Talk:Robert Gallo

message: Please help me become a better Wikipedia editor. I changed this paragraph:
: Since then, there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (of which Gallo was later cleared)[11] that Gallo's lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur.[11] In November 1990, the United States Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health commissioned a group at Roche to analyze archival samples established at the Pasteur Institute and the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) of the National Cancer Institute between 1983 and 1985. The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, examined archival specimens and concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's virus had come from Montagnier's lab. Chang determined that the French group's LAV was a virus from one patient that had contaminated a culture from another. On request, Montagnier's group had sent a sample of this culture to Gallo, not knowing it contained two viruses. It then contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working.[12]
to this:
: Since then, there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (of which Gallo was later cleared)[11] that Gallo's lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur(IP).[11] In November 1990, the United States Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health commissioned a group at Roche to analyze archival samples established at the IP and the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) of the National Cancer Institute between 1983 and 1985. The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's flagship HIV isolate discovery, HTLV-IIIB, must actually have originated in Montagnier's IP lab. Indeed, on request, Montagnier's group had sent samples of his group's virus isolates to Gallo; and Gallo had admitted LTCB had cultured the gift samples. Chang concluded that a LTCB culture of one of the provided samples, LAV-Lai, must have contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working and from which Gallo claimed HTLV-IIIB had been derived. However, the contamination explanation could not be tested because, as noted in the paper, "No sample of the pool is known to exist." Nevertheless, the analysis of archived specimens of each of the pooled culture's ten(10) donor samples is not inconsistent with the contamination explanation: Six of the donor cultures had detectable HIV; each of these 6 HIV-positive donor cultures had a "novel and unique" virus sequence - none matching HTLV-IIIB/LAV-Lai. Interestingly, three of the four patients who were the sources for the HIV-negative pooled culture donor cultures never had AIDS. Chang's tour de force also confirmed analyses published in 1991 by LTCB and IP scientists showing that, in Montagnier's lab and unbeknownst to IP scientists, LAV-Lai had contaminated and outgrown a culture of the world's first HIV isolate, LAV-Bru. Montagnier had provided samples of this contaminated culture to several scientists, including Gallo - unwittingly representing it as LAV-Bru. The discovery of the contamination explained how, among other things, LAV-Lai - rather than LAV-Bru, for instance - had become HTLV-IIIB.[12]
I changed neither the references nor the Wiki markups (not included here). I described my edit, "improve Chang paper description." RetroS1mone Undid my edit because, "tour de force, flagship et cetera not encyclopedic."
I submit my edit provides a more accurate and comprehensive description of Chang's study. Since the study is quite a significant part of the US government's investigations of Gallo, Popovic, and the LTCB, an accurate and comprehensive description of it, I would have thought, should have been welcomed. Instead, RetroS1mone rejected it as, "...not encyclopedic."  I agree the 2 cited expressions may be inappropriate; but only because their contexts were not documented/referenced. However, I disagree my edit should be rejected solely because of 2 expressions.  Why didn't RetroS1mone merely edit the 2 expressions, for instance?  Perhaps because of other objections - implied by, "et cetera?" What other objections does RetroS1mone have?  Anyone else have any criticisms and/or help? RspnsblMntalk 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry there is only so much i can put in a edit summary. 
*Your additions are not encyclopedic with the words you use like tour de force flagship, interestingly. 
*They are original research, you are giving your interpretation of the Chang paper, you are saying nterestingly, nevertheless, what is inconsistent et cetera. 
*It is to much detail, this is about Robert Gallo it is not an article about LAV-Lai and LAV-Bru and all the detials of them. 
*Sorry but you also have a history on this article of adding stuff that gets deleted so i have hard time AGF RetroS1mone talk 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: ... The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's prototype HIV isolate discovery, HTLV-IIIB, must actually have originated in Montagnier's IP lab. Upon request, Montagnier's group had sent samples of his group's virus isolates to Gallo; and Gallo had admitted LTCB had cultured the gift samples. Chang concluded that a LTCB culture of one of the provided samples, LAV-Lai, must have contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working and from which Gallo claimed HTLV-IIIB had been derived. However, the contamination explanation could not be tested because, as noted in the paper, "No sample of the pool is known to exist." The analysis of archived specimens of each of the pooled culture's ten(10) constituent donor samples revealed: Six of the donor cultures had detectable HIV; The HIV of each of these 6 HIV-positive donor cultures had a "novel and unique" virus sequence - none matching HTLV-IIIB/LAV-Lai; Three of the four patients who were the sources for the HIV-negative pooled culture donor cultures, "never had AIDS." The study also showed another important LTCB HIV isolate, MoV, was also LAV-Lai; and an archived specimen from, "a putative [patient] donor of the MoV culture" was not analyzable. Chang's study also confirmed analyses published in 1991 by LTCB and IP scientists showing that, in Montagnier's lab and unbeknownst to IP scientists, LAV-Lai had contaminated and outgrown a culture of the world's first HIV isolate, LAV-Bru. Montagnier had provided samples of this contaminated culture to several scientists, including Gallo - unwittingly representing them as LAV-Bru. The discovery of the contamination explained how, among other things, LAV-Lai - rather than LAV-Bru - had become HTLV-IIIB and MoV.[12]
? RspnsblMntalk 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currant version is short, sweet, accurate. No changes pls. Also pls do not accuse people they do not know the papers. RetroS1mone talk 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[']tour de force,['] [']flagship[,'] et cetera not encyclopedic" ?? 

