Talk:Duesberg hypothesis/Archive 2

message: Hello. Could we please discuss this edit before again re-inserting it? My concern is that it presents the supposed increase in drug use as a fact, when there is strong evidence that no such increase exists. This is inaccurate, and you also removed a reliable source supporting the fact that Duesberg is wrong here. You also removed the sourced facts about KS, and made the claim that illicit drugs and AZT can cause AIDS, which is untrue and completely unsourced. MastCell Talk 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 86.142.123.40 

message: The quotations section seems horrifically unbalanced and vicious.
I am no expert, but the quotes all seem to be taken from the most radical viewpoint on Duesberg's opposition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.50.82 (talk) 
:I dunno... the editors of Nature and Science, the president of the International AIDS Society, and the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease hardly strike me as "vicious radicals". That said, I'm not a big fan of such "Quotations" sections and wouldn't be too sorry to see it go. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's remove it (I think I'm getting worried that you're adding this stuff to my user page--I lived a much happier life not knowing this article existed).  As for those editors--they walk around in Birkenstocks and wear tie-dyed shirts.  Very radical.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There is already a sentence that breachs this subject in the HIV article (although not by name just reference). I would prefer just a paragraph in that article or AIDs origin article rather than trying to develop this hypothesis into a full article. It seems unwaranted. It is fine to mention alternative hypotheses, but given the limited nature of this research compared to the vast sea of HIV literature I just don't get it. I could see an article about Gallo and Montgnier, and breach other researchers with alternative hypotheses. I am all for being complete and NPOV, but this seems severe. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that gloss over or barely mention an area of a topic despite hundreds of publications to the posit. This doesn't hit the mark. I guess next there will be the addition of Intelligent Design as an alternate hypothesis in the Evolution article. The gist of this article can be summarized in a paragraph and still maintain the contributing editors work. I would encourage an effort to develop said paragraph and place it in HIV or AIDs origin article. Regards GetAgrippa 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found 14-15 articles by Duesberg related to AIDs. Most of his research is related to his aneuploidy and chromosome abnormality cancer hypothesis which posits mutations don't cause cancer. Interesting reading. The AIDs research is not a huge body of work. How many of you are published researchers whose efforts have been more fruitful without the pleasure of special article? I guess I didn't realize there are no criteria for developing any topic or subject. How naive. GetAgrippa 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to get at. MastCell Talk 04:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the article exist with such a small basis? Most of his work is cancer related  (significant body of work) and his cancer hypothesis is not even mentioned in the cancer article. Now a whole article derived from 14 or so papers (his contribution)?? I think it should be addressed directly in HIV or other AIDs related article (a paragraph or sentence). The weight of evidence doesn't support an independent article, least I saturate an article with my publications and POV. The undue Weight clause seem applicable.GetAgrippa 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a great idea-one central article. A section for the Duesberg Hypothesis. Develop the aneuplody-chromosome cancer hypothesis also. Add the link to the HIV article and Cancer article (since it is not mentioned). GetAgrippa 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a full article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I suppose it's par for the course on Wiki, but the sort of nonsense being peddled by the resident denialists here is disturbing. Each of these critiques can be refuted in about five minutes - I'm wondering though to what degree these pages are subject to hijacking by people with an agenda of some sort. (And regarding sex ratios, the connection between HIV epidemiology and differential risk behaviours among distinct groups is, frankly, obvious.) I am new to Wiki insofar as editing or commenting on discussion pages goes but it seems that there is a degree of social responsibility implied by NOT permitting the dissemination of politically-motivated pseudoscience. --Jdmeds81 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias in reporting 

