. Here's the reference: Menez-Bautista et al, PMID 3012996 (monozygotic = identical, HTLV-III = HIV). If you're looking for a place to start in terms of understanding why scientists are so convinced that HIV causes AIDS, I'd encourage you to check out this fact sheet from the U.S. National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (it's the top mainstream "External Link" in the article). It's a good summary of the evidence, and also tackles the dissident arguments in detail (contrary to what some have asserted, these objections have been debated by the scientific community). As far as a disclaimer, I agree 100% - "no medical advice" is covered under Wikipedia's general disclaimer (click on "Disclaimers" on the footer at the very bottom of any Wikipedia page); we're instructed not to attach our own disclaimers since the "no medical advice" issue is covered by the general disclaimer. MastCell 02:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that only the HIV+ twin would be prescribed powerful antiviral medicine. Yogiudo 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More references: Young 1990, Guerrero 1993, Barlow 1993, Thomas 1993 and Park 1987 (free text). Trezatium 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... Yogiudo, that would seem obvious until the abstract (PMID 3012996) is reviewed carefully. It was published in 1986. AZT, the first antiretroviral, was not approved by the FDA and introduced into practice until 1987 (20 March 1987 was the date of FDA approval). So the twin would not have received AZT, nor any other antiretroviral therapy, at the time of publication. Keep trying, though. MastCell 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the rate of infant AIDS has plummeted since the introduction of AZT prophylaxis for both mothers and newborns. Trezatium 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Trezatium.

Any one of these findings could be written off in isolation (which is how the dissidents prefer to attempt it). The point is that the evidence, taken as a whole, forms cohesive, self-reinforcing picture of HIV as the cause of AIDS. By the way, still waiting for the dissidents' explanation of the twins. MastCell 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the paper carefully, Randroide. As it explains, the efficacy of AZT (zidovudine) for preventing mother-to-child transmission has been demonstrated in several randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (in ACTG 076, only 8% of the women randomised to AZT transmitted HIV to their babies compared to 26% among those on placebo); longer courses of AZT lead to less HIV transmission than shorter trials regimens; and combination therapy leads to lower rates still. What more do you need to demonstrate causation? See this article for more details. Trezatium 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I removed the intro line:

The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community and public health workers, who argue that dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.

This is clearly a carte blache statement and attempts to generalize the opinions of public health workers and the scientific community.

Yogiudo

Please can we agree to propose and discuss changes on the talk page before editing the article, so as to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Trezatium 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yogiudo

Sure but I will not roll over on this page. So if you want an edit war, I suggest you continue to squat on this page.

None of the regular contributors to this page want an edit war. You're not being asked to "roll over"; you're being asked to collaborate with other editors on a controversial article. MastCell 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I removed the intro line:

The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community and public health workers, who argue that dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.

This is clearly a carte blache statement and attempts to generalize the opinions of public health workers and the scientific community.

Yogiudo

The recast sentence is a necessary statement of fact. Please don't remove it again. Trezatium 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored once again. - Nunh-huh 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As Randroide stated above: "It's patently obvious that we're in the minority. I don't deny that. Most dissidents don't." This is the factual point that the sentence is making. Trezatium 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No. sir. The sentence places reappraisers outside the "scientific community". That´s false. I give my reasons below.

Yogiudo: I suggest you to discuss changes first. You are right in this dispute, but politeness and etiquette are also important. Please be patient. Thank you. Randroide 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the change to the intro. I am pleased with said statements, perhaps it could be modified to exclude all dissidents, as all dissidents have clearly not formally made recommendations to public health workers or scientific community.

Yogiudo 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide: I apologize for the lack of etiquette, however under the circumstances changes to this article required some bold steps to be taken.

POV tag

Please list the reasons for the addition of the POV tag, so we can work on them. Is it because of the sentence stating that the scientific community considers AIDS reappraisal arguments to be pseudoscience? Because that can be referenced; it's not POV. If you give us other examples that you believe violate WP:NPOV, we can work on addressing them. MastCell 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dissidents as Duesberg or Mullis are "part of the scientific community". You should say that "the majority of the scientific community considers Reappraisers arguments pseudoscience".

