Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism: Difference between revisions

Archives
July 2003 — November 2003 November 2003 — January 2006 January 2006 — February 2006 February 2006 — July 2006 July 2006 — December 2006 December 2006 — February 2007 February 2007 — April 2008 April 2008 — May 2008

/Data mining at PubMed about the topic

The title "AIDS denialism" is inaccurate and inappropriate.

No one is denying that acquired immune deficiency syndrome does not exist. They only question the role that the suspected particle known as "HIV" has any role in the syndrome. I suggest the title to this article be change to "HIV denialism" instead. Even that would be a bit offensive in my opinion since "delialism" seems to suggest that the researchers in question have closed their minds to the possibility that some agent has a role in AIDS. Heck, "denialism" isn’t even a real word, more like a slur term.

For more eye opening research in to the seriously compromised "AIDS" science, please read this interview of with Dr Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth Group:

http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm

In this interview, she details why every single EM photo we have of supposed "HIV" is a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.137.88.236 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Covered above, [1]. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I. for one, heartily agree. The title smacks of spin-doctoring in the same way that female circumcision (sp?) is now called "Female genital mutilation." AlRonnfeldt (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Move as suggested Not only is it this page's title that appears to be WP:OR slurs and smears. This page appears to exactly what people at this blog Objections to associating HIV dissenters with people who deny the Holocaust have raised concerns about. The selection of WP:SOURCEs seems biased to present a rather crude WP:POV. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not OR (it's sourced). Blogs are not reliable sources, nor is the Townsend Letter. If you have better sources than Science, the NIH, and the WHO, please feel free to present them. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Per MastCell and the common name guideline, this article is correctly named. Verbal chat 08:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I provide several examples of uses of the term in reliable sources here. Personal like or dislike of a term is not valid argument: the article must reflect what is used in reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The term is clearly a rhetorical value judgement with a presciptive/normative tone of self-explanation. Take the example of another medical professional Ignaz Semmelweis who the medical/biological profesion deliberately hounded out of his hospital and his country. The consensus of the medical profession can be and has been obviously stupid and their response to those who disagree has been shown to be unbelievably vicious, even sadistically cruel. This article should not let such a rhetorical label as Aids denialist be used to persecute the next Ignaz Semmelweis. The article and the editors involved with it are being presciptive instead of descriptive in their writing and their application of the term on other articles such as Henry H. Bauer. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The title is the common name and incredibly well sourced. It is also being used as a descriptor, and usually the only people who mention the holocaust when talking about AIDS/HIV or Climate Change are those that are using it as a straw man argument to try to undermine the logical and scientific arguments made. Even many deniers use the term to categorise their belief. Verbal chat 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The presentday medical community could well be attacking present day Ignaz Semmelweis's and the article, its title, and its usage in other articles needs to be re-cast with such a possibility in mind. This is important to bring all this material within WP:NPOV or WP:OR. When one reliable source attacks another reliable source as has happened here, an objective wikipedia article doesn't take sides. The real denialism here is that this article and its treatment of the title isn't POV, which it almost certainly is. It's WP:OR for a wikipedia editor to categorically claim that some articles in reliable sources have straw man arguments. That's not for wikipedia editors to decide. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unless you have good, solid WP:RS that there is such an attack. Currently this article takes the view that AIDS denalists claims are unproven, and that the link between AIDS/HIV is proven, and this is supported by the RS. The other important guidelines here are WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:NPOV. I disagree with your reading of OR as it doesn't apply to talk pages, and we can use RS that make those suggestions to support the view put forward. Verbal chat 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)See also WP:NOTCRYSTAL: Wikipedia cannot and should not speculate about which current scientific "paradigms" are correct, partially correct, or wrong. Wikipedia can and should report verifiable, current thought from reliable sources.