message: After reading Randy Shilts' book when it was published and just now getting around to reading John Crewdson's, I'm glad to see this article is well-written with clear chronology, revealing many aspects of the controversies. Excellent work, Wiki editors. Bravo. Skywriter (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2010

message: * I've just noticed that this article stated that Gallo's accusations were dropped while the article it linked to claimed that he was repeatedly found guilty of research misappropriation.  It would be better if people checked the references as they are being used to back up contradicting and opposite claims -- Mecanismo | Talk 10:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be a good idea to read through the article history and check on the issue itself before making BLP-sensitive claims. Political machinations and charges that were later dropped are hardly appropriate to include as if they were standing felony convictions. If the current references are inadequate, ask for improvement. Don't replace text with BLP violations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplied references and baseless conclusion 

message: The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Harald zur Hausen "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer",the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus".  http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/
User:apl1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.61.193 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 

message: I changed "discovery" to "reputed discovery" in the first paragraph because, while Gallo got the Lasker Award, the 2008 Nobel went to the Pasteur team, with no mention of Gallo, His work is clouded by controversy, which is not yet resolved. Can we say this more diplomatically? Without lying?
Donfbreed (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "reputed"

message: Current image is outdated.Request that main image be changed to RCGallo 9-08
Lrobe52993 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 27 July 2012 

message: Peikang (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 August 2012 