Mention should also be made to Reappraisers considering the official position as Pseudoscience. I can source this affirmation.Randroide 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. As for the second, the article already refers to alleged "unprecedented deviation from scientific method and standards", but (as I said before) perhaps it could go into a bit more detail, provided it is NPOV. Trezatium 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Ehrrrr...the more I think about this, the more I see that this article is in really bad, bad shape. Yogiudo is right. The more I think about the issue the worse I see the current article.

I "know" that we, reappraisers, are a minority... but I have no source saying so.

"Impressionistic" "common knowledge" is NOT accepted in Wikipedia. I "know" a lot of things about AIDS I can not write here because I have no external source. Those "factoids" are "anecdotal".

The same goes, I am afraid, with the affirmation "The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community [citation needed] and by public health workers [citation needed], who argue that dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments [citation needed].

I must now quote to Jimbo:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.[5].

Sorry but the burden of proof is on the side of the people who wrote that. I think hat it is fair to give a month to the people interested in sourcing that. If you have no source, the text must be deleted.

"Randroide said such and such" is NOT a proper source. Randroide is not the editor of Nature not the chairman of the CDC. Wht I say is irrelevant. Randroide 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the only living, breathing dissident braving these waters at the moment (the occasional Tourette's-like outburst from Revolver's anon IP's notwithstanding), so we do attach great significance to your words as a representative of the movement... but your point is well-taken. The article can always stand to be more precisely worded and to be more well-sourced. MastCell 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope that Yogiudo also "breathes". Revolver can also do much better. Randroide 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Now now both of yous, there is enough waters, breaths and sources for everyone. :-) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense was meant to Yogiudo; just that he's new to these pages while Randroide's been around quite awhile. MastCell 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please clarify: are 72.141.37.250 and Yoguido Yogiudo one and the same? Trezatium 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup... see this diff, where 72.141.37.250 replaced his IP sig with Yogiudo's name, or this one. Yogiudo, if 72.141.37.250 is maliciously impersonating you, speak up, but it looks like just a matter of sometimes not being logged in while editing. MastCell 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am the same guy [User:Yogiudo|Yogiudo]

I wish wikipedia had cookies Yogiudo 23:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has cookies. When you log in, click the "Remember me" checkbox. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is Revolver? I will collaborate, but guys - the article is still leaning too far. I hope at least I've given others a few ideas. I think it can be a very good balanced article based on all of the knowledge in here. A list to AZT free survivors might be a good link and I am sure there are other materials which could be included in the page to help give it some balance... Or a link to poppers: [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogiudo (talk • contribs) .

How we getting along boys and girls???

Nice to see. Everyone read the recent Rodgriguez et al article in JAMA 27 September 2006?? Might learn something. The completely incoherent editorial accompanying it and the bizarre, Orwellian Jon Cohen piece in Science should alert any average reader that something's not quite right. To summarise:

THE HOLY TRINITY (in jeopardy):

Padian 1997: sexual transmission, << UCK >>
Rodriguez et al in JAMA: viral load means jack-shit: << UCK >>
recent Lancet article: showing lower viral load doesn't translate to clinical benefit: << UCK >>

In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. All these things speak for themselves. Revolver. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.201.61 (talk • contribs) .

Randroide 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) I agree with you, Revolver. The scenery of the (not very good) HIV/AIDS representation is falling apart, piece by piece. But spectators already bought their tickets. AIDS orthodoxy can not cancel the show and give spectators their money back. Show must go on...

Link to the abstract: [7]

Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. These findings have implications for treatment decisions in HIV infection and for understanding the pathogenesis of progressive immune deficiency.

"as yet undefined"...22 years with this crap.