On Ignaz Semmelweis, without getting into the debate about the relative degrees to which he was ostracised due to his personal behaviour on the one hand and his medical discovery on the other, we would do well to remember that if current opinion on Ignaz Semmelweis were overwhelmingly negative, the Wikipedia article on Semmelweis would have to reflect that, whether or not Semmelweis were right. Truth versus verifiability is such a central concept on Wikipedia that it surprises me how often it must be repeated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Example in this article which is clearly some sort of logical fallacy of arrangement and presentation:

• Peter Duesberg is a professor of molecular biology at University of California, Berkeley
• Kary Mullis won a noble prize

but the article throws these two in with Nate Mendel of the Foo Fighters. And calls them all aids denialists. Should the views of eminent scientists questioning current scientific consensus be compared with those famous person from a pop band in an encyclopedic article? I don't beleive so. Again this article clearly suffers from non-objective rhetorical value judgements. This being just one example. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis believed in transubstantiation or the Loch Ness monster or the existence of Libya or addition, not one of these would be more or less valid or true because a professor or a scientist believed it, as opposed to Joe the plumber or a rock band guitarist. Of course, the truth of any of these is not the concern of Wikipedia; instead, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, which demonstrably support both the name and the content of this article.

This article is also the product of WP:CONS. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, please provide them. Otherwise, please note that WP:TALK does not allow general debate about an article's subject. Violations of this policy may be deleted as disruptive. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You had me at "Joe the plumber". In all seriousness, there are reams of discussion along these lines in the archives, and nothing has changed: this is the name used by a large volume of reliable sources, so it's the name used by Wikipedia. If you feel that's an unfair rhetorical normative etc etc, very well, but Wikipedia isn't the place to change the way the world views AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Even if one believes, counterfactually, that "they all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the earth was round", they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a specific suggestion: include a section on Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia. This is verifiable disease with all the symptons of AIDS, but patients are negative for HIV. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but it sounds like it might involve original syn. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphopenia is a different disease with some overlapping manifestations. It does not have "all the symptoms of AIDS"; some manifestations of AIDS are related, or possibly related, to direct effects of the virus itself - for example, AIDS dementia complex and HIV-associated nephropathy. These would not occur with ICL. I am aware that some AIDS denialist websites make claims about ICL. They are as logical as claiming that, because not all hepatitis is caused by hepatitis B virus, the virus is harmless or nonexistent. I don't know that we need to further this sort of ignorance here. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Commentary smacks of the sort of know-it-all (no disrespect intended) sort silliness outlined in WP:TRUTH. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, the risk you take when you leave silly comments here - like "idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia has all the symptoms of AIDS" - is that someone who knows better will call you on it. - Nunh-huh 06:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Small addition to the article

One line in the article is, " The Sunday Times, where Hodgkinson served as scientific editor, ran a series of articles arguing that the AIDS epidemic in Africa was a myth. These articles stressed Duesberg's claims and argued that antiviral therapy was ineffective, that HIV testing was unreliable, and that AIDS was not a threat to heterosexuals. The Sunday Times coverage was heavily criticized as slanted, misleading, and potentially dangerous; the scientific journal Nature took the unusual step of printing a 1993 editorial calling the paper's coverage of HIV/AIDS "seriously mistaken, and probably disastrous."

I used to work for the magazine, The Scandinavian Journal of Political Alternatives. We have printed several articles written by professors in Africa saying that the AIDS academic has been greatly exagerated, as has other publications. More importantly, the the WHO has admitted that it greatly overestimated the number of AIDS cases in Africa. In light of this new information, perhaps there should be an addendum stating that the strongly worded criticism of the Sunday Times has been contradicted. AlRonnfeldt (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Also we do not give undue weight to fringe theories. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All numbers for AIDS in Africa (and elsewhere) are estimates. Different estimates, using different methods, come to different conclusions. No estimate places the number of AIDS cases at zero, which is what AIDS denialists argue. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think The Scandinavian Journal of Political Alternatives is really qualified to say that Nature was wrong on this. The two just aren't in the same league as far as reliability of sources is concerned. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above analysis of SJPA. Could you be more specific, ideally in the form of a link, regarding the WHO report? It may or may not be germane, but I might like to read it for my own edification regardless. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree in that I don't see what the WHO estimates have to do with AIDS denialism. If the WHO revises its estimates of malaria morbidity, does that support the idea that Plasmodium is a harmless passenger? Or does it just point out the difficulties of modeling an epidemic which affects areas without a robust public-health infrastructure? MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would actually appreciate a link to information on the Scandinavian Journal of Political Alternatives. I found a Scandinavian Journal of Political Studies, but no SJPA on Google or Google Scholar. Could you tell us more about the SJPA? It does seem like an interesting publication. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kary Mullis

