Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 3

message: [posts about POV]
[...] Like the other controversial articles, the very nature of this subject makes it almost impossible to find a neutral treatment of it [...].
[...] The disagreements generally seem to be about (1) what terminology to use, (2) what constitutes fact, and (3) what constitutes a valid line of reasoning[...]. The matter of terminology can be most easily resolved by an introductory statement [...] explicitly designed to explain the choice of terminology used in the article [...]. Make it [as neutral as possible] by stating at the outset that "We call it the HIV theory, but this should not be taken to imply the correctness of any particular viewpoint" or some such.
As for what constitutes fact, at least regarding the "facts" about how the disease is caused and develops, we could just stick with facts about viewpoints. Duesberg observed X, which he believes indicates Y, but Kary Mullis thinks Z. Making purportedly factual claims about the disease itself is where the trouble begins.
The third point, what constitutes a valid line of reasoning, is probably just as easily resolved. Again, the article should present information about those who hold these particular viewpoints; the article itself should not hold these viewpoints. Wikipedia articles can't hope to resolve the deeply philosophical matter of what approach to understanding "reality" is the most appropriate or valid. In general, science prevails around here, but since there is disagreement on what even qualifies as scientific, it's probably best to let the players speak for themselves, and let readers do their own reasoning.
All of the above is simply a re-statement of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, of course. We all gotta cooperate or we'll get nowhere. We know it can be done, since it has been done with so many other controversial topics. [...] -- Wapcaplet 22:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Problems 

message: Ok, first of all, I've protected the page against an on-going edit war. [...] I'm not going to take sides, and I think you both need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I suggest you resolve the dispute on the talk page to prevent further edit warring. If you want, you can take your case to the WP:MEDCAB or through the formal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: [...] I'm preparing a neutral, NPOV, referenced, wikified article. Sgactorny 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparing replacement content offline

message: [Apparent agreement that reappraisal criticisms belong in their own section after the main article]
:In 1994 the journal Science conducted a 3-month investigation to examine the validity of the dissident claims.   They interviewed AIDS supporters and detractors, examined the primary AIDS literature including Duesberg’s publications. This investigation found that “...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.”  The Science investigation also found that although Duesberg and the dissident movement have garnered support from some prominent mainstream scientists, most of this support is related to Duesberg’s right to hold a dissenting opinion, rather than support of his claims that HIV does not cause AIDS.
What do you think? Nrets 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the paragraph should be moved to a new "Criticisms" section. Side note: the journal "Science" doesn't appear to be following the scientific method in its purported debunking of AIDS dissidents' claims. zen master T 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed AIDS reappraisal criticism content

message: Could someone find a source for this sentence: "AIDS dissidents have little or nothing in common with those who view AIDS as a government or military conspiracy"? Seems in opposition to reality. Some segment of the media, due to their portrayal of AIDS, would have to be at least inadvertantly complicit in vast error should the highly buttressed "mainstream view" of AIDS be incorrect. zen master T 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source request 

message: Mainstream science classifies zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug, but the AIDS reappraisal movement specifically disputes its effectiveness and thus does not similarly classify it. So, how should this article classify AZT? I suggest that this article only needs to refer to "antiretroviral drug" in its terminology section, e.g.:
: AIDS terminology
: ...
: The AIDS reappraisal disputes the mainstream classification of Zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug.
: ...
The rest of the article could then refer to AZT without saying "antiretroviral", except to make explicit claims about its effectiveness. How does that sound? The Rod 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article call AZT an antiretroviral drug? 

message: [...] List of dissidents, including PhDs, MDs, from all over the world...hundreds... Sgactorny 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good source. It would be inaccurate to refer to the purported mainstream view of AIDS as something approaching a consensus scientific view. [...] zen master T 09:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'd like to remind people that if you wish you can seek mediation from the mediation cabal, I won't be your mediator as I am involved (I locked the page), but I'm sure one of our competant mediators will be able to help you resolve your dispute. As an aside, please remember that the talk page of an article is for discussing the article in question, I don't see much of that going on. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardly any dissidents???