You seem to be misinterpreting the results of the Rodriguez paper, if "viral load doesn't mean jack shit" was what you took away. For the study group as a whole, initial viral load correlated with rate of CD4 loss: as the authors wrote, "higher presenting HIV RNA levels were associated with greater subsequent CD4 cell decline." The thrust of the article was that on an individual patient level, a single viral load measurement at presentation is not an effective predictor. As a mathematician, I'm sure this type of distinction is familiar to you. The result has significant implications for clinical management, and suggests avenues for further research, but in no way calls into question the causative role of HIV. You will probably not be surprised to learn that Rodriguez, like Padian before him, felt compelled to warn against the misrepresentation of his results by the AIDS denialist camp (see here). The authors of both studies take strong exception to the misuse of their results to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I'm not sure which Lancet article you're referring to - they've recently published a few studies of structured treatment interruption, but it must be something else - so I can't comment on that. MastCell 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cherry picking of results is what AIDS denialists are known for, why should this user be any different? --Bob 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Bob. We, "denialists" are all equal. In fact we are all clones created by the "mad scientist" Peter Duesberg in a secret lab in the basement of his house, as part of his "hidden agenda" to kill millions. Revolver and me are even from the same manufacturing batch. Have a good day. Randroide 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And the rest of us are only "interested in turning articles related to HIV & AIDS into propaganda for pharma-whores." Trezatium 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Denialists in the news

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos recently testified in a trial on behalf of Andre Chad Parenzee, who infected a sexual partner with HIV. [8]. It might be important enough to be included here, since it is part of a legal proceding, and will result in an interesting verdict (whether it's right or wrong!). - Nunh-huh 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had heard about that. I think it might be worth waiting a while though to see what happens; there's very little to report so far. David Crowe reports that, "The judge has not yet decided whether Val Turner and Eleni Eleopulos should be classified as expert witnesses." Trezatium 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if they are admitted as experts, it's news, and if they are rejected as experts, it's news. I'm guessing Australian courts are as capricious as any other, so there's no telling which way they'd go. Some of the things they've been testifying to elucidate their current POV. It's fine to wait for a while, but an interrim report of it might not be amiss until further developments. - Nunh-huh 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, speaking of cherry-picking, there's the Padian study again. The news article presented it thus: "According to the Padian paper, a man would have to with his wife three times a week for 27.4 years to expose her to a 95 per cent risk of passing on HIV." Score one for denialistdissident PR - there's no mention of the fact that in Padian's paper, condom use and safe sex were encouraged and widely used, accounting for the low rate of transmission. Oh well, maybe Eleni's 50-page PowerPoint presentation on how semen causes AIDS (but only with anal-receptive , not l ) will convince the jury to let this upstanding citizen go free to infect a few more people. Guess there really is no such thing as bad publicity for some. MastCell 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The latest Parenzee story is called Doubts on HIV's existence 'insane'. Trezatium 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And the judge has said of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, "I'm not sure what her qualifications are in biology. There don't appear to be any. She appears to be self-taught. I'm not sure upon what basis it's put forward that she is an expert in talking about how diseases are sexually transmitted." (Source) Does this woman have a doctorate or not? Trezatium 13:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I always assumed she did, but apparently she has a B.S. and not an advanced degree - see here: "...Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who has a Bachelor of Science and works as a medical engineer at Royal Perth Hospital..." The article also makes clear she has no academic position at either Royal Perth Hospital or U. Western Australia; apparently she works in a technical capacity at RPH. MastCell 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything written by EP-E herself in which she claims to have a doctorate. In particular, in the list of rethinkers she cites no qualifications. Trezatium 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, me neither. Some dissident web sites refer to her repeatedly as "Dr." P-E and call her a "professor", but I don't think she herself has ever claimed to possess a doctorate. MastCell 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

AIDS Realists (i.e., Reappraisers) in the news

"Denialists" is flagrant POV, just as "AIDS Realists" to call the Reappraisers. Could you please stick to a neutral terminology in the talk page?. Of course that you have the right to call us as you please ...but is a question of politeness. Thank you.