The article presents him as a Nobel prize winner and inventor of PCR, but does not mention with one word his peculiar views on astrology and alien abduction though his scientific authority is often questioned because of this.[2][3]--Neptun88 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a PDF reader on the computer I'm currently using, so I must ask: Is any of the information in this article that is derived from his work subject to question? I don't see what astrology or alien abduction have to do with medicine. The fact that Isaac newton believed in alchemy is an interesting historical fact, but it does not in any way affect the validity of his work in physics or calculus. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neptun88, do you have a suggestion for changing the sentence on Mullis? Since there is just one mention of him in this article (as a notable AIDS denialist), I don't see the need for much additional information about him here, particularly since the controversies are addressed at his biography article. I would suggest changing the "inventor" language for clarity. As the Kary Mullis article indicates, Mullis was not the sole inventor of the technique. He did play a major role in developing PCR and commercializing it, though, hence his Nobel. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My proposal would be to omit the mention of his other achievements regardless how great they are. It should say simply something like the "chemist Kary Mullis supports their claims". No more.

When Isaac Newton lived science was not advanced at all, so it makes quite a difference if someone supported such superstition in Newton's times or if someone does it nowadays. My problem is the way Mullis is presented here. By saying that a Nobel-prize winner and inventor of PCR supports the AIDS denialists' claims, Mullis' scientific authority is put forward on behalf of the denialists. --Neptun88 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But a Nobel prize winner and developer of PCR does support AIDS denialist claims. Of course, he supports quite a few other... er... non-mainstream ideas as well - he's a bit of a professional contrarian, and he has not done any research or scientific work on HIV or AIDS. He doesn't have any scientific authority on that subject, certainly no more than that of the dozens of Nobel laureates and tens of thousands of AIDS researchers who would undoubtedly agree that HIV obviously causes AIDS just like the Earth revolves around the Sun. I dunno how much of this sort of context we need to go into here. He's got his own article. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So if his Nobel prize is irrelevant to his (non-existent) scientific authority on AIDS why mention it at all? I don't object to list Mullis as a supporter, I only object to list him as a Nobel-prize-winning supporter. That's my point.--Neptun88 (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling Mullis a "biochemist" is akin to calling Nate Mendel (also mentioned) a mere "guitarist". Mullis is notable for his Nobel Prize and for his contribution to the development of PCR. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to revert this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is blasphemy to say this but Mendel is nothing more than a "guitarist" to me ;=) And Mullis has not done any research or scientific work on HIV or AIDS, as MastCell said above, so IMHO the Nobel prize does not make his position more noteworthy.--Neptun88 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If the main criterion for mention as a denialist were extensive experience with HIV/AIDS research, then we wouldn't see any names here at all! Mullis' position is noteworthy only because of who Mullis is. And Mullis is notable because of his Nobel Prize. If he is mentioned at all, we are obliged to mention why he is included. The last paragraph in the notable denialists sections covers the lack of research experience among supposed denialist experts. Would a sentence here be appropriate? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources I mentioned exactly made the same point that I did (p.28). That might be added in one sentence though it shouldn't become a personal payoff either. I would have felt more comfortable with just not mentioning PCR.--Neptun88 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

denialist video's

We could include video's like "the other side of aids" under external links/denialist. Any ideas on that?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the issues there would be a) copyright (or not), b) whether they add encyclopedic goodness to the article, and c) WP:EL, which tells us to avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Of course, all the denialist sites fit that description... MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the term "Denialist" is inherently biased

It lumps scientists who have alternative hypotheses with Holocaust "deniers".

