Talk:Lynn Margulis

message: #Delete "...with Jerry Coyne notably writing on his Why Evolution is True blog about Margulis' supposed "notion that AIDS is really syphilis, not viral in origin at all." rationale: Jerry Coyne's blog posts are not a reputable source.  He often attacked Lynn Margulis for her opposition to neo-Darwinism. His claims that neo-Darwinism explain evolution and speciation have been demonstrated to be scientifically inaccurate.
#Delete "Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist who studies behavioral and social aspects of AIDS, cited her 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[48] and asserted that her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding."[49]  rationale: The statement "The paper did not question the existence of HIV or AIDS, nor that HIV causes AIDS, but suggested that syphilis could have been a co-factor in the spread of AIDS." which precedes the mention of Seth Kalichman is true and therefore the claim of Seth Kalichman cannot be true and should be deleted. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but not their own set of facts." - Patrick Moynihan
2601:180:8200:C540:156F:42D7:A1F:B175 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 28 March 2018 

message: I've read the paragraph and reproduced it below for this discussion. In the reproduction I note how each assertion is worded, and discuss whether any of the assertions are "out of place". Please note that this quoted text may have changed in the interim. It reflects only how the article looked as of 06:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 30-MAR-2018

message: I must disagree with the idea that the text outlined in red is the most problematic. Perhaps the biggest problem with the discussion of Lynn Margulis's ideas about various spirochetoses (infections with spirochetes) is that this section should not be called "AIDS/HIV theory". A better title would be "Viability of Spirochete 'round bodies'".  This is the subject of the 2009 paper which I was a co-author and an editor. There was then and there still is a controversy, but the controversy is not about HIV/AIDS theory. Instead the controversy is threefold: first, is wheher or not round bodies (a pleomorphic shape that spirochetes may take or in which some spirochetes spend all of their life history in) are viable (alive); second, that antibiotics are guaranteed to cure infections by spirochetes (syphilis and Lyme disease); and third, that the standard tests used for screening for spirochetoses are reliable. Much of mainstream biology and medicine still assume that round bodies are not viable (dead), that antibiotics cure spirochetoses, and that standard screening tests for spirochetoses are reliable. There is abundant evidence (which I can provide if requested) that these assumptions are examples of what Whitehead called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. That is that they are commonly believed but are in fact not supported by scientific study. Since neither Jerry Coyne nor Seth Kalichman has any expertise on the question of whether or not spirochete round bodies are viable, the question of the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating spirochetoses, and the reliabilty of the standard screening tests in use, I see no reason to include their opinions which are wildly off-the-mark and seem to have been included by someone with a desire to disparage Lynn Margulis with the ad hominem label of "AIDS denialist".  As the title of our 2009 paper makes clear, she did not deny the existence of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. What she questioned was whether or not HIV alone was the exclusive causitive agent. Margulis's thinking that AIDS may have co-factors is a position shared by Luc Montagnier, the French virologist and joint recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). 2601:180:8200:C540:CD25:ACDF:ECB7:9418 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 04-APR-2018

message: In 'Symbiosis as evolutionary force':  "She opposed competition-oriented views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species."  Can someone clarify this?  Surely she gave full credit to competition within species...?  And this needs to be clarified:  Did she disagree with the entire notion of competition between species, or simply with that being the overwhelming focus of research and theory?  Maybe someone with a deep enough knowledge of her work can fairly address these points.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "opposed competition-oriented views"