The Papadopulos issue you talked about seems very interesting. Thank you for the link. Please keep us informed. Randroide 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see calling denialists denialists as accurate, not impolite, so I'll continue. If nothing else, it has the benefit of not being misunderstood; "AIDS realists" is 1984 doublespeak. Talk pages reflect points of view and are not censored. I agree that this will be a most interesting case to watch. - Nunh-huh 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll go back to "dissident" or "reappraiser"... I can respect your desire to be described in more neutral terms, but "realist"... that I cannot do. MastCell 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell. "AIDS Realist" was presented by me just as an example of charged language. If that expression seems unacceptable (and certainly it is unacceptable when one is talking with guys "from the other side"), please note that it is just as charged as "AIDS Denialist".

Of course that you, "Consensus guys", can tell us even "AIDS Heretics" if you please in the talk page. You have the right to do do, but that would be unpolite. Randroide 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're puerile 'word traps' don't prove anything. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally

I am impressed that finally someone has cited something which states a point. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is also true. A car door is always opened before the ignition is turned on. That doesnt mean that opening the car door turns on the car. I am going to say this carefully. It is a shame that the type of information you just presented is not presented to people first. You expect people to take everything they read at face value. Well I dont. But if I can come across an article like the one you just stated, (Park 1987) - Then it gives me the gut feeling that HIV is probably the main cause of AIDS. However regardless of weither it is, or is not - they should still be dedicating some more research into other causes, and other things such as life style prevention. But I have no explanation for the twins, if thats what you thought I would say. Remember - I am not a illogic person, I just need proof, and that is more convincing then other stuff I have read. P.S. I still think injecting herion mixed with drywall 3 times a day for 10 years constitutes a high risk of immune system collaspe and probably a few dozen kinds of cancer. Some of which would probably be considered AIDS in the presence of an HIV+ test. And just because your looking for another cause does not make you a pseudoscientist. Yogiudo

Well, how do we ever prove causality? To extend your analogy, turning a car key always turns on the ignition. How do we know that one causes the other, as opposed to your car door analogy? Well, we understand the mechanism by which the key turns over the engine, and we've seen it happen again and again. Similarly, we now understand much (not all) of the mechanisms by which HIV causes immunosuppression, which in turn reinforces causality.

I appreciate your desire to think things through for yourself; I don't think that's illogical. This is a complex, confusing issue and it's easy to twist things to confuse people. The debates you mention have occurred; scientists didn't sit down one day and say "case closed". It was a process which happened throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. Duesberg's (and others') objections were meaningful in those early days. They've now been examined and convincingly rebutted, yet a small handful of folks still cling to them, regardless of how much evidence piles up. Questioning a consensus doesn't make you a pseudoscientist, as you point out. You become a pseudoscientist when you start using the trappings of science and the literature to advance a point which is just not supportable anymore; the only way to do this is through cherry-picking and mischaracterization.

The research you mention is occurring as well. The JAMA paper which Revolver cited above will undoubtedly provoke quite a bit of research into lifestyle or genetic factors that affect how quickly HIV progresses to AIDS.

And I'd certainly never encourage the injection of heroin nor drywall, but I can guarantee you that only heroin users who are HIV-positive will develop AIDS; this has been borne out in multiple studies (see here and PMID 8095571, PMID 8099613, etc). Needle-exchange programs, for instance, do not lower the rate of heroin use, but do impact rates of AIDS and hep B/C. MastCell 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont know what junkies are dying from then, do I? But they are dying from something. And in great numbers. HIV+ or not. Take a stroll down to the local slum if you want. Yogiudo 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? If junkies are dying, then HIV doesn't cause AIDS? - Nunh-huh 03:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just selective reasoning. Paying attention only to the information you want to. You must be a toxicity denialist. 72.141.37.250 04:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cherry picking of results is what AIDS denialists are known for... --Bob 18:13, 26 October 2006 -- Yep. Bob couldn't have put it better. I'm pretty sure that is what Yogiudo is saying, which is to say not the whole truth. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's alright, it's probably better that you not try to explain. Sorry if I troubled you by trying to understand what you meant. - Nunh-huh 04:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry. I'm just kidding around. I am interested in that JAMA paper though. I will read that. 72.141.37.250 04:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MastCell wrote: You become a pseudoscientist when you start using the trappings of science and the literature to advance a point which is just not supportable anymore