message: perhaps the title could be changed to "rebuttal of Duesberg' hypothesis"78.29.210.205 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All aspects of the "Duesberg hypothesis" have been nearly universally rejected in the writings and statements of Duesberg's peers and by other reliable sources. The article on Duesberg's hypothesis cannot ignore this and in fact must emphasise it. There is next to no support for the Duesberg hypothesis, except in sources that according to Wikipedia usually lack fact-checking, verifiability and objectivity: blogs, personal websites and sites like the link you provided (and has been deleted). WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE are several guidelines that help me understand how Wikipedia articles are written and supported. You might find them useful, too. If you feel that "large parts of the work" are missing from this article, I encourage you to correct the deficit by adding material from reliable sources. Thanks for your comments, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not neutrality - not as Wikipedia defines it, and not by a common-sense definition either. Would a "neutral" reference work present moon-landing hoax claims on an equal footing with the "mainstream" story from NASA? No, it would indicate clearly that the moon-landing hoax is a generally discredited fringe idea. It's not "neutral" - worse, it's not honest - to fabricate the appearance of equal footing or a robust debate where none actually exists. MastCell Talk 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: I appreciate your approach, MastCell.  I propose the following outline:
:: 1) Duesberg's arguments regarding definitions -- his objection to lumping immune suppression beyond a certain threshold and a diverse set of diseases into a single "syndrome" with a single cause.  Cited refutation.
:: 2) Duesberg's arguments that HIV does not cause immune suppression.  Cited refutation.
:: 3) Duesberg's arguments for the cause of AIDS
::: a) Long term, high-frequency drug use.  Refutation.
::: b) Bacterial infections from frequent, unprotected anal sex.  Refutation.
::: c) Factor VIII clotting agent.  Refutation.
::: d) AZT.  Refutation.
::: e) Malnutrition.  Refutation.
I have no objection to having the CDC have the final word.  I'd only ask that cited statements of Duesberg's arguments be permitted to stand without themselves being chopped up.  In other words, "Duesberg claims light is dark.  However, the CDC says light is light," rather than "Duesberg wrongly claims light is dark," or "Duesberg claims that light is dark based on incorrect assumptions" or "Duesberg claims that light is cheese."  What do you think?  Ungtss (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, that approach sounds fine to me. In practice, it has been difficult to achieve, but we can try again. It would be useful to hear from some of the other regular editors of the page as well. MastCell Talk 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good.  I'll give the "definitions" section a shot, and propose tearing it up among all the editors until we have a rough consensus, then move onto the next section.  Ungtss (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Duesberg's quibbles with the Bangui definition are already covered in the "AIDS in Africa" section. Of course, the Bangui definition was superseded in 1994, and has been obsolete for at least 15 years - but the rhetorical clock seems to have stopped, as with AZT. MastCell Talk 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Reliable sources rejected all of Duesberg's claims 15 years ago. There has been no new evidence for, and much new evidence against, Duesberg's hypothesis since then. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article content discussion 

message: Wouldn't this section be better titled, "Gallo's challenge to Duesberg:  go infect yourself."  This hardly looks like a "stunt" by Duesberg, as the article says, since Duesberg didn't initiate it, but only responded to a "stunt" by somebody else.  Ungtss (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is that it's unsourced. It should probably be removed, unless/until a reasonably reliable source can be obtained to substantiate it. MastCell Talk 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duesberg's offer to infect himself 

