Talk:Peter Duesberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Tenure at 36

I'm not sure that tenure at 36 is so remarkable - I'd have to know a lot more than I do about the science departments at Berkeley. At the American universities of my life it's been about right to be 36 and tenured in the sciences - it's a little young for a humanist, but not much below average. And for *anyone* on the research fast track like Duesberg it's not remarkable at all. --MichaelTinkler

The article hardly suggests that tenure at 36 is remarkable. It is simply biographical info about Duesberg. Clearly the intent is to show that the man has a set of academic credentials and is not some quack as the press would have us believe. - M.D. Edwards

[edit] Pathogens

The second line of this para. "On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS."- to be revalued. On the contrary, Robert Gallo ("HIV identifier"), upon discovering the HIV for the first time, never presented the research paper on his discovery for a peer review before giving it out for publication which really challenges the scientific consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.121.203 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Several thousands of peer-reviewed articles have been published on HIV and AIDS, including quite a few by Gallo. What are you suggesting in terms of concrete changes to the article? MastCell Talk 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Yes you may be right. There are several thousands (if not a million) peer-reviewed literature on HIV and AIDS (that include articles supporting the HIV-AIDS theory and vice versa). I am wondering whether you can show me the peer-reviewd research publication postulates the HIV and AIDS hypothesis, from Gallo, stating his discovery of the virus and AIDS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.121.203 (talk)

Again, several thousands of peer-reviewed articles have been published on HIV and AIDS, including quite a few by Gallo. What are you suggesting in terms of concrete changes to the article? If your goal is, as I suspect, simply to repeat a series of AIDS-denialist canards, then please seek one of the many alternate venues offered by the Internet. MastCell Talk 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the observation is that Gallo's original "discovery" was rushed to press - pre-peer review. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of thing tends to happen when someone describes the etiologic agent of a previously mysterious and (at the time) 100% fatal condition. I'm pretty sure that the discovery of the SARS coronavirus was described in a press release before the relevant peer-reviewed literature hit the newstands, too. OMG! Conspiracy alert! MastCell Talk 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An unfortunate result, however, is that by the time emotions calm down and the "press release" is verified - the government is already handing out $billions. The incentive to "peer review" all of a sudden seems, well not too smart a thing to do. A $billion could influence "peer review" I suspect - ( I would actually be stunned to learn that all scientists would just as soon be poor unheralded....159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not I-thought-of-an-interesting-conspiracy-theory. If you have nothing to contribute toward improvement of the article (which your history leads me to suspect), then further off-topic posts will be removed. MastCell Talk 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain "appropriate discussion" - I am hoping it doesn't just mean agrement. Please also list erased discussion in the future. Thank you. ) 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Appropriate discussion" is spelled out in the talk page guidelines; basically, it is discussion aimed at specific changes or improvements to this particular article. Speculation, general argumentation, I-heard-it-somewhere conspiracy theories, and the like are inappropriate for this forum. Removed comments are visible in the page history. MastCell Talk 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Following your advise then, I suggest that somewhere in wiki - this article seems as good a place as any - it is briefly mentioned that Gallo et al were not peer-reviewed ( and may not have been peer reviewed to this day). Skipping over the scientific established procedure should be at least mentioned in an encyclopedic arena. Avoiding the problem doesn't make it go away, was the HIV/AIDS ever scrutinized scienticially - or blindly excepted and the HIV/AIDS community moved on from there by faith.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Take it to Robert Gallo, maybe, but this hardly seems the place. Briefly, you're mistaken. Of course Gallo's work was peer-reviewed. What you mean (assuming you're parroting the usual AIDS-denialist line) is that his finding was announced at a DHHS press conference before his findings were published in the peer-reviewed literature. Press coverage prior to publication in the medical literature is a fairly common phenomenon, and for something as important as the discovery of the causative agent of AIDS, entirely appropriate. There are, of course, attempts to spin a conspiracy out of it, though. MastCell Talk 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttals

We really don't need "rebuttals" to external links here, especially a commentary that seems not to recognize that HIV viral culture (i.e., isolation of HIV from patients) is a routine clinical test (see here for just one readily accessable example). -- Someone else 00:05, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if a "rebuttal" addressed Duesberg's objections. -- Kwantus
There are articles at Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS reappraisal -- Someone else 02:45, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

dwindling support is not my impression, nor is it the one conveyed in AIDS reappraisal. -- Kwantus

To someone else: the article argues that HIV is not detectable in AIDS patients. Your link refers to the detection of HIV in those with HIV...big deal. - BOOYAA

[edit] Embarass to fallout

DAVID GERARD --

EMBARASS: 1 a : to place in doubt, perplexity, or difficulties b : to involve in financial difficulties c : to cause to experience a state of self-conscious distress <bawdy stories embarrassed him>

FALLOUT: 2 : a secondary and often lingering effect, result, or set of consequences <have to take a position and accept the political fallout -- Andy Logan> Merriam Webster Dictionary

It is my informed opinion (I know quite a bit about these issues) that the word "fallout" more accurately describes what Mbeki experienced, not "embarassment". To the best of my knowledge, Mbeki has never been embarrassed or ashamed of his questioning of HIV, or of the decisions he made as a result, or of his invitation of dissident scientists, etc. He has never PERSONALLY felt "in doubt, perplexed, or in self-conscious distress". He HAS suffered FALLOUT, secondary and lingering effects which have had a detrimental effect on his being able to govern as well as possible, and other political consequences he suffered. These are not the same two things. Replacing "embarrassment" with "fallout" was not intended to be a "whitewash".

I have given reasons when I make revisions because I think they violate NPOV. E.g. I explained WHY I thought the "conspiracy theory" link was POV at Duesberg's article, and you put it back in, with what type of explanation??..."reverting anonymous omission" i.e. no explanation. You should stop the habit of using the fact that contributors are anonymous as a justification to make any kind of edits you want of their writings. Besides being patently prejudicial and fallacious reasoning for making changes, it discourages anonymous contributors and makes them feel like second-class citizens. BTW, I'm actually NOT anonymous -- I took a vow not to visit my user page or login at all while I was completing my ph.d. dissertation the past few weeks, but I have snuck on occasionally at times anonymously, I couldn't help it. The vow helped me stay away enough to get the paper done. But you are the only person I've run into here that treated me any differently simply because I was "anonymous". You might want to stop and think about the image this sends to people who visit for the first time.

At times, there have been some real problems with the dissident articles, edit wars, fighting, etc. Usually, it is the result of a couple people who arrive with an agenda and want to smash it on everyone else instead of listen to everyone and arrive at something acceptable to all. I sincerely hope you aren't one of these people.

I won't get into some of the other changes. (Actually, most of them, you kept, so...) I'm just saying, if you want to contribute to these articles (i.e. articles remotely relating to the dissident movement), it's not going to be good if you come in "these are all the answers and I have to correct all the rubbish and pseudoscientific crap here". That mindset going in will only lead to edit wars and me and a lot of other people walking away.

Although I do object to the phrase "fringe" used with regards to dissidents, I won't try to change it now. As I've said before, part of the reason the dissident scientists are "fringe" is because they are FORCED TO BE -- i.e. "if you don't agree with us, get off the damn playground". Most of the scientists I know personally have great reservations about the HIV hypothesis -- these include biologists, doctors, mathematicians, and so on. If questioning HIV is so "fringe", why do I personally know SO MANY PEOPLE THAT DO QUESTION IT (and why do they personally know so many, and so on, and so on)???

I'm changing "embarrassment" to "fallout"; everything else I'll leave as is. If you wish to change it back, please explain why you believe "embarrassment" is more accurate than "fallout".