And who is the Pope of Science who decides in which moment such or such point is not supportable anymore?. AFAIK we do not have such a Pope in Science.

If you call persons like Duesberg "Scientists who are wrong" instead of "Pseudoscientists" you will improve the tone of the discussion.

MastCell wrote: ...but I can guarantee you that only heroin users who are HIV-positive will develop AIDS

Oh, yes. If you are HIV-negative you can be dying of a combination of Pneumocystis carinii and Kaposi's sarcoma, but will not develop AIDS by definition. Never. You are just a P.C. and K.S. case. This is called Circular logic. Randroide 15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

"Just" a PCP and KS case? Unless the patient had some clear contributing factor like being immunosuppressed from chemotherapy (in which case there would be no reason to call it AIDS, and it would differ from AIDS in specific clinical ways too, like not preferentially destroying CD4+ cells), that case would be big news pretty fast. Reporting of inexplicable rare diseases, in medical literature and to the CDC, is the whole reason AIDS was discovered. ←Hob 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I will cite you the name of an immunosupresant "chemotherapeutic": AZT.

Show me an HIV-negative person who died of "a combination of KS and PCP". Such a thing was virtually unheard of before HIV/AIDS; only a handful of physicians had even seen either KS or PCP. Suddenly any doc who worked in an urban hospital was seeing tons of young people with advanced KS, PCP, etc - in HIV+ folks. This is silly, and it's not even circular logic at all. You can turn yellow and develop liver failure without Hep B virus infection. We only call it "hepatitis B" if you test positive for the virus... otherwise you're "just" a hepatitis case, even though your clinical course may be similar. Including a microbiologic test when establishing a diagnosis is basic medical practice, not some kind of logical fallacy. MastCell 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

alright guys....

...i think it's time we all take a chill pill. please? over the last 5 days we've slammed out about 20 pages of discussion (really, i put it in word and checked the pages), and it is all starting to feel snide and pointless. it's Friday, lets all go out and have a good time, or have a romantic dinner with the wife, or watch a movie with a friend, or something - but take a little break to cool off. i think we could use it. :) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

About the "neutrality disputed" tag... this is meant to be attached to an article when editors (or groups of editors) are unable to work together to come to a consensus on NPOV wording for specific issues. Can we get a list of specific issues with the article (ideally with proposed improvements) from User:Yogiudo so that we can work on them? If you find us totally resistant to your proposed improvements, then the tag is justified; however, I think most of the editors of this page will work with you. I'd prefer to see a list of things we can work on, and remove the tag unless we come to an impasse on specific items. If the tag is attached simply because the article treats AIDS reappraisal as a minority viewpoint outside the scientific mainstream, then it needs to go, per the NPOV FAQ. If there are specific issues of neutrality, name them and let's work on them. MastCell 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the above, I am removing the POV tag. If there are specific issues of POV, let's address them here. If they can't be resolved to the satisfaction of those involved, then the POV tag is appropriate, along with a specific list of the issues felt to be POV violations. MastCell 01:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The section "Alleged harm caused by dissident views" are weasel words. It ads no value to the article but only blames a much larger problem on a few dissidents. We should change the tone of this item, or address it by adding an "Alleged harm caused by AZT" section. User:Yogiudo