message: Dear user S.G. Actor NY, please stop inserting POV material. If you want to legitimately edit this article you have to insert sourced claims. If you think Science did not call for a close examination of Duesberg's claims and that the article's author was "out to get" Duesberg, then you must find an actual source for that. This is not a matter of MY POV versus YOUR POV, it is a matter of neutrality, which is achieved by using external sources. Nrets 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. The Rod 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry Sgactorny that you are unable to hold a rational discussion without firing off insults. I have no agenda except accuracy. Also adding comments like "a mere eight page editorial" is a clear mis-representation of a thorough evaluation. Finally, if you want volume the scientific literature proving HIV causes AIDS is far more extensive and substantial that the dissident claims.  I am tired of your personal attacks in this page and in your edit summaries and if this continues I will file an incident report for personal harrassment.  Nrets 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of unsourced material 

message: I have a few general suggestions.  The organization of the main article may benefit from more subdivisions.  Each assertion from the reappraisalists deserves a neutral description of its content.  Then present pro and con arguments in separate subsections.
Regarding talk page interaction, a few general rules apply:
:# Editors have a responsibility to present both sides in their best light.
:# It is acceptable to edit down content based on lack of citation, lack of space, redundancy, or certain other considerations.  
:# It is not acceptable to remove content from a respected publication because one disagrees with the methodology or POV of that source.  If those concerns are valid and significant then someone has probably published a respectable rebuttal.  Find that rebuttal and cite it.
:# Editors become counterproductive when they go beyond discussions of article material and speculate about each others' motivations, knowledge, and background.
:# Strong belief on a subject does not exempt anyone from Wikipedia's policies.
Regards, Durova 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to implement the above suggestion to give each reappraisal assertion a neutral description (e.g. avoiding terms like "claim") and to follow that description with separate pro and a con subsections. Does anyone oppose that article structure? The Rod 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, an immediate benefit of such a restructuring would be to stop the the edit war over whether the Science piece was an impartial investigation into dissident claims or a mere 8-page editorial written to discredit the AIDS reapraisal. The Rod 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable. Which section should we start with? Nrets 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, Sgactorny, zen master, or someone else well-versed in reappraisal positions would be involved, so I invite them to choose the first section to restructure in this way. Otherwise, we could start with a reappraisal assertion that should be easy to word neutrally, e.g. the section currently titled "Claim: HIV does not exist", which would perhaps be more neutrally titled "Assertion: HIV does not exist". The Rod 03:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: This is an odd section, because nobody here is denying that AZT is toxic, in the same way that chemotherapy drugs are toxic. The dispute is whether AZT causes AIDS. The fact is that, prior to the licensure of AZT in 1987 the vast majority of people with AIDS never received antiretroviral drugs -- including those in developed countries -- and they still developed symptoms. There are also people in developing countries with AIDS today where very few individuals have access to these medications (UNAIDS, 2003). Nrets
:Keep in mind that, per the AIDS reappraisal, many conditions misdiagnosed as AIDS have various underlying causes. The assertion that AZT causes some of the conditions currently misdiagnosed as AIDS can thus be consistent with a misdiagnosis of AIDS in patients with, for example, chronic drug abuse or malnutrition. Your point that nobody denies the toxicity of AZT, however, does appear to require a rewording of the content. The Rod 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New AIDS treatment toxicity section 

message: You can't, that's the point. There are no criteria for establishing "HIV primers" are actually HIV primers. That's the dissident point. Show me the studies that prove the molecular clones come from HIV. You have zeroed in on the main dissident point, we say that HIV primers are molecular fragments, that can be caused by all kinds of things: drug use, endogenous retroviruses, harmless exogenous viruses, endogenous DNA or RNA, all kinds of things. To call something an "HIV primer," you must be able to prove it came from HIV. Go for it. Until then, your edit is orthodox POV. And I'm deleting it. Sgactorny 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One final technical point, you stated: if you can prove these DNA primers are really caused by an exogenous RV. DNA primers are not caused by anything. DNA primers are fragments of DNA which are made in the laboratory and which sequence matches a portion of the DNA you want to amplify by PCR. For more info on that see [this link].  PCR is a common technique used in molecular biology for many, many things, not just HIV testing. Nrets 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding your request that I "stop trying to stop a discussion", please see the advice in #RfC above by User:Durova. In order to make progress on this article, we need to stop trying to prove and disprove theories. Instead, we need to describe each AIDS reappraisal assertion neutrally and then, in separate subsections, cite references supporting and opposing those assertions. The Rod 17:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as cancer it is irrelevant to my point whether the cause of the mutation is external or internal, the point is that it is the body's own DNA that is mutated. Nrets 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prove the molecular clones are HIV specific