message: The article previously said that Duesberg predicted increasing AIDS simultaneous with increasing drug use.  In his paper, however, he argues that the increase in AIDS would be expected to follow the increase in drug use by about a decade, because it takes about a decade for the effect of the drugs to become pathogenic.  So I fixed that, with a cited quote from his paper.
However, now the article follows that by saying:  "According to the National Institutes of health, these claims are not supported by epidemiologic data. Widespread recreational drug use preceded the onset of the AIDS epidemic."  There are two problems here.  First, it doesn't refute what Duesberg actually said -- he predicted a decade delay, not a simultaneous correlation.  Is there any study refuting his "delayed correlation" claim?  Second, the link doesn't lead to an article.  Ungtss (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I made a couple of changes. I fixed the dead links to the NIH website - they moved things around, apparently. Secondly, the current "rebuttal" at the NIH website focuses on the cohort studies which proved that recreational drug use didn't cause AIDS (the ones where HIV-negative drug users remained healthy while HIV-positive ones developed opportunistic infections and died). They don't really go into the epidemiology of drug use anymore. I've altered our text to reflect the current sourcing at the NIH website. MastCell Talk 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the removal of the information concerning the decline in absolute numbers of drug users from 1974 to 1992. Duesberg uses data that doesn't necessarily quantify actual drug use, i.e. number of drug users, such as quantities of seized drugs, etc. The number of drug users is more important, as the NIAID document shows. Drug use didn't begin in 1974. So even if Duesberg's speculation is correct (that drugs take several years to over a decade to cause AIDS), there should have been a peak in AIDS cases in the mid-1980s, followed by a steady decline. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I can't find the cited article, either. I hope I have a printout somewhere... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His argument is that there would have been a peak in the 80s and subsequent decline, but for the decision to put thousands and thousands of people on AZT in the 80s, which caused its own AIDS epidemic.  Ungtss (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really physically hard to read such assertions without debunking their obvious fallacy, but I will try. Let's leave it with what the source (NIAID) says. As KC notes, the source used to mention epidemiologic data on drug use to rebut Duesberg (if I recall correctly); it now cites the numerous cohorts which have more directly falsified Duesberg's risk-AIDS claims, so we'll follow the source. I'll look around for the epidemiological arugments; if there's another source, we could reinsert them. MastCell Talk 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The old source is not all that important. The reliable sources not that while recreational drug emergency room visits and deaths have risen considerably since the early 1990s, and while the number of people taking AZT and other antiretrovirals has also increased, AIDS deaths have dropped by 2/3 to 3/4 in areas where ARVs are widely available. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediction 

message: Having read the article, I tend to agree with the original poster that it gives an aura of POV.
For instance, "scientific consesus" is a last-resort arguement because science (at least imho) is not democratic concept based in polls and gallups.
Moreover, the mention that the effectiveness of antiretroviral medication refutes Duesberg hypothesis, does not seem a valid arguement, because it can be a matter of coincidence and for all I know it is not permanent. On the contrary I guess one could say that the incapability of the scientific community to find a definite treatment or even a vaccine would be a point in favor of Duesberg.
Anyway, the point I would like to make, is that the central part of the Duesberg hypothesis, in my mind, is the connection between the HIV and AIDS, and more specificly the role of HIV in the decline of the CD4 population (which, below a threshold, becomes the defining part of AIDS in comparison with HIV). 
In Luc Montagnier's book, "New concepts in AIDS pathogenesis", Medical, 1993 the subject is mentioned twice.
Pg 292: DOES HIV REALLY KILL T CELLS? Whole passage, but more specificaly, "...The interpretation is that the virus does not kill T cells under physiological conditions..."
Moreover in chapter 9, it is further discussed the fate of the CD4 population. The death of the cells, and the decline of their population is actually atributed to apoptosis and not necrosis, meaning self-destruction (or PCD as mentioned) and not destruction by outer factors, like the HIV virus. 
If this is indeed correct, then HIV alone cannot lead to the destruction of the cells, but there may be other factors contributing to it.
It also seems to support the idea of Duesberg, that retroviruses do not actually destroy cells, an so they may be harmless.
http://books.google.gr/books?id=o4_aPTuHD1oC&dq=Montagnier+hypothesis&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Aljawn (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. The scientific community has found effective treatments for HIV/AIDS. You think that the lack of a vaccine or cure - for a novel retroviral disease first identified only 25 years ago - supports Duesberg's claim? That seems illogical. There is no vaccine against malaria despite decades of effort - do you therefore deny that it's caused by Plasmodium? There's no vaccine against hepatitis C - does that support the idea that hepatitis C virus is harmless? I could go on - the list of viral diseases lacking a vaccine or cure is lengthy, but for some reason only HIV/AIDS seems to attract this sort of fallacious argument.Clumsy attempts to quote Luc Montagnier out of context are sort of a staple of the AIDS-denialist movement. I think these sorts of intellectually dishonest and transparent gambits have contributed to the fact that no one takes AIDS-denialist claims very seriously even on a rhetorical level anymore. MastCell Talk 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digging up the dead... 