Could a less-pejorative term be used? Perhaps "AIDS Alternative Hyphothesism", or something similarly neutral.

Calling someone a "denier" already sets up battle lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle lines? No, the battle is over, although some people are denying that. Hence the term. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the scientists that have this alternative hypothesis and their foundation. From what little i've seen of this so far, those who deny the connection between HIV and AIDS have no science behind them and are not reliable evaluations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in previously)

Title

"Denialism"? I think "AIDS denial" is a better name... 69.177.235.86 (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is AIDS Denialism Pseudoscience or Sociopolitics Disputing Science?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and the AIDS Denialism category, requires a citation from a reliable general source like the Encyclopedia Britannica describing the subject as pseudoscience, or a reliable academic source such as an Academy of Science which considers the subject to be pseudoscience, so as to sustain the category's placement. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and its corresponding category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed at Category talk:AIDS denialism, and I think the sourcing in the article is more than sufficient. I thought we had reached agreement in our very recent discussion on the category talk page; is there a reason to re-open this issue here without reference to that discussion? I will add that a) Brittanica is a tertiary source and generally not one we should be relying upon here (see WP:PSTS), and b) there is no requirement for an "Academy of Science" to designate something a pseudoscience before so labeling it. Academies of Science generally concern themselves with, well, science, and rarely if ever bother labeling things as pseudoscience. This seems to set an artificial, unrealistic, and non-commonsensical bar. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) From your recent post on Category talk:Pseudoscience, pseudoscience is "assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not." Many AIDS denialists make "assertions about [AIDS that] claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not.". So yes, it fits the category. Please stop with your pointy disruption. It isn't big or clever. Verbal chat 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Gee, what about the New York Times article on the subject that shows up in the top four hits when you google for "AIDS denialism pseudoscience"? I think the Times qualifies as a reliable general source. Of course, the July 2007 article "Combining prevention, treatment and care: lessons from South Africa" in AIDS (the journal of the International AIDS Society) could be used in addition. There's no shortage of references equating AIDS denialism with pseudoscience; all you have to do is look. I note that at the "clarification" page you reference, you are taken to task for making manifestly ridiculous changes with regard to the pseudoscience classification, and for long-winded politicking. Note also that the "policy" you cite (which despite "clarification" is murky at best) is meant to govern disruptive editing rather than content. Were you to do your own googling before initiating discussions, you could avoid such disruptive editing. If you're not sure whether AIDS denialism is pseudoscience, and you're not sure whether phrenology is pseudoscience, and you can't find the required evidence by the simple act of googling, I'd suggest that the article would be better off without your input. - Nunh-huh 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nunh-huh, i like that source and think it may be enough. The issue is of course whether what we are considering is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community or is alternative theoretics which have a following within the scientific community. So far it seems that what is put forward has no following within the scientific community to speak of, though there were mentions of articles being allowed published in Science and in academy of science publications (possibly for refutation?). Thanks for your patience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposing sound science based on sociopolitical reasons is pseudoscience. It's not an either/or question.Nightscream (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, according to the Wiki Arbcom on this subject. My own preference is that the categorization be restricted to what claims to be scientific but which in fact isn't, but if you look at that Arbcom and the clarification also referenced above you'll see it applies to much more than that.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But if you need a specific source, Professor Nicoli Nattras, the director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, and the author of 2007's Mortal Combat: AIDS Denialism and the Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa, calls it pseudoscience in her article in the September/October 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer (Volume 31, No. 5; Pages 31-37), and names others with the same view, such as Robert Gallo, who devoted ten pages of his book 1991 on discovering HIV, Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, to refuting the claims of denialist Peter Duesberg (Pages 287-297), Jon Cohen, who investigated Duesberg's claims and concluded that none of them stood up to scrutiny in Science 226 (December 9, 1994 p. 1642-1649), and Nature editor John Maddox. Nightscream (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your references. I don't generally think that CSICOP publications are a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia (because they are POV-pushers), but i do like to make reference to them in my own researches, and your other suggestions are very helpful.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

