Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism: Difference between revisions

NON neutrality

The phrase 'loosely connected' in the opening sentence is not neutral, or referenced. What does it actually mean? It's just biased, rhetorical, and persuasive, against those who are organized against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. At best, it's not clear or concise and could be interpreted in many different ways. 218.161.67.186 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase in the lede is supported by the text of the article in HIV/AIDS denialists' claims and scientific evidence. The phrase is used by secondary sources, for example the text linked in the section below. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless the phrase, I agree with 218.161.67.186. on non-neturality.

This article also talks about some trend analysis which is hardly verifiable, "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now targeted at less scientifically sophisticated audiences and spread mainly through the Internet."

(Again, the whole page to me is really POV, Non-V and OR all in one.)

Just take a look at the preceding line "The scientific consensus is that the evidence showing HIV to be the cause of AIDS is conclusive[4][5] and rejects AIDS-denialist claims as pseudoscience based on conspiracy theories,[6] faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.[4][5][7]"

I mean, if the so-called mainstream scientists (or scientists backed by consensus..) are so mighty, then why insist on writing arguments at the level of social labeling, consensus and all? Also, some so-called AIDS-denialists just turn their back on the word "AIDS" because of how vague the term is, they don't even have a stand on the argument "HIV is the cause of AIDS", they just tell you that such sentence is hard to interpret or meaningless. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "loosely connected" is awkward here and there is no way to figure out exactly what it means. The only connection I can see here is that these people don't believe in the mainstream consensus. Usually when a group of people are connected by ideas or ideology only it's called a "movement." 216.175.108.129 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this edit: HIV/AIDS denialism is a dissident movement which questions the mainstream view that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[1] Carnival Honey (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that this sentence is awkward: "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now targeted at less scientifically sophisticated audiences and spread mainly through the Internet." How can anyone determine how sophisticated or unsophisticated an audience is? Does this article make a claim that internet readers are unsophisticated? Do only unsophisticated people use the internet? Or do you mean that peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish the views of dissident scientists, so that their main or only venue for speech is the internet? This sentence should be deleted or clarified. Carnival Honey (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is referenced to a Plos One article that says pretty much that. No problem here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mbeki is NOT a denialist

Man. I just don't understand how so many frame Mbeki as a denialist, as he obviously is not! Please, if you make such a claim, at least cite one source where he explicitly denies the connection between HIV and AIDS. Turns out it's absolutely nonexistent! He's really at most a dissident than a "denialist". Only because Harvard and New York Times, those seemingly "reputable" media make claims, even on highly dubious grounds, then you have to rever it as authentic? That's quite ridiculous. Sentences like "culminating in Mbeki's embrace of denialisim" is lamentably downright shocking in a Wikipedia article. Anon J (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you're only trying to be helpful, but please don't make edits like this. The material you added was uncited - anything that you want to add to the article needs a reliable source. See WP:VERIFY. In addition, the material was written in a way that violates WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Virusmyth as a source

The article states that, "As of August 2011, the denialist website virusmyth.com continues to claim that Root-Bernstein and Sonnabend doubt the role of HIV in AIDS." That statement has two sources. The first is indeed virusmyth, but the virusmyth site does not say what the article implies it does: it simply describes what Root-Bernstein's views were at the start of his career as an AIDS dissident. Given that Root-Bernstein changed his mind later, what the virusmyth site says about him is indeed potentially misleading, but it's not directly inaccurate since it doesn't state anything about what Root-Bernstein's present views are. The second source is used in a strange fashion: while the source is indicated as being virusmyth, it redirects to a different website altogether: http://www.aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.htm. I suggest that the reference to virusmyth claiming that Sonnabend still doubts the role of HIV in AIDS should be removed. It simply isn't backed up by the source given. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Up or down for the HIV/AIDS Theory/Theories - The scientific basis

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How the virus of HIV/AIDS stands to Leukemia... Also as entire data-set... The dubious histories of the HIV/AIDS Self-Help Kits from the 90s and what the contents of them are... The nature of the CD4 counts, as other factors may influence, "famine, illnesses, radiation..." The neuro-values of the patients' as well as determining any psychiatric factors, as much as the demand on one point from one Self-Help Kit (newspaper source)... The nature of the viruses and how they classify in terms of classical analysis, the bio-analysis vis-a-vis gene-analysis, also "petridish analysis"... The nature of the viruses more: what bacteria produce it? (Note on groups of viruses and bacteria, all produced by exactly bacteria...) