Talk:Duesberg hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of AIDS reappraisal, nor a forum for blowing the lid off of the HIV/AIDS conspiracy. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
 Archives |
[edit] Bias in reporting
This article is basically an attempt to tow the insitutional line on HIV/AIDS rather than providing a fair hearing to the matter under consideration, namely Duesberg's refutation of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It totally neglects to examine the core contentions of Duesberg's critique, and mainly relies on vague statements like "the scientific community regards this as false" to dismiss Duesberg's alternative chemical/lifestyle theory. For instance, the link which supposedly documents how Duesberg misuses recreational drug use statistics does nothing of the sort; it merely is the NIH uttering platitudes about how drug use has existed long before AIDS, a point which no one, including Duesberg, is arguing. Additionally, this article fails to report on or adequately examine Duesberg's most devastating critiques of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, including:
1) The tautological error in the HIV/AIDS formulation, whereby AIDS is defined as an "AIDS-defining disease" plus a positive result to an HIV antibody test. But the list of "AIDS-defining" diseases has shifted several times.
2) Why is the sex ratio of AIDS in the US and Europe still >84% male, whereas any virus after 20 years would have equalized? And why is it sex-neutral in Africa?
3)Furthermore, why is the incidence of new AIDS patients linear rather than following the exponential curve like any other rapidly multiplying infectious virus?
4) Why is the overal mortality for AIDS, compared to the best estimates of the total number of infected people, so low as to be below the overall mortality rate?
The article also makes misleading statements like claiming that blood levels of HIV are correlated with disease progression. This is patently false. Blood levels of HIV peak within 2 weeks of infection and then decline rapidly, like any other virus, and then become barely detectable. Afterall, that's what PCR does-- if you actually understand it-- it magnifies tiny, difficult-to-find DNA segments, so that they can become detectable (and so you see, it's not even detecting the virus, just genetic fragments! This is why we use the antibody test as the "AIDS-test", because the virus is so damn hard to find!
In short, this Wikipedia article fails to give fair hearing to the subject its considering. It accuses Duesberg of "cherry-picking" and then doesn't even address the pith of his hypothesis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHDWikiMan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't write the article but when Duesberg published his papers he was quickly dismissed with data that refuted his claims is my recollection. I just want the article fused with Duesberg's article. As I recollect from one of Duesberg's Science papers that your first posit was addressed and an explanation provided by peer reviewers concerning the shift. My recollection is the gender differences and continent differences arise from homosexuality, drug use, prostitution, and cultural differences. The distribution of AIDS has been found to mirror the distribution of HIV. Anyways his peers have admonished him and his ideas is my impression so his ideas and opinions have garnered little support. Regards GetAgrippa 01:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did a quick Science search and found this article a well balanced and fair reading: "The Duesberg phenomenon": what does it mean? C Andrews. Science 13 January 1995 267: 157. Seems he has been ostracized. Regards GetAgrippa 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- The initial post here is a pretty stale rehash of many of the arguments found on denialist Websites, and reproduces many of the same deficiencies in scientific literacy. The issue for Wikipedia's purposes is that this is a not a forum to uncritically rehash Duesberg's claims or give them a "fair hearing". It's a forum to report on those claims in the context of their reception and support in the wider scientific and popular communities. To discuss Duesberg's claims without mentioning the fact that they are considered completely unproven and baseless by the scientific community would violate our policy on undue weight. MastCell Talk 19:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your unpatronizing comments Agrippa. My point is that it's simply not true that "AIDS has been found to mirror the distribution of HIV". HIV is randomly distributed with regards to sex, both in the US/Western Europe and Africa, yet AIDS is not randomly distributed in the West, where 85% of the afflicted are still men! This is not Duesberg's view, or clever apercu: it is the facts, contained in CDC and WHO data, if you care to look. The shift of AIDS-defining diseases remains unaccountable scientifically-- as Duesberg demonstrated in "The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS epidemics" it is equally possible to attribute them to chemical causes, for instance poppers as well known cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma... For shame Mastcell! Instead of flinging vitriol at my position in the form of claiming "deficiency of scientific literacy" and hand-waving about "denialist arguments" would it not be better to acknowledge that I at least have a point that this article, in refusing to mention the reasoning and evidence for the pith of Duesberg's hypothesis, is negligent in reporting? Unless Wikipedia is a forum for the dogmatic defense of orthodoxy, it behooves any responsible article to do this. It's of course also your responsibility to discuss how the mainstream has received these outsider ideas, but simply because the mainstream rejects his ideas does not mean they deserve to be so insidiously misrepresented or flat-out omitted in a supposedly "encyclopedic" entry. Claiming "undue weight" is a serious cop-out, man. It's a way of avoiding the point. Afterall, if you think that views sympathetic to Duesberg's can be characterized