message: * In response to your retorts on this previous section, you are way over-complicating the issue and avoiding the main point.
Just show me even one study that shows the DNA called HIV or part of HIV, is from a unique, new, viable, infectious, exogenous, RV. Just one study...and tell me the generic logical criteria used for establishing a NEW, viable, infectious, exogenous RV. What are those critera? :) 
Be sure you read a study before you cite it, we've read them all for years. And I'll read anything you think proves your case. I'm waiting. Sgactorny 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would such a study affect your opinion of the appropriate content for this article? The Rod 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summation of debate

message: From the references above, since I'm worried you won't actually read them:
HERE IS MY FAVORITE SENTENCE: "Since cloning is a process leading to the production of an exact copy of whatever object one starts with, how can one claim cloning of something before there is proof that it ever existed?"
* PCR and cloning are used routinely to discover new genes from suspected gene fragments. The test is whether you can replicate the function of the gene by re-introducing the gene back into the cell. This is what was done with HIV in the citations above. Nrets 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perth Group

message: Would anyone mind if I archived today's discussion. It is fairly lengthy, and as Rod pointed out it does not directly address what to include in the article. I'll leave it up for a day or so then put it in the archive to make this talk page more gainly. Nrets 22:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I just read the entire debate between The Perth Group and Brian Foley of the Los Alamos Lab HIV Genome Project. The Perth Group asked the same questions I did. It all comes down to this: what is the logical criteria that show that "HIV-1 infectious molecular clones" are in fact actually HIV-1 infectious molecular clones and NOT confounding RNA, cellular debris, microvesicles, an artifact of the cell culture stimulation process, etc. 
From the debate: "Throughout this debate Brian Foley has claimed that "the HIV-1 infectious molecular clone" proves the existence of HIV. There is no need for any other evidence including EM evidence for purification. We have repeatedly asked him to give us evidence for the existence of "the HIV-1 infectious molecular clone" according to his definition. Which is: "The clone must produce virus particles that are identical by serology, morphology, protein sequences, RFLP, Southern blotting, etc. to the parental virus, and the particles must also be infectious. If a cloned viral genome does not meet these criteria, it is not an INFECTIOUS molecular clone of the virus, be it HIV-1 or any other virus". (emphasis in original).
Brian Foley has never produced such evidence. Which means he has never provided any proof that “HIV” DNA or RNA is in any way related to a putative retrovirus."
The debate extended well into 2004 and that is when the above was written. And Dr. Foley was unable to provide the Perth Group with a reference that satisfied HIS OWN definition of an infectious molecular clone. Nrets, I'm sorry, I don't believe you read the whole debate "before" yesterday because it is extremely long and yoou never made reference to it. If you had read it (I had not read it, by the way), you wouldn't have said yesterday that the conversation was "8 years old." The conversation isn't 8 years, and non of the references Dr. Foley provided were satisfactory. The Perth Group examined each of his references point by point. I don't need to say any orthodox AIDS promoters are lying, conspiratorial or evil. I believe, based on the reading, that the orthodoxy simply accepts illogical criteria for the existence of HIV. The criteria that is accepted by the orthodoxy for HIV isolation cannot exclude OTHER factors as the cause of the "infectious molecular clones." In other words, the establishment gives no logical rules to determine that the genome and proteins are in fact from ONE, new, exogenous virus. All the criteria they use, extensively discussed and broken down in the debate, do not eliminate confounding factors in terms of the actual original origins of "infectious molecular HIV clones." When pinned down, all the "lines of evidence" used to characterize the genetic material as "HIV" lead back to the initial ASSUMPTION that the genetic material found is HIV and not caused by other confounding factors. 
I and others do not accept this reasoning because you cannot disprove it because 'the argument assumes the position it tries to proove.' This is a classic logical fallacy.
It goes like this: We found "infectious molecular clones" that are HIV because they are HIV and cannot be anything else. 
This is the bottom line reasoning the establishment uses. I think it makes no sense. But I do understand that it turns much of modern virology on its head. The Perth Group understands this, too. They are challening an entire field. Sometimes entire fields are wrong. New truths ALWAYS START WITH ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET. I hope you remember that. And the fact that The Perth Group logical turns much of what HIV researchers accept as obvious on its head is why mainstream scientists will never agree with dissidents. Only when the NEXT generation of scientists arrive, uninvested in the outcome of this debate, will the "truth" be agreed upon. This is not new in science. Thomas Kuhn, in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," writes that this is the way all major paradigms change in science: the orthodoxy defends the paradigm to its death, literally. Only when the next generation of scientists arrive, who can see outside the box, will the paradigm have the potential to change. He gives countless examples of how this has occurred in scientific history. I agree with his thesis. 
We will not solve this debate here. It is a debate, and the disagreements seem clear to me. No one is insane, no one is ill-willed. Now we must take to the task of making an AIDS reappraisal page that is as little POV as possible. The discussion has been useful in terms of us coming to realize our actual, specific disagreements. Nrets know way more than I at first realized, and very quickly we came to the meat of the disagreement between the orthodoxy and the dissidents. That in and of itself is an accomplishment. Usually, the orthodox people simply call dissidents whackos and get nowhere. I got used to that for many years, and began this discussion far too cynical. I apologize for that. It is refreshing to have a worthy opponent in Nrets. I believe we are both committed to the truth. I also believe we will not solve the debate here. I also believe it is not "dangerous" to accurately report the debate on the AIDS reappraisal page. In fact, our pursuit of the truth requires that we do this. We all agree unsafe sex is not a good idea...so what's the danger? We all agree that what is called AIDS has killed many, many people, including many of my friends. So let's move forward. We're both here to pursue the truth. Sgactorny 15:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks on Orthodoxy vs. Dissidents and the recent discussion about HIV isolation

