Talk:Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories

message: hey wikipedians
I note that the subheading "This article contains hypotheses not supported by scientific evidence. For current scientifically based hypotheses, see AIDS origin." seems rather unneccessary given both the title of the article and the first paragraph (both of which clearly delineate that position). This overemphasization smacks to me of bias against anything deemed 'non-scientific'. I think this warrants deletion of the aforementioned subheading. 
206.223.190.7 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentences in question simply remind the reader that the hypotheses reviewed may not be scientifically accurate and then provide a link to an article with accurate information. As for bias, Wikipedia indeed has a bias in favor of verifiable information from reliable sources. Please review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE for details. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer on non-scientific nature of the article 

message: Should the passage below be added to the "Man-made or iatrogenic origins of AIDS" section?
Dr. John Seale of the Royal Society of Medicine had his memorandum quoted at length in the "Third Report from the Social Services Committee, Problems Associated with AIDS, Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda" which was an important investigation into AIDS, carried out in 1988 by the Social Services Committee of the House of Commons in the British Parliament.
Dr. Seale stated "Every biological scientist who has dispassionately studied the virus and the epidemic knows that the origins of the virus could lie in the development of modern biology, just as the origins of the nuclear bomb with modern physics."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS developed by modern biology? 

message: i think this page would be much better and provide a much more thorough overview of what 'non-consentual' research has been done , when the different theory's would be in ordre of first publication, first anouncement. that way the ridiculous anti-african simian theory would more obviously show as a distraction to go with the "offical" racist explanation for aids etnoselectivity.24.132.171.225 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean "non-consensus", perhaps? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: timeline

message: as you probably all know the to-be consensual theory is : jaap goudsmit's. this is a synopsis for his "further" significance in viral research.:""
Segmented genomes confer evolutionary advantages; different strains of a virus with a segmented genome can shuffle and combine genes and produce progeny viruses or (offspring) that have unique characteristics. This is called reassortment or viral sex.[76]""
(from virusses wikipedia),the relevance for this page is that this is eaxctly the odd kind of theory that was needed to explain such a(n obviously) recombinant virus as aids. i really never have heard of research confirming this(76), except when it concerned other suspect recombinants. so yes for sars(is birdflue), aids, and h1n1, but no for every other virus that exists. that is most improbable and perhaps a thing people know of is disproven.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a bit of molecular research on retroviral recombination; how it's relevant to this article isn't clear. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: goudsmit

message: AIDS is not anywhere from the 1930s, according to a new report. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New report 

message: I decided to delete the paragraph on Hooper according to what I wrote a few days ago ( cf section Title of this article)Trente7cinq (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooper 

message: I see that this article has been renamed. Just about anything would be better than the old name, but I'm also not too sure about the new one. Firstly, I don't see why we need the words "overview of". All encyclopedia articles give an overview of their subject, so those words seem to be redundant. It also seems to use pretty tortuous English, even if not as tortuous as the previous name. Another issue is the capitalisation. How about the more fluent and correctly capitalised Discredited theories of the origin of AIDS? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point(s). I really like your suggestion, too. So I'll just go ahead and fix that, as well as the wikilink at Origin of AIDS#Discredited_Theories... Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to the party, but "Discredited AIDS origins theories" would probably be best. No redundant "of" and "the" needed in title. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think think that that seems like rather clumsy language. We are not newspaper headline writers with limited space, so we don't have to worry about making the title as short as possible.Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that we don't have to have it short; but the current version seems clunkier to me than my suggestion. Either way, this is clearly a better title than the previous one. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah - you're right; it's just too wordy. Phil, would you be opposed to changing it to "Discredited AIDS origins theories"? Or I'll just go ahead and change it - revert, if you care to... Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not NPOV. Its true that Wikipedia gives more weight to mainstream than fringe views,but Wikipedia shouldn't pass judgement in its own voice.169.231.43.139 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: That's an oxymoron, if I ever heard one.  Who writes this crap?  Science isn't done by "consensus", as any high school student learns — or should have learned.  It's done by hypothesis --> experiment --> theory, and then the theory is published and tested, tested, tested by others to try to find flaws in it.  There is no "consensus".  "Consensus" only applies to politics, not science. — QuicksilverT @ 23:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently scientists write this "crap". Yobol (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: "Scientific consensus" is not a description of how science is done, but a description of result which are overwhelmingly agreed upon in the scientific community at a certain point of time. Such a classification is an important important context information an encyclopedia often needs to provide to readers to avoid conveying a misleading impression that a description of a dissenting minority or even some total fringe represents a widely accepted theory.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.: In this context the recent edits were somewhat problematic. First of all they are somewhat unsourced editorializing, but more important the editorializing seems to appear like an attempt to discredit the widely accepted theory of the Aids origin and misrepresent the various theories as "equally likely" alternatives.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

