Talk:Peter Duesberg

message: I suggest that the reference to Duesberg having been "raised in Nazi Germany" be changed to "raised in Germany", since Duesberg was nine years old when Hitler killed himself and the Third Reich ended.  Hence, most of his life as a youth occurred after the fall of Nazism.  Moreover, the reference to "Nazi Germany" appears to suggest some connection between Duesberg's views and Nazism, which is a non-sequitor and comes across (as much of the article itself does) as a gratuitous slur. JonasDeBeer (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems fine to me with the context you left out, that the line begins by saying he grew up during World War II. Nothing in the article indicates he has any relationship with Nazism, and "Nazi Germany" is the standard name for Germany at that time. If there's a consensus to change it however, I'll do so or someone else can. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should remind people that everyone born in 1936 grew up during World War Two?2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany 

message: Is it just me, or is the lead inordinately long for the length of this article?  Should some of the details be pared down and moved to the body of the article?  Also, I think it is a little unusual that it is only in the 2nd paragraph of the lead that his denialist views are mentioned; he is most well known for these views currently, and that probably should be reflected earlier in the lead. Yobol (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree on both the length and the order. I understand what MastCell was trying to do (placate an irate editor), and I appreciate the chronology argument to an extent. However, although Duesberg did make contributions to science at one time, he's made the news and other reliable sources almost exclusively through his AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the lead is too long. I guess I wasn't solely responding to an irate editor, though - I do think that it makes sense to first describe Duesberg's earlier work (which, after all, earned him his position and election to the Academy) and then move on chronologically to his claims about HIV/AIDS. That way, the article's narrative parallels the course of his career. MastCell Talk 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I also feel that the first sentence should establish him as the de facto founder of AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Yeah, this is a bad idea.  Duesberg's ideas are blatant pseudoscience.  As discussed, they dedicated several articles specifically in the highest tier journals that exist, Nature and Science, to debunking them.  HIV causes AIDS.  Peter Deusberg is a pseudoscientist.  This is clear, unambiguous, firmly mainstream opinion.  There is no merit to his ideas on AIDS.  Calling him a "dissident" gives him credibility he doesn't have - "dissident" implies justified disagreement on a point.  Duesberg is a denialist; he denies science for a preferred reality.  Are there any mainstream articles that support his beliefs?  Any?  I don't believe so.  Medical Hypotheses doesn't count, particularly since it was withdrawn.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Nature'' article 

message: I don't know why Kalichman should be removed from the lead - it's a highly reliable source and verifies the entire first paragraph.  The rest of the lead is sourced, and this paragraph should be as well.  WP:LEAD indicates we should source everything or nothing, and we're at the "everything" stage right now.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[Seth Kalichman]] from lead 

message: I believe he was/is one of the foremost retrovirus researchers. When he found that retroviruses were a deadend in cancer research he was the first to annouce that he had been following a deadend - he probably could have sucked a lot more money out of this but choose to publish his true findings. He, and probably lots of other scientists, forfeited lucrative careers. Thus the Semmelweis Award was earned long before HIV/AIDS came along. Mentionig that a major award - for honesty in research - has been given should be mentionable, since he probably is due two.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding that information to Kalichman's article? I have wikilinked the heading. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the IP is referring to Duesberg as the retrovirus researcher who won the award, so have created a new section.  Hardly a "major" award though, googling it shows much of the coverage of this "award" is due to it being awarded to Duesberg and Celia Farber for their AIDS denialist work; in effect, the award is notable because of Duesberg (and other denialist associations), not the other way around - and therefore does not belong in the article. `Yobol (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it's sort of like the Darwin Award or Ig Nobel Prize, except it's from promoters of fringe science to other like-minded persons? Why don't we have an article on this subject? Semmelweis Awards We could then create a category of recipients. It would be like posting a bullseye on them saying "I'm a crank"....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I wasn't clear, this "society" awarded Duesberg and Farber to praise them for their work with AIDS denialism. See some AIDS related posts on their website.  They're an AIDS denialist group, or at least a strong supporter of the movement. Yobol (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understood you. It was my response that wasn't clear! My bad. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Please at least read some even if you have been told it is "unreliable" - much of their work is protecting whistleblowers in hospitals and labs.... I missed the Yobel comment about the award being for their work in "denialism". Not quite - far too sensitive and quick on the trigger. The award was centered around the investigation of Duesberg for having the chutzpah to publish a paper. The issue is censurship of research not what the research is. If you bother to read the article - linked - you will quickly see that the investigation was a sham and the college had to back down from their own sham investigation - a Semmelweis core belief.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If Duesberg tried to hinder, block, stop research into AIDS/HIV, Semmelweis would try to slap him upside of the head. Their denialist credentials are slim - they just don't like the tactics that AIDS supporters think are cute when they use them - ie they are grownups.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Duesberg and Farber were not given the award because of their "denialist" work...". Uh huh - right. /sarcasm Any further attempts to troll this board with off topic material - including continued promotion of a non-notable award from an AIDS denialist supporting organization - will be removed per WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM or met with WP:SHUN. Enough is enough. Yobol (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OMG!!! Yobol, that link is really dangerous reading. Thanks for sharing it. The Semmelweis Awards people reveal an appalling lack of scientific and medical understanding about this matter and actually make statements that would encourage and promote actions that would continue to endanger millions of lives, much akin to the damage already done by South African president Thabo Mbeki, which has cost huge numbers of lives. The Semmelweis Awards really do deserve an article here where they can be described and their nonsense documented. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Dangerous reading?" Who elected you part of the commissariat for intellectual hygiene. I think your comment may be one of the dumbest things I've ever read and I'm sure you think yourself quite sharp. 66.108.139.2 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