message: Regarding...
Duesberg writes, "retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA."[1] Duesberg elsewhere states that "the typical virus reproduces by entering a living cell and commandeering the cell's resources in order to make new virus particles, a process that ends with the disintegration of the dead cell".[43]
This makes it sound like Duesberg is affirming two conflicting ideas, when, in fact, the latter quote Duesberg could be saying, "a virus uses the living cell until its natural death", instead of, "a virus uses the living cell causing its death". Out of context it is not clear enough which meaning is intended. The quote should be removed.
Duesberg's overall meaning COULD simply be that "in comparison to other viruses, HIV cannot cause any unusual damage to cells because of a virus' need to have ongoing hosts for replication. This replication would obliterate all the cells if it weren't for the immune system"? This section needs more detail. I know what the author's intent is, but I have no idea what Duesberg's was in the first place. Am I making sense?
Odostaples (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Out of Context Makes This Too Vague 

message: I've removed that point on the Scientific response to the Duesberg hypothesis part.
* HIV fulfills Koch's postulates
The two provided references does not validates the Koch's Postulate but rather explain why this could be irrelevant for HIV.
Ie: HIV does not fulfill the Koch's postulate, but neither others deseases, on which direct causal relation had been proven.  weweje--213.228.1.121 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't engage in separating "False" from "True"; we simply report from reliable sources. The NIH and Science are reliable sources on this point. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Even in 1994, as the Science articles show, HIV was thought to fulfill Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. Additional evidence (lab accidents resulting in HIV infection and AIDS; transmission in animal models; the remarkable results of antiviral treatment) has led to the firm conclusion that Koch's postulates are indeed fulfilled. I cite two reviews (1996 and 2010). The take-home message is this: according to the sources, there is no longer any debate on this matter in the scientific community, and even in 1994, even with a super-strict interpretation of the mutable postulates, the scientific evidence was thought to be overwhelmingly against the Duesberg hypothesis. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing two sources does not establish "there is no longer any debate".Roberterubin (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More than 60 sources are cited in this article, and many more could be cited. There is absolutely no scientific debate on HIV as the cause of AIDS. None. Nor has there been any serious debate in almost twenty years. If you have reliable sources for an ongoing debate, please present them. Otherwise, this is not a forum for continuation of an imaginary debate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed False statement 