text: This is not really the article to be discussing the nature of "scientific consensus". Furthermore, Wikipedia has several guidelines for articles such as this. We use reliable sources (see: also WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine))and do not add our own commentary or opinions. We must maintain a neutral point of view, without giving equal validity to fringe sources or claims. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific "consensus"?? 

message: I came across a purported cause of AIDS from the following article:
:MN Republican bases economic agenda on theory that sperm enzymes in anus causes AIDS by David Edwards published 10 July 2014 by RawStory.com
This article alleges that Bob Frey (a Republican candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives) stated that:
:AIDS was caused by sperm enzymes entering the anus of another male
In addition to this paraphrasing it attributes a direct quote to him:
:“When you have egg and sperm that meet in conception, there’s an enzyme in the front that burns through the egg. The enzyme burns through so the DNA can enter the egg.”
Although it lists "an" enzyme (singular) I am aware of two mentioned on Wikipedia that could be candidates for the topic that Frey is allegedly referring to. These being:
*Hyaluronidase that digests hyaluronan on the radiata (outer layer)
*Acrosin that breaks down the glycoproteins composing the zona pellucida (inner layer)
Our acrosome reaction article mentions that the acrosome includes:
:"surface antigens and numerous enzymes which are responsible for breaking through the egg's tough coating"
The term "numerous" confuses me, a term like this implies more than two. Does anyone know any enzymes besides acrosin and hyaluronidase which are contained within the acrosome and used to burn through the egg coating?
Anyway, I am wondering if anyone knows any other cases of this sperm-enzyme-cause of AIDS. I don't see a section on it here. Is it possible that enough notable people have advocated such a theory that it would be considered notable enough to cover on this page? Does additional information exist such as who gave the idea to Frey, and if the  enzyme(s) alleged to cause AIDS have been specifically named?
I found an additional reference, which was linked to in the one above, from the day prior:
:Minnesota House candidate makes AIDS, 'Gay Agenda' campaign issues by Cyndy Brucato published 9 July 2014 by MinnPost.com
It elaborates with a longer quote attributed to Frey:
:“If the sperm is deposited anally, it's the enzyme that causes the immune system to fail. That’s why the term is AIDS – acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.”
The problem of non-specificity still exists. It says "the enzyme" but since there is more than one enzyme responsible for breaking down the egg's outer wall, it's not clear which enzyme this cause is being attributed to. If there was consistency about that, a section on the page could be named after the enzyme.
Brucato of MinnPost goes on to say that this is linked to an earlier discussion:
:This explanation of AIDS .. is essentially the same one given by Bob's son, Mike Frey, in testimony given before the House Civil Law Committee last year during the debate over gay marriage.
A YouTube video (uploaded 12 March 2013, also the date appearing on the video) is linked in association with this which is 2 minutes 43 seconds long. I will link to the relevant part where he makes the claim, at the 53 second point. Here is roughly what he says (he mumbles a bit and skips around):
:When ejaculation occurs inside of a colon, it's highly aborbant material, the cells do not have a barrier for the sperm, and those enzymes enter the bloodflow.
:When the enzymes enter the bloodflow and continue along. the environment, if that happens, these enzymes in the bloodflow causes what we know as AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
:AIDS of course brings common diseases, colds, and things, and it magnifies them to the point where it's unhealthy.
:Not only does it strengthen the disease within the carrier of AIDS, the person with the destroyed immune system, but it also strengthens the disease that can be spread to society at large.
:There's an example in Los Angeles country in California where among the gay community, a rash, almost like boils, very raw skin, broke out on the hands, feet, mouth, butt of these gay communities, and they couldn't find a cure for it for a long time.
:These doctors called the Center for Disease Control and they couldn't find this cure for it. The cure they found, a very strenuous antibiotic, was Zybox, it cost 2400 dollars for one course of use.
:I urge you to vote against the changes inside this bill because it's going to put a health risk to society at large...
I did Mike a few favors in making this sound a bit more legible since when he pauses to collect his thoughts he often repeats a term or conjugates a verb properly and so forth, but that's the gist of it.
So controversy has been generated from this theory spanning from March 2013 with Mike Frey to July 2014 with Bob Frey, that is a year and 3 months of this theory being propogated by the Freys, so it seems notable enough to me to cover to some level on this page.
Would any other burdens of notability need to be fulfilled here? Does anyone know if anyone else (particularly prior to 2013, as I haven't backtraced it past Mike's speech) promoting this cause theory?
I'm interested in example, in which enzyme is alleged by proponents to do this, and how specifically that enzyme in the bloodstream is supposed to hamper immune function. Do they think the enzyme would damage white blood cells or something? Ranze (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! First off, the help you provided Frey & Frey is unfortunately not usable, per WP:NOR. The rest doesn't really qualify as a "theory" in any meaningful sense, and the adherents are not independently notable (the Bob Frey you linked is a different person) at this time. That leaves this guy's viewpoint as little more than "shit some unelected candidate said about AIDS," which IMHO does not merit inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enzyme damage origin theory 

