Talk:Duesberg hypothesis/Archive 1

message: IMHO the neutrality and the factual accuracy of this article is still disputed, and without changes to the article, it will become worse, as year by year any remaining doubts whether the Duesberg hypothesis is nonsene vanish. You just don't see much disussion here, perhaps because other contributors don't know about the article or have resigned changing ot. For related discussions see this talk page and the main article AIDS and its talk page.
Anyway, I don't re-insert the tag for now, as the cost/benefit ratio of this action doesn't seem to be that good. Perhaps an RfC listing would attract some more editors. 
Pjacobi 15:36, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing the problem, Pjacobi. The article states what Duesberg thinks, and says very clearly that most scientists disagree.... What's the dispute? Whig 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: These issues are important 66.81.16.73, but Wikipedia has articles, not outlines.  Try to integrate these issues in a coherent style in the article (not the introduction), or they might be largely removed. Tfine80 17:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline 

message: "Due to the dependence of retroviruses on cell division, researchers in the 1970s suspected that they might be a cause of cancer. It was one of the major achievements of Peter Duesberg's career in the 1980s to show this not to be the case." Seems to me this is a matter of opinion - for example see this paper by Robin Weiss or this book chapter. (Incidentally, neither of these mentions Duesberg at all.) Trezatium 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do retroviruses cause cancer? 

message: Failing to see why a fairly well-written and balanced article should remain besmirched by the scarlet letter of NPOV, I have removed the tag.--Angio 21:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove POV 

message: This article is in desperate need of references and the removing of material that is unverified, irrelevant, misleading and/or inaccurate. Personally, I'd like to remove or completely rewrite the following parts, unless someone can convince me otherwise.
*"thereby bringing into question the issue of whether HIV infection ever actually occurs" - But Duesberg definitely believes that HIV infection does occur.
*"However, it must be remembered that HIV and AIDS were only discovered in the early to mid-eighties, so it is no surprise that the number of AIDS cases rose exponentially." - What is this supposed to mean?
*"This assertion finds some support in the early Physician's Desk Reference listings for AZT (listed as Retrovir), where the drug's manufacturer warns that the drug's side effects are "indistinguishable" from the symptoms of AIDS." - Where's the reference? Is this information up to date?
::REFERENCE: EARLY PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 
:::See Talk:AIDS_reappraisal#AZT_package_insert. If you want to put the statement back in then go ahead. But please respect NPOV. Trezatium 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A METH USER IS USUALLY NEAR DEATH _ I BET THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS ABOUT DEAD TOO - you dope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 
*"Benzene intoxication shows some of the symptoms, e.g. immune suppression, cancer and inverted CD4/CD8 ratio, observed in AIDS patients as well." - Reference? - Sorted
*"Above are two pictures of two Africans. One is dying of starvation and multiple infections. The other, is dying from AIDS." - What exactly do these pictures add to the article?
Trezatium 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various comments 

message: I've removed the "not verified" tag. Like many others, this article needs more references. However, I think that it is generally accurate and doesn't need the tag. Trezatium 10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not verified 

message: :The Duesberg hypothesis is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community; there is broad scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Where are the references?. BTW, Duesberg and part of his supporters are part of the "scientific community". The statement must be sourced AND reworded to improve accuracy. 
Moreover: Officialist AIDS researchers are NOT the "scientific community", they are just a minuscule part of that community. I am afraid that we do not know really what the "scientific community", i.e, the individual scientists, think about the issue. An extensive anonymous poll about the issue would be needed to support the bold statement I am disputing. AFAIK that poll does not exist. 
If no source is produced, the "pseudoscience" categorization should be removed.
Thank you. Randroide 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the sentence based on Grcampbell's edit to the AIDS reappraisal article. Is that OK? Trezatium 17:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: for the catgorization:  and  should do the trick. --Bob 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for "pseudoscience", please 

message: ... can we get some citations for the exposition of Duesberg's hypothesis in the second section of the article? There have been "citation-needed" tags on there forever alongside quite a few vaguely worded and unsourced claims. I leave it to someone more familiar with Duesberg's work to supply the most appopriate citations, but they are sorely needed so that we can characterize his hypothesis accurately. MastCell 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of sources... 

message: Guess this was archived in the middle of the night - but anyway. KS in Africa - and whatever else happens for heatlh problems - is and always has been from extreme poverty. The apparent lack of the spread of AIDS seems to take a lot of the steam out of the germ/virus theory you would think. Back in the early 1900s the USA had endemic TB and I would suspect KS,etc - poor damp tenements,etc. Nothing like food, central heating, medicine, staying away from poppers, etc to cure AIDS ( ie in 1900 the current bunch of medicos would have said they all had AIDS.)
Other rants - Auschwitz's architecture is grand - look at some of the available pictures. Also the continuously dropping death numbers seems to mean that more and more inmates survived - aren't you glad? ( I suspect if you think something is fake you don't care what the truth or numbers are - I wonder which side believes this way.) IQs - constant research seems to destroy many old ideas - higher IQs for different races for one - second generation Asians in USA become just like us ( hard work is more( or at least as ) important as ability for the majority). The racial groups who pride themselves on their great IQs are living on a bubble that always breaks. he rest of your rant goes nowhere much - as far as filthy I have never seen any of your mega ideas but so far bored fits. 
The following comments (not originally in bold) were added to the article by User:63.121.66.97. I've commented out the last one and replaced the other two by "citation needed" tags.
*  AIDS in Africa has increased during the last two decades, in tandem with the prevalence of HIV. (This needs a date and a citation, and by what %?)
*  Sanitation and nutrition, on the other hand, have noticeably improved since the 1980s, when the Ethiopian famine was prominent in the news, yet AIDS case rates continued to increase. (same)
*  AIDS in Africa largely kills sexually active working-age adults.
*  The groups that have HIV are the ones dying from AIDS.  For example, in areas where surveys show 50% of people with HIV are women, that area will show that 50% of people dying from AIDS are women.  In areas where 20% of HIV+ people use recreational drugs, then 20% of the people dying from AIDS use recreational drugs. (If 50% of people in the general population are women and 20% in the general population use drugs, then it doesn't matter what % are HIV+, so state how these differ from the general pop.)
Trezatium 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:63.121.66.97]]