message: * As I said before, and now for the last time, it is not clear what confounding factors you are talking about except a cell's own genetic material. How do we exclude that these clones do not come from the cell's own genetic material you ask? 1) These sequences are not found in the human genome. 2) To my knowledge there are no known human proteins which can fold into viral envelopes package RNA and infect other cells in vivo. 3) They share molecular similarity with other know viral sequences yet remain distinct enough to be a different virus.  Therefore, as far as we can tell, this genetic material is not derived from human DNA, and it is not from other known viruses. Thus it must come from another virus, which we now have called HIV. How is this illogical? How is this a tautology? It seems very straight forward to me. Unfortunately we cannot shrink ourselves to the size of a cell, kick back and watch viruses come in and out, which seems to be the bar that the Perth group sets.  Nrets 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I guess you are entitled to disagree, but you still fail to give logical reason which is relevant to the points I make. You are using arguments against things I'm not even saying! I'm not trying to have you censored, I'm just asking that you play by the rules. And this is not behind the scenes either. Anybody can look at the RfC, which by the way, is not there to have you banned, but to get feedback from other Wikipedia members.  Nrets 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nret's Logical Criteria for Viral Isolation

message: "Too long didn't read" applies to the article as well, which is too long and I didn't read. Needs to be split into multiple articles (not POV forks) Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun to chop. Please revert me if I chop something you think should stay. My chopping is an attempt to shrink a too-long article, not an attempt to NPOV or add information or anything. Just smaller. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would obviously be a problem. It is important that all information in the article is NOR, NPOV and V. We'll go through all of those policies after the article is smaller, which has to be in everyone's agreement, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As an additional note 

message: I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but since I got in a totally seperate dispute about this same issue elsewhere, I've got to come clean about my personal POV. Sadly, I think that the reappraisers or whatever they are called are wrong. I have not done nearly enough reasearch on the topic to speak with authority, but I promise you that it will be impossible to convince me (as a not-biologist but scientist type) that this is true, as I'm stupid enough not to understand the scientific work but smart enough to understand that pieces for public consumption are trash. I'll try not to let my POV get in the way. Please point out if I'm making errors biased to one side or the other - my impression is that this article should present the varying views of the reappraisers fairly, and note that scientific consensus disagrees at this time. This, I believe, is what our NPOV policy requires. I would very much like to get everyone on board with the SHORTER article first, however, before we do POV and OR and V work, which is far more likley to get peoples anger levels up, than shortening, which should make everyone happy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming clean 

message: Influence pool demand calls debilitate healthy people and a virus is more able to invade the human organism; military protocol breach demand-calls and threats can cause neurological suicide because troop-member callers behave as if subject/
respondents are the enemy.  Beadtot 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  call-demand strategies and debilitation