The opinions expressed are all attributed to concrete people and organizations; weasel words aren't being used. The value to the article is that a number of mainstream scientists/treatment advocates consider AIDS reappraisal not only wrong but dangerous... this is a significant issue deserving mention. To make the section more balanced, we could add a rebuttal from Celia Farber (for instance), who has argued that blaming dissidents for AIDS deaths or comparing them to Holocaust denialists is ridiculous and overly prejudicial. I'm sure we can dig up a few quotes from her or other dissidents to rebut the charges from Moore/Geffen. As far as alleged harm of AZT, there is already such a section under "AIDS treatment toxicity". It's in relatively poor shape, so if you have some citations for the dissident claims of toxicity, or would like to rewrite or amplify the issues they have with AZT, I'd suggest focusing on the pre-existing section and improving it. MastCell 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added some counter arguments from the Perth Group and Duesberg. Trezatium 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Walter Gilbert

Walter Gilbert once said that the HIV theory was unproven; according to the AIDS journalist Richard Jefferys, he's since changed his mind: "I am afraid that those comments go back to the late 80's. At that time I was a skeptic--the argument based on Koch's postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association... Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument." (Source) Trezatium 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. There are actually a few other people mentioned as "AIDS dissidents" who have since been convinced by the accumulation of data (eg Sonnabend, Root-Bernstein). I created the subsection on "former dissidents" to reflect that; sounds like perhaps Gilbert should be moved down there. MastCell 06:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect along with the antoviral drugs the doctor gives some other advise - cut out the drinking, partying, use a condom, clean up the VD, eat regularly, etc. I wonder which people survive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

Sonnabend and Root-Bernstein

Perhaps it should be made clearer that Sonnabend and Root-Bernstein have never denied that HIV might play some role in causation, though they've argued that cofactors are also necessary. Both of them have for a long time disagreed with Duesberg, as explained in their letters to Science (Vol 267, Issue 5195, 13 January 1995). The recent POZ article says that Sonnabend "has not changed his view that developing AIDS, like other infectious diseases, requires cofactors such as other viruses and bacteria," and Root-Bernstein says that, "Both the camp that says HIV is a pussycat and the people who claim AIDS is all HIV are wrong." Trezatium 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Both Sonnabend and Root-Bernstein were, and still are, advocates for "AIDS reappraisal", so perhaps they don't belong in the "Former dissidents" section. What seems to have changed is that they're both now convinced that HIV has some role to play in causation, whereas previously they were unsure. Trezatium 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a valid distinction - if you want to take a shot at rewording it, by all means. It seems relevant that the accumulation of evidence has convinced some of the more scientifically grounded of the reappraisers that HIV is pathogenic, but of course we shouldn't misrepresent their original views, and you're absolutely right that both R-B and Sonnabend still attach caveats to their acceptance of HIV. MastCell 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor amendments which I think are sufficient. Trezatium 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Having done some more research, I think it is reasonable to describe them as "former dissidents". Trezatium 17:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Walter Gilbert

You know, I think the fact that Walter Gilbert has disassociated himself from the AIDS dissident camp is important, relevant, and telling. However, after my most recent perusal of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline, it's pretty clear that blogs should not be used as reliable sources. Therefore, I'd propose removing (perhaps commenting out?) the section on Walter Gilbert under "Former Dissidents", unless/until we can find a more reliable source to verify it. (Not that Richard Jeffreys himself is unreliable, but citing a blog as a source is the issue). Again, I think it's an important fact that I'd love to have in the article, but by sourcing it to a blog we're probably stepping over the bounds of WP:RS. Thoughts? MastCell 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Trezatium 20:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment it out of the article. I'll keep an eye out for a more reliable source documenting the fact that Gilbert appears to have disassociated himself from the movement. MastCell 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Walter Gilbert's disassociation from the AIDS dissident camp is important, relevant, and telling -- but not for the reasons you think he is. He is useful for influence purposes, not for scientific purposes. He is an example of a Convert Communicator, who is "someone who used to believe or behave in a certain way but who has changed" according to psychologist Robert Cialdini. Talking about people "switching sides" is great for getting people into your camp (whether you're in the mainstream camp or the dissident camp is of no importance -- the principle works either way), but it distracts people from the evidence. And we all should be looking at the evidence, not changing allegiances -- especially in a scientific matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loundry (talk • contribs).

