Talk:Duesberg hypothesis/Archive 2

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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

AZT

From the literature included with AZT in prescription form: ""WARNING: RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) [=AZT] MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE WARNINGS). PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR [=AZT] HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. RARE OCCURRENCES OF LACTIC ACIDOSIS IN THE ABSENCE OF HYPOXEMIA, AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY WITH STEATOSIS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITH THE USE OF ANTIRETROVIRAL NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES, INCLUDING RETROVIR AND ZALCITABINE, AND ARE POTENTIALLY FATAL (SEE WARNINGS)." - from Glaxo Welcome AZT product information

If Glaxo claims that AZT may produce HIV-like symptoms, then it's safe to assume that AZT may produce HIV-like symptoms. Furthermore, the very fact that AZT was originally used in Chemotherapy, but {ahem} was deemed to dangerous, supports this hypothesis. I removed a claim to the contrary that cited an article that made no DEFINITIVE CLAIM, and IN FACT showed that the AZT group in the clinical trial had MORE DEATHS THAN THE CONTROL GROUP. Whether or not these deaths were "statistically significant" is not germane. The point is that this article is hardly a valid source toward any claim that AZT "Does NOT produce" symptoms similar to HIV. 70.130.205.163 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The quote above says that AZT can produce a myopathy similar to that seen with AIDS. Myopathy is a muscle problem. It says nothing about producing immune deficiency or any of the other manifestations of HIV infection. Yes, AZT may cause a muscle problem similar to one that HIV causes. No, AZT does not cause AIDS, nor does the citation above suggest that it does. That's known as original research and an improper synthesis and is against Wikipedia policy. The claim about AZT being "too dangerous" as chemotherapy is an old canard which is rebutted in many places. As to your claim about MORE DEATHS, the source clearly explains that Duesberg's claims to that effect are unsound methodologically. Again, please avoid pushing your novel interpretation of the source. MastCell Talk 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. RE: AZT being "too dangerous", I suggest you work on the AZT article here, since it reads, "It was originally intended to treat cancer, but failed to show efficacy and had an unacceptably high side effect profile", among other things. By the way, I never made the claim that AZT causes AIDS - though, you seem to think I believe that I do. RE: "more deaths" in the AZT group in the reference, that is simply a fact. The interpretation of that fact is debatable, and I make no claim in that regard. However, that there were more deaths, as a percentage as well as pure quantitatively, is a simple fact. 70.130.182.123 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please add comments at the bottom of the page. MastCell Talk 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from the source:

  • "...researchers who have conducted largescale studies of the drug’s [AZT's] effects say that it does not cause the fatal illness."
  • "The Concorde data in “no way argue in favor of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by AZT,” Concorde’s French principal investigator, Maxime Seligmann of Paris’ Hopital Saint-Louis, wrote Science in response to a query."

The article text states that the Science magazine article concluded that AZT does not cause AIDS. I can modify it to say that the article quoted a number of AIDS researchers who stated that AZT does not cause AIDS if you like, but don't remove the source again, as it clearly addresses the issue of AZT as an alleged cause of AIDS. MastCell Talk 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: your first quote. In the article you say, they "presented evidence that AZT and illicit drug use do not cause an immune deficiency similar to that seen in AIDS" - but your quote above presents no evidence. That some scientists think A and others think B does not refute A, nor does it "present evidence" as such. Also, your words are "does not cause an immune deficiency SIMILAR to that seen in AIDS", while your quote says it does not cause AIDS. Don't you see the difference?
RE: your second quote. That the ref article "does not argue in favor of " the Duesberg claim does not refute that claim. Don't you see the difference? Maybe you should tone down your claim and say something that accurately reflects the ref article. 70.130.182.123 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the above accurately reflect the article, but since you'd like something more precise I've taken another shot at it. If you're not happy with that, perhaps you'd propose some wording rather than deleting it again? MastCell Talk 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's be clear, I deleted INACCURATE information. Your latest correction accurately reflects the reference article, though, you should probably quote it since your used the same wording. Nevertheless, please do not be offended at the deletion of misinformation. 70.130.182.123 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section on Africa would be stronger if some mention of the African cultural factors was made: dry sex (a preference for drying out the vagina, causing more open sores for infection), visitation rights (having a relative visit/have sex with the widow of the deceased, infected or not), and other practices. Part of Duesberg's claim was that Africans are genetically the same as American blacks and there was much resistance to the idea that Africans were more promiscuous, but the cultural differences mentioned here could seem to explain great differences in heterosexual infection between the US & Africa without resorting to Duesberg's hypotheses. Sorry I don't have specifics on this - someone else I'm sure will do a better job of explaining this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.208.26.41 (talk)