text: There is, of course, a complex backstory behind the Semmelweiss Society's award to Duesberg and Farber, but the internal political machinations of the AIDS-denialist community and a marginally notable Society are probably not germane to people interested in constructing a serious, respectable encyclopedic reference work. If anyone is interested, more information can be found at http://www.aidstruth.org/ (search the site for "Semmelweis"), but I would not advocate adding any of this to Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Even aidstruth.org isn't a RS for our purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed as well.  I think an article on the foundation might be something for someone to do though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there already was an article on the Semmelweis Society, created almost three years ago.  At least initially, the society doesn't seem to have had much connection to the AIDS dissident/denialist movement.  The current list of topics on their website/blog does lean a little heavy on the topic of AIDS, but they discuss non-mainstream (and allegedly suppressed) theories on Multiple Sclerosis as well, among other things.  The society itself was apparently founded by a group of disgruntled doctors who felt they had been wronged by "sham peer review" for a variety of different reasons, none (that I can find) connected to AIDS or AIDS denialism.  So I don't think the society or award are notable solely for their connection to Duesberg, and likely do deserve a mention in this article.  --Lewis (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the tag cloud on their "Issues" page, their #1 "issue" is AIDS.  Very odd for a society supposedly formed to protest certain medical peer review, don't you think?  They are clearly an AIDS denialist supporting group, and that they support other denialist certainly wouldn't seem notable to mention here. Yobol (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See MastCell's comment above. My recollection is that this is a very minor group that originally had whistleblowing and sham peer review as their focus. It underwent a split several years ago over the issue of AIDS denialism after one of the members brought a full-time AIDS denialist activist into the society. A takeover ensued, followed by a mass exodus of original members, legal unpleasantries and general good times all round for the small number of people involved. If the "society" still exists, then probably as an alternative letterhead for the aforementioned denialist activist. Way too minor for inclusion here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This page goes into a lot of the details I think you were recalling, Keepcalmandcarryon.  I'm still just reading through it now, but thought I'd share.  --Lewis (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Here are even more details.  It's odd that the article there didn't show up when I searched the AidsTruth website.  I'll try Google instead, since their site search seems to be somewhat lacking.  --Lewis (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing any addition to the article is going to require original research using some very low-quality sources like "californiaconservative". I don't think that one article on AIDSTruth, even though that's a bit more reliable, is sufficient to establish notability of this award. Sorry; I'm going to oppose this one unless we have a high-quality source like a major newspaper. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was all set to disagree with you about the notability of the award (my point above was only about how it should be included in this article; I had been taking it as a given that the award was notable enough, even if primarily in virtue of the controversy surrounding its being given to Duesberg) but looking over the web sources in more detail, it does indeed look like every single mention of the award is either on some version of another of the Semmelweis Society's own websites, an AIDS denialist/dissident website, or AIDSTruth.  So now I'm not even sure the society is notable enough to warrant its own article in the first place, let alone a mention in this one.  I'm going to propose that Semmelweis Society be deleted, since that should either resolve the issue (by declaring that the society is not notable) or prompt a discussion (and possible more research) from uninvolved parties to establish the notability of the society and/or award.  --Lewis (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I've started Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Semmelweis_Society to deal with this matter in a broader context.  --Lewis (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's reasonable. I've made a brief comment there. Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the Semmelweis Society itself was deemed to be not notable enough for an article, I think that probably settles the question of whether the award should be mentioned in this article.  Thank you for going through this process with me, Keepcalmandcarryon (and others), and for keeping an open mind even while holding firm to your position.  I'm satisfied that we gave the award (and society) a fair hearing, and if anybody pushes the issue in the future please don't hesitate to contact me to weigh in.  I probably won't be keeping an eye on this article or talk page, as this subject isn't among my normal areas of interest.  --Lewis (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you, too, Lewis. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semmelweis Awards 

message: The scientific consensus is that HIV is the causal pathogen that leads to AIDS;[6] Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect and disproven by the scientific community.[1][7][8] 
It states that the scientific community has "disproven" the Duesberg theory, but this would entail proving that HIV causes AIDS, which has not happened. I suggest we change the wording to: "Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect by the scientific community." Because the fact is, his theory hasn't been disproven.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: HIV causes AIDS. There is no significant dissent in the medical community on this fact.  This is POV pushing at its worst. Yobol (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There most certainly is significant dissent, quit pushing your ideals on me and whining POV simply because you don't agree. The HIV/AIDS theory has not been proven and there are scientists that disagree with it. I'm sorry but you are wrong.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven as Wrong 

message: 'The failure of South Africa to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner, due in part to the influence of AIDS denialism, is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections.'...how can you claim such bullshit? I can claim the opposite with the same precision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.156 (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer can be found immediately after that sentence in the article, flanked by square brackets. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Insulin injections don't cure diabetes. But if we stopped providing insulin to diabetics, there would be many thousands of preventable deaths. Does that help you understand the issue? MastCell Talk 15:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Let's try for a fact-based discussion. Your first factual assertion is that diabetics can "easily live out their lives to average life expectancy." Sadly, you're wrong; adults with diabetes have a life expectancy 7 to 8 years shorter than that of non-diabetic adults (see ). In the era of modern antiretroviral therapy, the risk of death for HIV+ people is greater than that of the general population, but not dramatically so (e.g. ). Thus, both diabetes and HIV/AIDS are chronic, manageable diseases, which can be rapidly fatal without modern medical therapy and have a smaller but demonstrable impact on life expectancy if adequately treated. Neither is a "death sentence" in any sense except that in which any chronic health condition is a "death sentence".You move on to vague assertions about the poor quality of life of people receiving antiretroviral treatment. I suspect you've had far more exposure to AIDS-denialist "information" than you have to actual people living with HIV/AIDS. In any case, quality of life varies greatly (for example, an HIV+ homeless intravenous drug user co-infected with hepatitis C is likely to have a very different QoL than an HIV+ business executive infected through unprotected sex). I don't get the sense you're interested in a serious discussion, but if you are, we can go from there. MastCell Talk 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  is AIDS deadly or curable???? 

message: Duesberg made important contributions to cancer research, but to say he was the first to isolate an oncogene is slightly strong, especially with a recent Newsweek article on Duesberg as the only reference. Duesberg did not originate the idea of the oncogene or of the cancer-causing virus, and he was not the only author on the papers from the early 1970s in which the RSV-cancer relationship was explored. SpectraValor (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in cancer research 

message: I have never read such a biased article on Wikipedia. This article is more hit-peice and quite a bit less information. Why isn't there one of those disclaimers at the top that says "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? Honestly....
Well, it is my theory that this site is run (overtly or by means of PR companies or other means) by professionals who assure quality control, and serve up a great deal of useful information in order to run hit peices like this on figures they want to attack.
It makes me feel guilty for coming to this site so often.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.163.237.136 (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for your crackpot conspiratorial nonsense.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's exactly what one of the Illuminati would say, once someone starts seeing the fnords... :P MastCell Talk 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

text: While I won't join in your conspiracy theory, I do agree that many parts of this article seem to be carefully crafted to misconvey certain facts. I've just made two edits to that effect.--2601:681:8700:D19:855A:7623:AFC3:E6CE (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