self-ref has been doing the same thing at Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory‎ - after he asked for sources and was given half a dozen or more (some of which he rejected as he said he couldn't access Google Books, others he rejected because he didn't think a philosopher of science was qualified to say if something was pseudo-science, etc) he jumped from discussing authors to wanting an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science' reference. Then he moved to Talk:Ancient astronaut theories and without mentioning the earlier discussion started a new one, this time wanting an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science' reference and citing ArbCom as requiring it. Ironically, the article didn't even have a pseudoscience tag at the time. It does now. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Please don't speak for me, i don't agree with your characterization. I was looking for something more like Encyclopedia Britannica or maybe the New York Times. I wasn't passing judgement on who was qualified to say anything, just trying to abide the Arbcom assessment procedure for evaluating this category's application. Much obliged.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is an article that does not now have the pseudoscience category on it, but probably should. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that it should has been established now. Verbal chat 19:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't self-ref helpful? Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to see more reliable sources before I'll add that to the article. Verbal chat 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-ref is actually referring to the categorisation of the Category Talk:AIDS denialism, which until I just fixed it had the pseudosience category twice, which I agree was too much (by one). All apropriate pages in that category should probably be tagged. Verbal chat 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making that more clear. It is only logical that both should either have or not have the tag. If the New York Times article establishes the general criteria (being equivalent to a Britannica article for purposes of generally reflecting an assessment of this as pseudoscience), then both should have the tag.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the massive revenues that Aids Research is receiving at the expense of other equally deadly diseases, I think that the sociological aspects factor in heavily. I therefor submit that perhaps a tag entitled Fringe science is more appropriate. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not necessarily, according to the Wiki Arbcom on this subject." And by those criteria, AIDS denialism clearly qualifies.