message: The comments in the section on Scientific community and Mullis demonstrate the bias of one of the editors, who routinely and aggressively, removes any reference to supporters of Duesberg in the scientific community. They exist, and include the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis. Note the biased characterization of HiV discoverer Luc Montagnier.
One issue is the fuzzy characterization of the "Duesberg Hypothesis" in the first paragraph. Propoerly stated, it should probably refer only to Professor Duesberg's view that HIV does not cause AIDS. His ideas on what does cause the conditions associated with AIDS have been put forward by Duesberg as alternative views better supported by evidence, but requiring further study.
See the body of this discussion page for more evidence of violations of NPOV.Roberterubin (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above, and have a look at some of our sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Until reliable secondary sources providing support for Duesberg's hypotheses is provided, this is a frivolous tagging and would support it's removal. Yobol (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But apparently Dr. Duesberg himself is not to be considered a "reliable source" concerning his own views. The Duesberg articles that are cited do not support what is attributed to them as citations. This article is a textbook case of NPOV violation, IMHO. Roberterubin (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he is reliable for his views. His views are not reliable for what is accepted in the medical community, which does not hold his views in high regard.  To suggest that any of his ideas have support would required WP:MEDRS compliant sources stating such. This discussion is going nowhere without high quality sources. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. As I stated in response to Rubin on my talk page, the medical literature is universally dismissive of Duesberg's notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. The only reason anyone still mentions it in the literature is because of the profound toll it has taken on human lives and health. See this recent MEDRS-compliant review. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Yobol for removing the frivolous tag, where the editor obviously misunderstands what constitutes neutral POV.  No one of note, other than fellow deniers, of which there are maybe 3 prominent scientists.  But since science doesn't work on a voting democracy, but on consensus, publications, data review, etc. etc., until these nutjobs can provide sources that they are not nutjobs, the article is perfectly NPOV.  Perfectly.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just go over what started all of this.  I made two minor edits to the article:  One cited Kary Mullis, the inventor/discoverer of the PCR test, as a supporter of Duesberg (which he is, according to "reliable sources" -- see his forward to Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus"), and to insert "majority of" in front of "scientific community" in describing support for the conventional wisdom about HIV causing AIDS (which I agree with, BTW).  That's it.  The response was not discussion, but deletion of my edits. Then came the name calling.  At which point I inserted the POV tag.  You may not agree with it, but it is not frivolous.  Now, judging from the vociferous reaction to those two very minor edits as well as to my suggesting that such a strident reaction may be evidence of bias, and then the reaction to THAT (which included a threat, by the way) I do not think that any further posts are worth it.  It is curious, however, that given the article is titled "Duesberg Hypothesis", and Duesberg was considered a "reliable source", at least until he began dissenting from the HIV view on AIDS, that a direct quote of his position as well as the published responses he has provided to his critics, are both not present in the article.  Now if the article was captioned "HIV and AIDS" or something along those lines, I can understand such omissions, but in this case it smacks of POV by the two editors involved in this who appear to believe that because a scientist's views become unpopular, those views need not be stated accurately and carefully.  And THAT is not consistent with Wikipedia policy  So with that, I'll let the uncivility and bias so amply demonstrated here have its day without further comment or objection.Roberterubin (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trying to water down the phrase about the consensus against Duesberg without providing any reliable sources to back that up.  Until you provide said sources, this discussion is going nowhere. Yobol (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yobol, this conversation with Robertrubin has gone round and round.  I've seen this kind of editing before.  They editor's imagined version of NPOV is their version of POV.  Duesberg is an AIDS denialist, not because thousands of scientists support him, but because maybe three or four.  Changing that in any way without verification is not acceptable.  But now Robertrubin is going to waste our time with a mediation which will go nowhere, unless we're supposed to mediate every fringe idea.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute seems to be over two edits, as best I can tell. Kary Mullis has expressed sympathy for Duesberg and some degree of support for his ideas over time. Assuming this could be properly sourced, it might be worth a sentence in this article. Alternately, it is presumably verifiable that Mullis wrote the foreword for Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus, so we could simply mention this fact (e.g. "The foreword to Duesberg's book was written by Kary Mullis.")The second issue is the "majority" of the scientific community (vs. simply "the scientific community"). Here I agree strongly with Orangemarlin and Yobol. It is technically correct to say that the "majority" of the scientific community dismisses Duesberg's claims, in the same sense that the "majority" of the scientific community accepts the reality of gravity and heliocentrism. However, it's a bit misleading, because it's not just the majority - it's the entire community. I am not aware of any ongoing scientific investigation into Duesberg's claims - they don't have the necessary plausibility to interest any serious scientist in testing them. We shouldn't use wording which suggests there is a division of scientific opinion (into "majority" and "minority") where no such division in fact exists.Finally, as a meta-issue, I think it's a common fallacy (but a fallacy nonetheless) to ascribe Duesberg's failure to "unpopularity". That makes it sound like his ideas simply lost out in a popularity contest, when in fact his claims were rigorously tested and rebutted through the scientific method. Duesberg didn't cease to be "reliable" when he started "dissenting" from the HIV/AIDS hypothesis - he ceased to be taken seriously when it became clear that no amount of objective evidence could convince him that he was wrong. That's why reliable sources typically describe him as a "denialist" (someone who denies an objective, widely understood reality) rather than using the more explicitly political term "dissident". He failed on a scientific level, not a political one. But I digress. MastCell Talk 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, MastCell. I agree with your recommendation. In fact I had submitted a revised edit which kept the Kary Mullis reference and dropped the "majority" qualifier.Roberterubin (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We said this all along.  However, it isn't quite what MC said.  Source it.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Although Mullis wrote the foreword to Duesberg's book in the early 1990s, he seems to have been relatively silent on the issue in recent years. I agree that Mullis's past activities could be mentioned in the article, but probably not in the lead and not in the sense of "Check it out! Nobel Prize winners support this hypothesis!" I also can't agree with the idea that the entire article is POV because it doesn't mention Mullis or grant equal time to science and denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling, though I have no evidence, that Kary Mullis must feel like the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield's Lancet article.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, we've already established that Mullis wrote the foreword to Duesberg's book almost twenty years ago. Where is the evidence that he was and is a prominent supporter of the Duesberg hypothesis? If this evidence exists, is it sufficient to place Mullis in the lead, or in a sentence elsewhere in the article? Basically, where are you getting your information on Mullis, Montagnier, and others as supporters of the hypothesis? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You may read the Forward yourself. As I said, this started with two minor edits, and I agreed about removing the one that qualified scientific consensus, and just wanted to insert Mullis as a supporter of Duesberg, since he is more prominent than the ones listed. But, frankly, as mentioned earlier, and for the reasons given earlier, I have lost interest in pursuing this. I do think that the article should be more rigorous in stating Duesberg's views, whatever his current standing is among the HIV research community. I also think more civility and less name calling would be beneficial in discussions of this sort, but let us simply leave it at that. I don't think further discussion would be useful to anyone.Roberterubin (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, this isn't a negotiation.  Removing the statement about "a majority of scientist" doesn't mean we then ignore WP:MEDRS and put in the information that isn't sourced.  You'll have to do better than something that's 20 years old.  Has Mullis written or said anything that could be considered to be support of Duesberg or any other AIDS denialist POV?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: And who's calling whom names?  Who's being uncivil?  Just because we don't agree with you hardly makes us uncivil nor does it mean we're calling you names.  Got to any article on Creationism....there's real incivility and name calling.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I've read the foreword, and I've also read Mullis's book. They don't answer the question: Is Mullis currently a supporter of the Duesberg hypothesis? As for name-calling, the word "denialism" is used for the Duesberg hypothesis and related belief systems in reliable sources; that's why we use it here. I agree, however, that further discussion is pointless. Unless all participants understand the basic principles of weight and what constitutes a reliable source, we're not speaking the same language. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This can probably be solved by noting that Mullis wrote a foreword (or a "supportive foreword", although that may be redundant) to Duesberg's book in 1990-whatever. If he's been quiet since, then we can leave it at that, neither suggesting that he's changed his mind nor that he continues to vocally support Duesberg. MastCell Talk 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mullis has certainly made denialist statements. In addition to the Duesberg foreword, he made AIDS comments in his Dancing Naked in the Mindfield book. He even did one of those classic "You can't show me the single paper that proves..." fallacies. I agree that since this is all well in the past, we wouldn't want characterise Mullis as a prominent supporter of the Duesberg hypothesis without some more recent evidence. Another problem is that if we introduce Mullis the Nobel Prize laureate, we should probably present this in the context of Mullis's other, shall we say, interesting beliefs and behaviours. I think it's better just to leave him out of this article, but I'm not opposed to MC's suggestion of a brief note. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion that any reference to Mullis' support for Duesberg should include extraneous material to discredit him seems to me entirely improper. Moreover, the article's enumeration of who the "most prominent" supporters of the "Duesberg Hypothesis"  are is sheer opinion, violating both the OR and reliable source policies. Finally, I am not an AIDS denialist and resent that characterization. I believe the conventional wisdom about HIV and AIDS. I also believe in fairness and accuracy. Sorry to have weighed in again despite having said I would not, but I do feel the need to defend the integrity of my position.Roberterubin (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in learning more about this topic and some of the individuals mentioned here, I would recommend Seth Kalichman's book, "Denying AIDS". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article violates Wikipedia NPOV policy 