by a "deficiency of scientific literacy" (by which literacy I can only assume you mean adherence to dogma), you should be able to clearly and fairly state the "deficient" view, and then explain why it's wrong, using scientifically valid arguments, and not just an abundance of references to how other people think it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHDWikiMan (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's a cop-out. This is simply not the venue for my personal in-depth explanantion of why the Duesberg hypothesis is incorrect. There are many excellent websites which point out its deficiencies. It's interesting that you dismiss this article as merely "an abundance of references to how other people think it's wrong." What you're describing is exactly the elusive neutral point-of-view that we strive so hard for on these controversial articles. I'm heartened to know that we've apparently acheived it here. The talk page guidelines are probably also worth reviewing, as they discuss the intended use of article talk pages. MastCell Talk 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree with MastCell: there are plenty of other articles online that deal with each of Duesberg's arguments in more depth. There is no need for Wikipedia to cover every single point; just a few examples are sufficient. But I feel I must at least rebut that statement about statistics: "HIV is randomly distributed with regards to sex, both in the US/Western Europe and Africa, yet AIDS is not randomly distributed in the West". This is of course untrue. The latest CDC report shows that in 2005, 74% of newly reported adult/adolescent HIV diagnoses were among men; of adult/adolescent AIDS diagnoses, 73% were among men. Similar consistency can be seen in data ordered by exposure category, race, location, etc., as well as in statistics from other parts of the world. Trezatium 09:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just tried to insert a very diplomatically-phrased (one parenthetical sentence) and rigorously objective statement about Kary Mullis' sourced and fully verifiable perspective, and witnessed it reverted by a clear dogmatist of the planet's reigning materialist-science Papacy who can't distinguish his POV from God's. I've no time to deal with dilettantes, so hope to awaken a bit of "dispute resolution activity" regarding the matter itself with others' help here on the article's talk page. Love, Time.s of the essence 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
footnote[3]NIH report - I actually read it. I was struck by the number of times the phrase "nearly all/always"( ie usually but not always). Is AIDS the first disease that "nearly always" is caused by the germ associated with it, but not always? How does AIDS skip this previously necessary step - or maybe the step is only "nearly alwys" neceassary.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)PS Is there a severe error in the NIH paper[3]? Koch's #1 postulate is that the disease causing organism is "always" present. Almost always wouldn't cut it in medical school. Is NIH saying they were unable to find the virus or antibody because there was too little and AIDS can be similar to a decades old delayed knockout? 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Science is not black and white. Every paper written about anything in science gives an out. However, they're probably 99.99999% sure. Since I went to medical school, I can assure you that almost always works in a lot of areas, including surgery, cancer treatment. Anything. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Browsing the net I came across Rethinking Aids wiki that gives a very good and complete rebuttal to the NIH Aids report. Far better than my amateur attempt. It turns out that since I checked the list of professionals - ie MDs etc - that had signed on the dotted line against the AIDS theory, the number of signers is approching 2600 scientists. A link to their article would give some scientific grounging to this wiki article - make it seem more like the opponents were not all nuts so to speak - a substantial improvement to the article, not easily dismissed - compiled and refernces experts in the field of medicine, etc.159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The external-links guidelines indicate that we shouldn't link wikis, particularly those without a large contributor base. The AIDS-denialism wiki appears to be essentially a one-man project and not an encyclopedic link, despite a relatively recent campaign by an invovled user to spam it about Wikipedia. As to the list of "rethinkers", you may want to see the AIDS reappraisal article, section on "Former dissidents", as quite a few people claimed by the denialist movement have long since repudiated their claims, but oddly remain listed on those sorts of web-based documents - another reason why these are not encyclopedic sources. MastCell Talk 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I will try to inform them of the people who have repudiated their former stance and get their explanation - if I can - of why they are still listed,etc. Be back , if successful, whenever I can.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC) The paper I cited, however, is not a one-man project and does not appear to reference goofs or the uneducated. However, the wiki may very well be a one-man amateur project, as so many wikis are.
The heading of the Discussion page says this is not a forum to blow the lid off the Duesberg theory. However, the entire atricle is a very strident attempt to blow said lid off, or so it appears to me. An article describing his theory would only be a couple of concise paragraphs I believe - of course it is pretty much a repeat of any wiki article that even mentions his name, don't you think - redundant,159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)His theory and the article on him could easily be combined into one and link to your favorite blow the lid off article.
[edit] Title change
perhaps the title c ould be changed to "rebuttal of Duesberg' hypothesis"78.29.210.205 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