message: This entry claims that Gallo and his team "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". There is no indication or scientific proof that this is the case. I suggest that in order to make such a claim you would at least need to provide a footnote to a credible source supporting this information. I am not aware of such a source. So please 1) delete this claim, or 2) provide a credible source which supports the statement that Gallo's team "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". 
Please be loyal to the spirit of Wikipedia!
Peikang (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: There's no such thing as "scientific proof". A broad consensus exists in the medical and relevant scientific communities that HIV causes AIDS. A few people, including at least one prominent researcher, dispute this, but it would violate restrictions on undue weight to mention that in the context of this article. In any event, there is a citation to The New York Times that supports what you call the "claim". Rivertorch (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  A broad consensus exists in the medical and relevant scientific communities that HIV causes AIDS. Lack of discussion is one symptom of consensus, but it can equally be a symptom of other, less flattering circumstances such as peer pressure, fear of authority, fear of losing one's job and even lack of true scientific interest. True consensus is always preceded by a lively discussion exchange, something that has been averted by all means possible in the case of HIV/AIDS, including refusal of "HIV discoverers" to engage and censoring of papers written by critic virologists. --145.64.134.242 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this is not the place to engage in general discussion about medical theories, fringe or otherwise. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Priority & the 2008 Nobel is too biased. "priority has been controverial.." may be true, but there is NO serious controversy that the French "discovered HIV".  Gallo himself says so.  Also, the claim is made that Gallo's group "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS".  I have three quibbles with this: 1. Why is what his "group" did relevant to an article on him? 2. In writing about priority, the date of this demonstration needs be cited. 3. Montagnier himself writes:"In the spring of 1984, Gallo published more convincing evidence that HIV causes AIDS.." but his (Montagnier) team had published much evidence previously, which he admits was not fully accepted as conclusive by many of his scientific peers. In fact, it is indisputable that the virus first isolated was from a gay (high-risk) male with lymphadenopathy which IS a symptom of HIV infection and is known to precede AIDS.  That is Montagneir got it right, but his evidence was too weak to be called definitive.  The Gallo group's work in 1983 was grossly contaminated, and of questioable value. Gallo's contributions to the science of retroviruses is indisputable. His group was accused of scientific misconduct, a report finding scientific misconduct was issued, and was later withdrawn. In these two matters I would say A. His group was "the first to conclusively demonstrate" (or 'robustly'?) and B. Accusations of scientific misconduct in his laboratories was investigated and ultimately not found to be valid. (for this last, I'm a little hazy on what the findings actually did say...withdrawal of a finding of misconduct is NOT the same (not necessarily) as a finding of no scientific misconduct. It would be nice if someone could find out what actually ultimately resulted. According to the NYT we have the following:
"The [Federal Office of Research Integrity] report said Dr. Gallo intentionally misled scientific colleagues by saying he had grown an AIDS virus in his laboratory for study and he had not grown or studied a similar French strain of the virus. In fact, Dr. Gallo himself had grown the French virus and used it in furthering his own research, the report said."
"After three years of investigations, the Federal Office of Research Integrity today found that Dr. Robert C. Gallo, the American co-discoverer of the cause of AIDS, had committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS."
"The new report said Dr. Gallo had intentionally misled colleagues to gain credit for himself and diminish credit due to his French competitors. The report also said that his false statement had "impeded potential AIDS research progress" by diverting scientists from potentially fruitful work with the French researchers."
And:
"In addition, the report found that Dr. Gallo warranted censure on these four other counts:
Referring to his role as a referee for a different article submitted to a journal by his French competitors, in which he altered several lines to favor his own hypothesis about the AIDS virus, the report said the revisions were "gratuitous, self-serving and improper."
As to the many errors in the 1984 paper, which was co-authored with Dr. Popovic, the report concluded, "In light of his role as senior author, Dr. Gallo must bear substantial responsibility for the numerous discrepancies, including four instances of scientific misconduct attributed to Dr. Popovic."
On the standards of Dr. Gallo's laboratory record-keeping, the report said, "Especially in the light of the ground-breaking nature of this research and its profound public health implications, O.R.I. believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to trace the important steps taken."
Dr. Gallo, the report said, also failed to determine in a timely way the exact origin of some of the crucial cells in which he grew the finicky virus. Like the viruses themselves, the cells were also found to have been borrowed from another scientist without giving him due credit in the paper. Later Dr. Gallo also refused to share the cells freely with other scientists trying to duplicate the important work, the report said."
-=-=-
Again, this report, as I understand it was withdrawn, but it is clear to me that NOT all of these findings are therefore not based on fact.
Here's one take on the withdrawal: Chicago Tribune-
After two years of perusing laboratory notebooks and interviewing Gallo and several of his assistants, NIH investigators uncovered 20 "discrepancies" between assertions in the Science article and the data on which it was based.
Some of the discrepancies, several of which were first brought to light in a 1989 Tribune article on the history of the discovery of the AIDS virus, were ascribed by NIH to honest error. Some were attributed to "poor judgment" or a "lack of scientific rigor."
Others were deemed deliberate falsifications, ultimately including Gallo's assertion in the Science article that the French virus "has not yet been transmitted to a permanently growing cell line for true isolation."
-=-=-
But based on new guidelines that require "ORI must prove deliberate intent to deceive" on the part of someone held responsible for a false statement in a research publication, that the false statement "have a material or significant effect on the research conclusions of the paper, and that there be no possibility of honest error." " No possibility of honest error??! Well, ok.  If record keeping was so poor (we're talking about a GOVERNMENT LAB paid for with your and my tax dollars) then it follows that "deliberate intent with no possibility of human error" would require what? NSA surveilance audio-video? Mind reading? This seems to be a ridiculously high standard.  Higher even than "beyond reasonable doubt", and we execute people using that...Anyway, it is what it is. Perhaps something should be said without getting too specific about a negative report being issued and then retracted based on its findings not being held to a sufficiently high standard? That seems to fit the bill, or does wikipedia remove any mention of guilty verdicts if its overturned on appeal? Seems like the wrong way to do history.
-=-=-
The NYT article goes on to state:"A panel of consultants from the National Academy of Sciences concluded last year that Gallo's failure to freely distribute the cells was "essentially immoral in view of the growing seriousness of the AIDS epidemic."  I think this is important and seems to be independent of the ORI finding (or lack there-of).Abitslow (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 August 2012 