message: An editor has stated that Kary Mullis is a prominent proponent of the Duesberg hypothesis and that "a majority" of the scientific community opposes Duesberg. Neither modification is supported by the sources. As I explained on my talk page:
First, Mullis is prominent, but his views on AIDS, although probably denialist, do not seem to fall squarely under the "Duesberg Hypothesis". 
Second, no respected working scientist agrees with Duesberg, and even those few who once supported him for one reason or another have changed their tune. The notion that Luc Montagnier is a "rethinker" or otherwise agrees with Duesberg is what is referred to in polite society as bullshit. Montagnier reportedly has some bizarre ideas (water memory, etc.), and has said some controversial things, but at no time has he espoused the Duesberg Hypothesis. Yes, you can find this sort of nonsense on the Internet, but Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Montagnier has stated repeatedly that he believes HIV infection can only lead to AIDS if cofactors are involved. At one point, he suggested another microorganism for this role. And Mullis wrote the introduction to Duesberg's book and has since then repeatedly questioned whether HIV is the cause of the conditions associated with AIDS. Whether these views fall " squarely" in support of "the Duesberg Hypothesis" as described in the article is an open question, given how vaguely the latter is stated. But they do support Duesberg's central claim that HIV is not the cause of the illnesses that define AIDS.Roberterubin (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't given a source in this entire conversation, but even if Montagnier has invoked cofactors, it would still mean that he thinks HIV is necessary for AIDS. That's not the Duesberg hypothesis at all. If you can't provide sources for Montagnier (or Mullis) as supporters of the Duesberg hypothesis specifically, you're wasting your time and ours. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention Mullis' support for AIDS is like a mechanic supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis in the face of all those structural engineers and architects.  Mullis is not an AIDS researcher, none of the denialists are.  Mullis also believes in astrology and that a glowing raccoon from another planet talked to him once.  Mullis is apparently quite a brilliant biochemist but not much of a virologist or critical thinker in general.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific community and Mullis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duesberg hypothesis. 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/20070614103019/http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf to http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf
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) 12:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Fact is, the argument used against Duesberg (i.e. his data-selecting pro domo sua) may be also used against his critics. To really destroy Duesberg's hypothesis, you'd test the WHOLE world population for HIV. Only this way you could really see if the HIV infection is meaningful or not regarding AIDS. 62.117.240.189 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: controversies 