Putting a copy/link of the AZT label in the article would certainly clarify Duesberg's position. It would also verify his position from the best possible source - the manufacturer of the drug. 159.105.80.141 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to cherrypick its opponents. Go directly to Duesberg site and you get to see a very large and impressive bunch of supporters. From the article I got the impression he drooled and had a couple of dumb friends - not really true. Truthfully this article's main help is the link to Duesberg's site.159.105.80.141 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 86.142.123.40

Hello. Could we please discuss this edit before again re-inserting it? My concern is that it presents the supposed increase in drug use as a fact, when there is strong evidence that no such increase exists. This is inaccurate, and you also removed a reliable source supporting the fact that Duesberg is wrong here. You also removed the sourced facts about KS, and made the claim that illicit drugs and AZT can cause AIDS, which is untrue and completely unsourced. MastCell Talk 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The quotations section seems horrifically unbalanced and vicious. I am no expert, but the quotes all seem to be taken from the most radical viewpoint on Duesberg's opposition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.50.82 (talk)

I dunno... the editors of Nature and Science, the president of the International AIDS Society, and the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease hardly strike me as "vicious radicals". That said, I'm not a big fan of such "Quotations" sections and wouldn't be too sorry to see it go. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Then let's remove it (I think I'm getting worried that you're adding this stuff to my user page--I lived a much happier life not knowing this article existed). As for those editors--they walk around in Birkenstocks and wear tie-dyed shirts. Very radical. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a full article?

There is already a sentence that breachs this subject in the HIV article (although not by name just reference). I would prefer just a paragraph in that article or AIDs origin article rather than trying to develop this hypothesis into a full article. It seems unwaranted. It is fine to mention alternative hypotheses, but given the limited nature of this research compared to the vast sea of HIV literature I just don't get it. I could see an article about Gallo and Montgnier, and breach other researchers with alternative hypotheses. I am all for being complete and NPOV, but this seems severe. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that gloss over or barely mention an area of a topic despite hundreds of publications to the posit. This doesn't hit the mark. I guess next there will be the addition of Intelligent Design as an alternate hypothesis in the Evolution article. The gist of this article can be summarized in a paragraph and still maintain the contributing editors work. I would encourage an effort to develop said paragraph and place it in HIV or AIDs origin article. Regards GetAgrippa 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I found 14-15 articles by Duesberg related to AIDs. Most of his research is related to his aneuploidy and chromosome abnormality cancer hypothesis which posits mutations don't cause cancer. Interesting reading. The AIDs research is not a huge body of work. How many of you are published researchers whose efforts have been more fruitful without the pleasure of special article? I guess I didn't realize there are no criteria for developing any topic or subject. How naive. GetAgrippa 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to get at. MastCell Talk 04:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why does the article exist with such a small basis? Most of his work is cancer related (significant body of work) and his cancer hypothesis is not even mentioned in the cancer article. Now a whole article derived from 14 or so papers (his contribution)?? I think it should be addressed directly in HIV or other AIDs related article (a paragraph or sentence). The weight of evidence doesn't support an independent article, least I saturate an article with my publications and POV. The undue Weight clause seem applicable.GetAgrippa 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, now I get it. Although most of Duesberg's published work deals with aneuploidy and cancer, his major impact (that which makes him notable) has been in the area of AIDS reappraisal. He has published little and conducted no research in the field of AIDS (in fact, this is a major criticism of him). However, there are actually tons of secondary sources discussing his central role, and that of his eponymous "hypothesis", in the AIDS reappraisal movement (though perhaps this article does a poor job presenting them). It would certainly be worth considering merging this article into the main Peter Duesberg article. MastCell Talk 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea-one central article. A section for the Duesberg Hypothesis. Develop the aneuplody-chromosome cancer hypothesis also. Add the link to the HIV article and Cancer article (since it is not mentioned). GetAgrippa 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)