message: Recent edits have given an accusatory tone to the piece and introduce original synthesis. The lead now reduces Gallo's indisputably central role in the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS to dubious "claims", while the investigation into allegations against Gallo's lab is presented in the ugliest light possible, based on original research. I will revert these edits shortly and invite the editor who introduced them to discuss proposed changes on the talk page per WP:BRD. While we encourage "balance" and a proper "historical" view, we need to use sources appropriately and in keeping with WP:BLP. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a concerted effort by Gallo's fans to continue to include the word "discovery of HIV" in any statement that Gallo's group published good, strong evidence that the French discovered HIV virus caused AIDS. It is quite an exaggeration to claim this is a discovery, since clear (but not sufficient) evidence had been accumulating for several years that it was indeed the AIDS virus. I would like to see this reworded to disentangle his group's true contribution (which was NOT the "discovery of HIV"). You shouldn't have to carefully parse each word in a Wikipedia sentence like a lawyer's mumbo-jumbo, imho. Don't get me wrong, they did a lot of good work (and some bad work), but using misleading phrases is a bit beneath where I'd hope wikipedia can be.Abitslow (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks to Keithbob for these good suggestions. I have edited the lead in response to the first three points. I'm unsure how to handle the last one but agree that it could be moved into the body of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved some things around without changing any content (except section headings). Se what you think. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] concerns 

message: I appreciate your concerns but these phrases (see below) are either off topic (coatrack) or  unneeded detail for the lead which is supposed to be a brief summary. They could be removed or moved to the body of the article without detracting from the subject's achievements IMO.
*  the infectious agent responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
*  two longtime scientific collaborators, Robert R. Redfield and William A. Blattner
*  which develops and commercializes technologies to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by human viral diseases, including HIV
* Gallo states that his choice of profession was influenced by the early death of his sister from leukemia, a disease to which he initially dedicated much of his research.
*-- — Keithbob • Talk •  20:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Keithbob for these good suggestions. I have edited the lead in response to the first three points. I'm unsure how to handle the last one but agree that it could be moved into the body of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved some things around without changing any content (except section headings). Se what you think. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Please, add reference to key players in the discovery of chemokines as HIV inhibitors, who are not mentioned in the existing version, delete inaccurate statement ("halt the progression of AIDS") since no demonstration was reported, and add/modify missing/incorrect references:
Original text:
In 1995, Gallo published his discovery that chemokines, a class of naturally occurring compounds, can block HIV and halt the progression of AIDS. This was heralded by Science magazine as one of the top scientific breakthroughs within the same year of his publication.[17] 
Proposed revision:
In 1995, Gallo with his colleagues Paolo Lusso and Fiorenza Cocchi published their discovery that chemokines, a class of naturally occurring compounds, are potent and specific HIV inhibitors.Fiorenza Cocchi, Anthony L DeVico, Alfredo Garzino-Demo, Suresh K Arya, Robert C Gallo, and Paolo Lusso (December 1995). "Identification of RANTES, MIP-1 alpha, and MIP-1 beta as the major HIV-suppressive factors produced by CD8+ T cells". Science 270 (5243): 1811–5. doi:10.1126/science.270.5243.1811. . This discovery was heralded by Science magazine as one of the top scientific breakthroughs-of-the-year.[Michael Balter (December 1996). "New hope in HIV disease". Science. 274(5295):1988-9. PMID: 8984652.] 
PLwiki 19:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015 

message: Please correct name of Dr. Salahuddin and correct erroneous reference:
Original text:  In 1986, Gallo, Dharam Ablashi, and Saira Salahuddin discovered Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6),[16] later found to cause Roseola, an infantile disease.
Proposed revision:  In 1986, Gallo, Dharam Ablashi, and Syed Zaki Salahuddin discovered human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6),[Salahuddin, S.; Ablashi, D.; Markham, P.; Josephs, S.; Sturzenegger, S; Kaplan, M; Halligan, G; Biberfeld, P et al. (1986). "Isolation of a new virus, HBLV, in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders". Science 234 (4776): 596–601. doi:10.1126/science.2876520. .] later found to cause Roseola infantum, an infantile disease.
PLwiki 20:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015 

message: The link for the first citation is currently defunct - please change it to a wayback machine link to the 2015 site*, or find another source with the same information. 
* https://web.archive.org/web/20150707151929/https://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/innovators/bio_gallo.html Limnanthes (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 14:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019 

message: 2601:14D:8701:5880:7DE1:4AC1:CC00:E1C3 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021 

message: Robert Gallo had no role in the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).  The two French French virologists Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier discovered this and sent their findings to Gallo who took their results and claimed them as his own.  When he finally met with the French virologists, they agreed to share credit because Gallo was a better-known virologist.  But the two French virologists won the Nobel prize.  Gallo was not included since he stole their research.  He DID, however, develop the HIV blood test. So I’m suggesting that you please remove part of the second sentence in the first paragraph that gives him credit for discovering HIV.
It looks like you have the correct information in the body of the document so I don’t think anything else needs to be changed. Thank you very much. Dreemsnake (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 

message: In December of 1992, after three years of investigation, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found Robert C. Gallo committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS. 66.41.212.46 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021