message: It appears that the addition of Kary Mullis to the article's lede has already been discussed at length in the archives. Since Mullis wrote the forward to the book over twenty years ago, it would be inappropriate to use this primary source to suggest that he is currently a supported of this hypothosis. He very well could be, but this should be supported with a reliable contemporary source, and should also be contextualized in the body of the article, before being added to the lede. This should be done for all proponents, actually, but I will leave that up to further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kary Mullis again 

message: This section starts with "The vast majority of people with AIDS have never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT (zidovudine) in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications.", sourced to a 2003 UNAIDS report. Conditions in less-developed countries with respect to antiretrovirals have changed a lot in 18 years. I doubt any equivalent statement would be made today.
I hope someone with an understanding of the current antiretroviral drug situation in LDCs will kindly update the section, rewriting it in a nuanced manner from current sources. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effectiveness of antiretroviral medication" 

message: The 2008 (14) study did not find an effect on CD4 and CD8 cells whereas it is stated in the article that the study found there was no effect on CD4 and CD8 cells which could be considered misleading 101.174.216.174 (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  technicality 

message: A heads-up: I was B and edited the Lead to make it tighter and hopefully slightly more stylistically elegant. 100% of the content and citations prior to my edit are retained after my edit, and I’ve added in nothing new. The ordering of content is also nearly identical to the prior version. Normally, I wouldn’t make a note of making an edit like this, but since this is a controversial article and since I modified the Lead, I just wanted to make a note of my edit here on Talk. As always, feel free to R if you don’t think my edits were an improvement, and then we can start the D. I’m not watching this page, so please ping me if you’d like to discuss. ThanksForHelping (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Cleanup