text: We go by sources, and, again, see my comment above.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Unless you have a specific concern this will go nowhere.  Also, please read WP:NPOV.  We don't do fair and balanced, we don't present both sides, we present what sources say.  Sources are clear.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Good luck going 'over my head' whatever that means.  He has been described in reliable sources as an AIDS denialist.  The material is all well sourced.  If you bring sources that 'agree with Duseberg' please be sure they are not fringe pseudoscience conspiracy nonsense.  We all wrote this, not just me.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Go read WP:NPOV.  I need not 'understand the science' (though I do).  I go by sources and you have to as well.  It is not an ad hominem attack to call a crackpot a crackpot.  Oh, how is your going over my head to my superiors at wikipedia going?  If you do go to some noticeboard please inform me.  (I welcome it). Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: JonErber, discussions like this have played out countless times before on these pages.  Seriously, please take the time to examine WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and the FAQ at the top of Talk:HIV.  You might also be interested in Myth of the Flat Earth.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: What you think (your acknowledgement of a potential 'conspiracy' and that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS are, BTW fringe views at best) and what I think does not matter.  What matters is what sources say.  We are not here to discuss our views, be they the ones accepted by science or conspiracy theories.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: If a reliable source literally called him a crackpot yes, then the article should.  I was using the term figuratively.  This talk page is for improving the article, not the posting of conspiratorial ramblings.  If you want to report my actions feel free, it is done at WP:ANI.  Feel free.  Remember to let me know when you have on my talk page.  Thanks.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Again, for the umpteenth time, read WP:NPOV.  We don't do fair and balanced, we simply do what sources say.  HIV causing AIDS is about as much in question as evolution by natural selection.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: You may feel that all you like.  I see no violation, though of course I am biased.  If you want to report me somewhere feel free, but remember to notify me.  Oh, for others interested, JonErber has been told pretty much what we here have told him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_November_20#I_have_questions_about_conduct_on_the_Talk_pages . Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?  Remember this is not a forum.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Adding that would not improve the article. If would be using the article as a forum, instead of just the Talk page. That would be even more forbidden. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally biased!!! 

message: Duesberg received acclaim early in his career for research on oncogenes and cancer.
None of the listed cites really seem to back the assertion of "acclaim".  Perhaps the word "notice" might be more appropriate? Originalname37 (Talk?) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say that his early work was acclaimed; after all, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences on the strength of his early work with oncogenes, which is quite an honor. MastCell Talk 19:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acclaim? 

message: I came to this entry for some neutral biographical information on a polarizing scientific figure of whose AIDS-drug use hypothesis I find without merit and even morally questionable. But I wanted facts, not reaffirmation of preconceived biases and ham-fisted sterotypes. Instead, I was greeted with an entry punctuated with incendiary language more fitting for an op-ed; moreover the highly judgmental language advances nothing that can't be conveyed in a more neutral tone. While keeping in strict accordance with the meaning extant, I've taken the liberty of toning down some of the more dubious phrasings, which seem to serve no purpose that I can surmise (save perhaps to make Duesberg a martyr?) Other than that I really hope a knowledgeable party could add pure information about the man's career and positions, which unfortunately is sorely lacking. Detmcphierson (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an overheated op-ed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Duesberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619953
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120224131220/http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/index.php?id=thepersontheodor to http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/index.php?id=thepersontheodor
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828194331/http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2000/RE000702.html to http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2000/RE000702.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the thesis be linked from the infobox? 
*Fraktionierungen von Proteinen – besonders Enzymen – mit Ionenaustauschern und Molekularsieben.
I thought that external links from the article body (which I assume includes the infobox) are not allowed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis link

message: The paragraph/part about his actual work is so small and talks so much about so called "aids denialism" and references it multiple times, instead of actually referring to his work, that this reads as more of a "hit piece" than serious information. Grow up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.235.205 (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, after all, what he is most noted for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Duesberg. 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  tag to http://www.dailycal.org:8080/article/109705/professor_did_not_violate_campus_policy_investigat
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828194331/http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2000/RE000702.html to http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2000/RE000702.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312091113/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html
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) 21:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello
I was pondering whether the death of Raphael Lombardo would be befitting to include in this article.
For those not familiar with it, it goes as follows; 
"Raphael Lombardo
Raphael Lombardo was a gay man who believed Peter Duesberg's claims that HIV was harmless. Lombardo wrote to Duesberg on May 30, 1995, noting that he had never used any recreational drugs or pharmaceuticals and was not sick, despite testing HIV positive (the letter was titled "Life without AZT !"). Duesberg published the entire letter in his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" and wrote of Lombardo: "His letter proves that true science does not depend on institutional authority." (The letter is posted at http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdazt.htm.)
Raphael Lombardo died of AIDS a little over a year later, on June 11, 1996. When asked about Lombardo's death, Duesberg wrote: "In hindsight, I think his letter was almost too good to be true. I am afraid now, he described the man he wanted to be [e.g. that he did not use recreational drugs] and his Italian family expected him to be, but not the one he really was. I think he died from Kaposi's." (Source: Email to Richard Jefferys from Peter Duesberg, Wednesday, April 05, 2006) When this correspondence was published on the internet, Duesberg was contacted by Raphael Lombardo's sister, Regina, who was incensed by Duesberg's claim that her brother had covertly used poppers or other recreational drugs (as Duesberg was implying). Duesberg wrote back to her and told her that she was wrong, too. https://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/dead_denialists/
Okama-San (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Raphael Lombardo