boy this is classic definition a scientist is someone who follows the scientific method the scientific community is composed of all scientists claim the evidence for hiv is so overwhelming anyone who claims hiv does not cause aids must not be following the scientific method lemma therefore someone who claims hiv does not cause aids is not a scientist theorem therefore all members of the scientific community agree hiv causes aids corollary therefore all debate over the hiv hypothesis occurs in non scientific forums outside the scientific community brilliant reasoning there mastcell and nightscream i wonder how people years from now will read this without laughing their ass off duesberg doesn't conduct research on hiv he never has neither does kary mullis neither does the perth group russian biologists don't conduct research on michurinism they never have evolutionists don't conduct research on intelligent design they never have einstein doesn't conduct research on the photoelectric effect or brownian motion he never has in genetics was officially declared 'a bourgeois pseudoscience' all geneticists were fired from work some were also arrested and all genetic research was discontinued from wikipedia aritlce lysenkoism '''''i think mast cell and nightscream's argument over the pov or non pov nature of the wikipedia article aids reappraisal is inadequate because it is as follows please note this is central to the pov non pov debate not a debate of the issue mast cell definition a scientist is someone who follows the scientific method the scientific community is composed of all scientists claim the evidence for hiv is so overwhelming anyone who claims hiv does not cause aids must not be following the scientific method lemma therefore someone who claims hiv does not cause aids is not a scientist theorem therefore all members of the scientific community agree hiv causes aids corollary therefore all debate over the hiv hypothesis occurs in non scientific forums outside the scientific community mast cell and nightscream are using this pathetic argument as a justification for pushing their pov so yes this comment is very definitely in reference to improving the article thank you