Revolver 128.111.88.227

[edit] Removal of Science magazine citation

This edit removed a quotation from Science magazine that appears to summarize mainstream science's characterization of Duesberg. Is there perhaps a better place in this article for that quote and citation? The Rod 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For an article to be balanced, it must point out the other side. I see another user has added the criticism back in. --Bob 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Duesberg injected himself with HIV, can anyone explain how he never got the virus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.56.122 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rambling irrelevant quote

If you want to add that rambling irrelevant quote in the criticism section that's fine, I guess he really is a "hell of a guy". Nrets 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding POV changes to the criticism quote. To say the science article is merely an editorial is an extreme slant. It is a review article, as with most review articles these are invited by the editors of the magazine, but they are not someones "opinion piece". Nrets 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have added the NPOV tag to the article since there are clearly issues here that need to be resolved over the critique of his opinion.--nixie 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It also seems like sgactorny has exceeded his 3RR for the day. Nrets 03:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't reverted anything even once. But good try. Sgactorny 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in your edit here, you changed "investigate" to "discredit" and "review" to "editorial". Nrets then changed those words back. Then, your edit here, your edit here, and finally your edit here all changed "investigate" back to "discredit" and "review" back to "editorial" after other users reverted you. Making more changes in your edits makes the revert a complex one, but it is still a revert. The Rod 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, each time the page was vandalized and innaccurate, orthodox POV was put in there, or unreferenced things were inserted, or dissident references and quotes were removed, I went through and re-wrote the section. I never reverted anything. Others did. As you can tell, their agenda is to promote the orthodox POV and censor the AIDS reappraisal positions. All edits on the Peter Duesberg page were put there too discredit him, not to inform readers. There is no agenda to make an accurate AIDS reappraisal page or to actually educate people about Peter Duesberg, by you or them. It is quite clear from the edits and the talk archives. The moment you actually embrace the point of WIkipedia, to make pages that accurately reflect the issues they are about, we'll be able to talk. But if Nrets and others continue to try and mislead the readers by vandalizing the pages with orthodox POV, there is nothing to discuss. And if all of you continue to refuse to actually get informed about the issues you are so passionate about editing, there isn't much to talk about. Sgactorny 13:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What we are doing is not vandalism, at least 4 editors disagree with your changes, which basically reaches a consensus, yet you choose to ignore this, accuse others of vandalism and introduce highly slanted and POV language. Nrets 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you just reverted to a past article, removing legitimate dissident quotes and references about Peter Duesberg. This is not acceptable. You are also inaccurately describing an eight page editorial in a magazine as a "science review article." This misleads readers of Wikipedia and is orthodox AIDS POV. It was an editorial, written by a reporter, and not peer-reviewed. Peer-review is a process that legitimizes articles, even though it is a flawed process and is still filled with politics. This editorial was not peer-reviewed, and should be noted as such. Editorials are, by defintion, overtly political. Your presentation gives readers the false impression an unbiased review of Peter Duesbgerg's claims were made. Since you admit you haven't even read Peter Duesberg's work, you cannot judge whether the editorial actually examines the issues. It doesn't. And even if it did, it is not a "science review." It is an editorial that was designed to discredit, not examine, Peter Duesberg's claims. You admit you hate Peter Duesberg, and you admit you do not want his views accurately represented. Change your agenda, and we can talk.

Sgactorny 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, review articles are different than research articles, and the review process is different that research articles. But let's go to the source, Science claims this is a review and therefore it is a review, to call it anything else it's POV. Even the quote you include calls it a review. I never admitted to hating anybody, and again your personal attacks do not stop. I am going to revert to the consensus version, do not revert it. Plus do not remove the quote I add after that paragraph. I accidentally deleted a chunk of the Gallo quote, but put it back. Nrets 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Science editorial also claimed that although Duesberg and the dissident movement have garnered support from prominent mainstream scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, most of this support is related to Duesberg’s right to hold a dissenting opinion, rather than support of his claims that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What horse poopy. Revolver 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I checked the changes made by Grcampbell and in fact he is correct, Duesberg did reply to the review article. Even the quotes you added call it a review article, and the editor of Science was behing the article. Finaly do not delete the quote by Martin Delaney siince this is also referenced. If you want to revert these changes state a better reason than "rv orhtodox vandalism, put here to try and discredit duesberg on his own page". Valid, sourced criticism is not vandalism, this is not Duesberg's "own page" it is a page about DUesberg where both good and bad statements, as long as they have a source, are included. Wholesale reverting of these edits will show that you are not trying to edit these articles in good faith. Peace, Nrets 13:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I guess you are not here to edit in good faith after all. Nrets 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics

  • Anybody familiar with the literature or, indeed, any science at all would recognize this representation of Duesberg's "critics" as an utter strawman. Do it again or don't do it all. 66.65.7.197 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I've replaced the section with a more accurate representation of his criticisms. Feel free to add to this, but don't just delete the entire section. Nrets 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better, thank you. Sorry for being so abrupt before, but a single article does not the full spectrum of his critics make. And, as you can see, I deleted the sentence that most bothered me (about the "experiments"):
1. Journals *never* conduct experiments on their own. They are simply compilations of others' experiments.
2. Review articles *never* conduct additional experiments. I feel that reemphasizing this point so strongly violates NPOV.
I would suggest that the "scientific review" be disambiguated from the normal definition of "review," since they are entirely different things. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Wikipedia in order to do so. 66.65.7.197 04:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if you could add material from other sources in the scientific literature that explicitly talk about the Duesberg hypothesis. I agree that journals do not conduct experiments, that phrase was added as a result of an earlier dispute with another user. As far as review goes, you can amke a new page called "Review (disambiguation)" and provide a list linking to the different kinds of reviews. However this seems a bit cumbersome, especially since the article Review is fairly short and dividing it into sub articles would make a bunch of tiny articles. Finally, I would suggest making up a username for yourself so that messages can be left on your talk page. Nrets 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's one for starters: Genetica. 1998;104(2):133-42. Really, since the situation in Africa, most people do not devote any time to this hypothesis any more, so there's going to be a paucity in the recent literature devoted to the "Duesberg hypothesis." If anybody needs the Genetica pdf to "respond" to, I have it. And you're right, disambiguation of such a small page is not worth it.66.65.7.197 07:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind adding a paragraph about it to the article? Nrets 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Good luck finding responses. There aren't many. And funny how it's okay for Science to conduct a "review" of Duesberg, and then accuse him of "not doing experiments" or "not producing research". Typical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.59.188.232 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-27 16:57:19 (UTC)

[edit] Two paragraphs need to be removed

The last paragraph of the opening section beginning with the sentence "Dissident viewpoints like Duesberg's are quite diverse." does not add much to an entry on Duesberg. Neither does the last paragraph of the last section beginning with "While the Science editorial mentions Robert Willner, Kary Mullis, and Serge Lang." If they are not there already, these paragraphs properly belong in the AIDS reappraisal entry. Jsterron 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science section

Dissidents also claim that Science refused to allow any of Duesberg's colleagues the right to reply to many of the articles claims and that the review was written by a reporter, not a scientist and that it was not peer-reviewed for accuracy. Duesberg was allowed a brief reply. Was he or was he not allowed a reply? Kim van der Linde at venus 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He was. Nrets 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the text claims both. Kim van der Linde at venus 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can dig up in the next couple of days the reference to the 'Science' issue where he replied. Nrets 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the text is wrong. He replied in the 20 January 1995 edition of Science PMID 7824919 --Bob 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe ( from reading Duesberg ) is that Science allowed a very incomplete response ( after a long struggle). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

[edit] POV

Anyone reading this article without prior knowledge of Duesberg would not realise that his theories on AIDS are viewed as dangerous pseudoscience by the vast majority of scientists. Trezatium 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone without prior knowledge of Duesberg would hear mostly rabid statements by his critics. Read his website to catch up on the science, or lack of it, in the AIDS mess. I doubt Duesberg is involved in too much pseudoscience - as a matter of fact he gets no money for his position. Pseudoscientists usually don't refuse large gobs of cash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).
Trezatium - that is very true, however it would have to be properly sourced if it is to be added here. If it is, I would support its retention. This article should not be used as a political platform; it should be encyclopedic. NYDCSP 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for major revision

How about cutting all of the details about Duesberg's AIDS theories from this article and incorporating them into Duesberg hypothesis? I suggest removing the sections called Praise from Robert Gallo (I wonder if anyone has read some of the more recent comments from Gallo - they're not exactly complimentary) and The Journal Science criticizes the "Duesberg Hypothesis" (because it is only one of numerous critical articles, which can be better covered in Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS reappraisal). Trezatium 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The praise from Gallo was there due to an edit war with another editor, and I second that it can go, since I don't think Gallo would concur with his past statements. The ref to the Science article is there, because it is one of the most comprehensive critiques of his theory appearing in a major journal, so I think it should stay. Nrets 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We had this discussion at AIDS Reappraisal (see the talk page), and concluded that presenting the Science review by itself was misleading. Anyone reading the current article would get the impression that the only response to Duesberg's theories has been an "eight page special news report" from 12 years ago, which is of course nonsense. Duesberg hypothesis already does a much better job of describing the man's theories, so why try to duplicate? The section called His claims is probably sufficient for this article. Trezatium 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made some changes but I think these should be regarded only as a temporary fix. I don't mind the retitled Criticism section remaining, but I think it should be more wide-ranging. Trezatium 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - leave the article alone. In any of the AIDS articles the political emotions ( why I can't understand ) are so high that nothing gets done. It seems few of the hyper types go any further than the main AIDS page - thankfully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

I don't know how much work has been done along these lines since last July. But I can see how such material might need to be trimmed back, especially when other articles are a better fit. But cut ALL the details of his theories?
I'd say that, insofar as his theories define his work, and insofar as his work defines his life, and insofar as this an encyclopedia biography, some kind of outline, sketch, quick-read, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it, where relevant, ought to be included here.
That said, in addition to my other edits, I am eliminating the section The Duesberg AIDS hypothesis, and incorporating the paragaphs and the link to the main article on his AIDS theory, under the His work section. ô¿ô a.k.a. User:Jstanley01 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your edits are an improvement, and there's probably no need to make any big cuts. But we should keep an eye on the relationships between the three articles: Peter Duesberg, Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS reappraisal, and avoid any major duplication or contradiction. Trezatium 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. ô¿ô 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bibliography and Mainstream scientific sections

I'm wondering, what's the purpose of having a Bibliography section, here and elsewhere on Wikipedia? Is this supposed to be a bibliograpy of Duesberg's books, or of books sourced for this article? If the former, I have misplaced the Bialy entry. If the latter, IMHO, the section ought to be dropped and whatever sources are used ought to be referred to exclusively via footnoted references.

The links, before my last edit, in the Mainstream scientific section divided into two groups, 1) those that mentioned Duesberg and 2) those that didn't.

Group 1
  • The Controversy Over HIV and AIDS, Science Magazine.
  • http://www.aidstruth.org -- A website that presents the scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS and that the benefits of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) outweigh the risks. It was created by research scientists and community advocates engaged in the worldwide struggle against HIV/AIDS.
Group 2

Note that Duesberg's name on the link at aidstruth.org is only used to link to the site's review of his book. A better fit here is to link directly to their review, as I have done. As I see it, the link to the aidstruth.org main page, along with both links to general mainstream scientific thought on AIDS under Group 2, would fit better on the main AIDS article, or attached to articles whose main purpose is to discuss the controversy in general terms.

It seems to me, as this is a bio of the man, that the links in this section ought exclusively to deal with responses to his theories from mainstream science (and future entries ought to adhere to the same standard). Otherwise the section becomes merely a promotional venue for generalized mainstream information on AIDS, for which there are ubiquitous other sources. Hence I have, at the date of this entry, made my edits to the section. ô¿ô a.k.a. User:Jstanley01 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication controversy

I could never quite understand why there were two "versions" of Inventing the AIDS Virus, and why Bryan Ellison was sometimes listed as a coauthor and sometimes not. So having done a little digging around the Internet, I've added a section on what seems to have happened. Reliable sources are hard to come by - there are a lot of conspiracy theories about Duesberg working for the gov't to suppress Ellison's version - but I think by using SFWeekly and Duesberg's own site the details should be accurate and verifiable. MastCell 22:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thanks. —EncMstr 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)