message: One possibility seems left out from the article and it is the fact that the theory itself is without underlying reality, i.e., that one has come to describe a phenomenon beyond reality and failed to see it for real such as describing leukemia as HIV/AIDS instead. As such this constitutes a created theory with no real content. What say you, should we include this aspect, one out of Philosophy of Science or the science lesson itself. Bye. 85.165.44.101 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered in the second sentence of the article: "Alternative theories regarding the hidden origin—accidental or intentional—of HIV/AIDS must be distinguished from AIDS denialism, which is the view of those who deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS." The sentence links to the relevant article on denialism. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  One possibility left out - A created theory with no real content 

message: The article does not accurately state his theory, and references alleged contrary evidence that is plainly irrelevant.  I know that it is common to cite to this evidence in addressing Hooper's theory, but that does not give it any weight.
Hooper did not argue that the original vaccines were contaminated.  Those were used in the Congo to manufacture at the facility in the Congo the hundreds of thousands of doses then distributed locally for the trials.  It would not have been feasible to make all the vaccines in the US or Europe from the initial samples, and then ship them all to Africa for use.  What is known is thay kidney tissue from wild African chimps was used as the substrate to grow many doses from the samples sent to Africa.  That is when the SIV contamination occurred, and it is highly probable such contamination did occur.
The referenced samples that still exist and were found free of such contamination were from the original vaccines that were delivered to the Congo.  There are no surviving samples of the vaccines subsequently produced in the Congo.  It is irrelevant and false to point to preserved initial vaccines that were contaminate free when the theory is that the contamination occurred later when those vaccine samples were mass produced in the Congo.  
The theory also explains the simultaneous occurrence of HIV2 in West Africa since the tissues of the sooty mangabey were also used as a substrate for local manufacture of vaccine trials conducted there.
Hooper has never claimed that his theory was proven, nor that it was the sole possible cause for HIV.  But do not cite bogus evidence as allegedly disproving it.
 Dmbeaster (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This theory can not be true by many reasons. Among them: HIV appeared well before the OPV was invented, and HIV is not transmitted orally. Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913000403/http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp to http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609100515/http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/faq/screening.asp to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/faq/screening.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006082858/http://greenbeltmovement.org/a.php?id=30 to http://greenbeltmovement.org/a.php?id=30
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firm Hand. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Firm Hand" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]