Non functional link

This link (link 18) does not work: "Dead Certain?" Randroide 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It works for me in both Firefox 2 and Internet Explorer 7 (Windows XP). Trezatium 20:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Working for me too (from the article and also from the link Randroide posted above) - are you getting a "Site not found", or some other kind of error? MastCell 20:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Only a POZ frame with a blank page in the center. Firefox on Windows98. I will try from a cybercafe. Sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem - let us know if it continues to be inaccessible for you. MastCell 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should try contacting the webmaster at POZ. It sounds like a broswer-specific CSS issue that they might want to sort out. Trezatium 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ultimate Answer

Though there are arguments on both sides that have merits the simple matter is if people who do not believe HIV causes AIDS could end this argument easily but simply volunteering to be injected with HIV. If they contract AIDS then all the arguments are thrown out.

With the possible exception that HIV might be a cofactor and when combined with another virus in the body (such as HPV6) the two cause AIDS.

Yet no advocate of the side HIV does not cause AIDS has ever volunteered to do so? Why not? This has never been explained.

There are a few explanations. First of all, where would the HIV come from? No lab could ethically provide HIV with the intent that a person would infect themselves. A couple of dissidents have proposed such an idea (infecting themselves), but they've either attached ridiculous and unfulfillable clauses (David Rasnick) or claimed that they need NIH "approval" (which could never ethically be given) - see Peter Duesberg - rendering it essentially a publicity stunt. So what happens to HIV-positive dissidents when they die of AIDS (or get sick, go on meds, and get better)? See here for how the dissident community reacts (hint: blame the victim). What about an HIV-positive dissident mom who infects her child through a refusal to take meds? See Christine Maggiore - after the child dies of AIDS, she denies it and blames amoxicillin. The point is that these beliefs are so deeply held that even if someone is infected with HIV, has no other risk factors (e.g. Maggiore's child), and dies of AIDS, it will still be denied. Finally, as someone who believes that HIV is the cause of AIDS, I would never want someone to knowingly infect themselves, regardless of their beliefs. It's a basic ethical question. As I said above, even if you believe the rabies virus is harmless, that doesn't justify allowing you to infect yourself with a deadly virus to prove a point. MastCell 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: the above. Read further up, this study has been done, by accident. Out of thousands of needle-pricks and emergency crew exposure - virtually no one has been diagnosed with AIDS. This is a far bigger study than any peer reviewed study could ever dream of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

The issue of the transmissibility of AIDS via needlestick has already been discussed here - see Yogiudo's thread above. The argument has been made (see the Science magazine series) that the "study" indeed has already been unwittingly performed, in people who have received blood transfusions contaminated with HIV prior to the advent of testing and blood product safety measures. (Hemophiliacs in particular, but also people like Isaac Asimov, Arthur Ashe, etc to name a few famous examples). Needless to say the results were tragic, and provide evidence of the infectivity and pathogenicity of HIV, even in the absence of Duesberg's proposed causes. MastCell 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but hemophiliacs are extremely ill people - their survival and condition is precarious throughtout their lives. Saying HIV caused their death is like saying my 96 year old grangmother died from ( you name it ). Asimov, Ashe, etc prove very little unless we know more about their personal lives. Studies on how many people have died after transfusions ( wroth with problems because if you get a transfusion you are obviously not in great shape) versus how many of their blood donors died would be interesting - perr review guys can line up for the federal funds. My personal opinion is why if you live by getting federal funds would you kill the golden goose ( self-interest). Which is why I suspect this goose seems to live on and on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

Those arguments are old, and rebuttals to them are found in the sources in the article. See here, for instance, on hemophilia and transfusions. Is there a specific content-related issue to discuss? MastCell 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)