" CSICOP publications are a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia (because they are POV-pushers)" First of all, they are not POV-pushers, unless the POV in question is that the distinction between science and pseudoscience be upheld, which is in line with the very point of this discussion. Second, the source I named was not CSICOP, but the the woman who wrote an article in their publication, who also wrote a book on the subject, and the other people who, in turn, she named for the same reason. Robert Gallo isn't qualified as a source that A.D. is pseudoscience? Really? How so? If this is "POV-pushing", then who did you have in mind as a source? Nightscream (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw man. I said: "I don't generally think that CSICOP publications are a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia (because they are POV-pushers)." sometimes they have contributing writers who are very interesting contributors to the evidence surrounding issues. I didn't specify any person, but was looking for something general (like the New York Times article or a Britannica article) to demonstrate that AIDS denials are pseudoscience (to me they are *based* on pseudoscience and so this is illogical but Wiki standards include this for adjectival purposes), or some science board like the National Academy of Sciences which might speak for the greater proportion of scientists such that we can reasonably conclude that the scientific community is agreed that AIDS denials are pseudoscience. Putting words into my mouth about the qualifications of individuals isn't accurate or helpful to evaluating the category's application.(wasn't logged in when writing this)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not question Robert Gallo's qualifications. I am questioning the wisdom of implying that all Aids deniers are quacks. Wiki's Blp policy certainly tells us to avoid using language that could be construed as an attack does it not ? I think it would be fine to quote Gallo and or others like him. I just fail to see the wisdom of painting them all Aids deniers and potential Aids deniers with the same brush. Most scientist believe that HIV causes aids and therefor so do I. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP, and calling aspects AIDS denialism psedoscience is accurate and supported, thus the category is supported. There is no calling all deniers "quacks" by adding this category to this page. Verbal chat 08:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought that tagging the article was what was being proposed here. Categories are a different matter altogether. Once again my apologies. Perhaps I should go back to sleep now. LOL....Albion moonlight (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to light the notion that "tagging the article" and "adding a Category to an article" are two different things. I'll have to look into how those two differ and avoid that confusion in the future.(wasn't logged in when writing this) -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"sometimes they have contributing writers who are very interesting contributors to the evidence surrounding issues. I didn't specify any person..." Which is precisely why I responded in the way that I did. If you do not oppose a particular person that I indeed named, then what difference does targeting the entire organization make? There is no Straw Man. I responded to exactly what you said, and what you said about that particular organization being a POV-pusher is false. Do you honestly believe that the Times doesn't ever push a POV? Or that conversely, CSI cannot document, as a question of fact, what the consensus of the scientific community is? Nightscream (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that an expression from it is liable to incorporate no balanced consensus as regards the scientific community as a whole, necessarily, whereas something from the NY Times or the Encyclopedia Britannica is more likely to reflect a general opinion as to category of information. Specialist data presented through CSICOP is liable to offer specific perspectives of expertise, but do not seem to me reliable expressions about the scientific community and its perspective. I am not alone in this opinion, and have seen similar expressions about them in Wikipedia. That said, i don't think it is really relevant except as a side-comment of worth for General Pseudoscience (for which it would not qualify because it is specialist and an advocate) or for Scientific Consensus (which CSICOP doesn't represent either, to my knowledge). If you have evidence to the contrary about how much scientists love and speak through CSICOP, please do point it out, thanks. We seem to have arrived at a consensus regarding the status of this page, though of course i cannot be sure.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before the Socio-political aspects of this articles subject matter are striking. Perhaps an article that includes the early predictions made by the American Medical Association, way back when Aids research was in its incipient stages, is called for. I do not have the time to write such an article but I will provide anyone who wishes to write such an article with reliable sources pursuant to such a task. The involvement of Oprah Winfrey and other talk show hosts seems to have the makings of an interesting article within itself. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New evidence demonstrating that HIV was NOT isolated by Gallo or Montagnuer

Luc Montagnier states that his team never 'purified' HIV. (1997, Interview with Djamel Tahi Montagnier responds that "after a Roman effort" he could only find four nonspecific surrogate markers.) New evidence presented by Janine Roberts in her book demonstrates how Gallo falsified documents to claim HIV isolation. (www.fearoftheinsivible.com) This clearly shows that HIV=AIDs is unproven, yet references to Gallos original documents are frequently made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.191.141 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't expect us to take one line of an interview with no context and turn the direction of a statement completely around. Even if you provided a link to the entire interview, the paper has been cited thousands of times, so it's up to reliable sources to rewrite history, and not one person, even if he helped write it in the first place. As for the book, it's not reliable at all, so there's no point even responding on that. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please xpain why the book Fear of the Invisible is not reliable? It contains documents such as Popovic' work and Gando's EM pictures as well as their comments clearly stating that the culture samples contain NOTHING but cell debris. These same documents are than manipulate by Gallo HIMSELF in his own handwriting before publishing. This totally invalidates Gallo's claim to have isolated HIV - nothing of the like was isolated! These documents contain GALLOS OWN HANDWRITING! These documents originate from Gallo's own lab and have been drawn up by Gallo's colleagues and employees.

Here is an excerpt of the interview with Luc Montagnier (LM), conducted in 1997 at the Pasteur Institute by Djamel Tahi for Continuum Magazine:

::: LM: I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn't take the peak...or it didn't work...because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on. (18)

To claim the above statement by Motangnier is invalid is simply ignoring facts. Montagnier made similar statements as early as 1991. He was the one who formulated the 'co-factor' hypothesis.

I have been HIV+ for more than 21 years now, and its increasingly clear that mainstream science has NOTHING to offer. In fact I consider your above comment not only an insult to people like me, but also to science in general. i for one am living proof that HIV is not the cause of AID's and the day will come when Gallo will ahve to answer for his fraud.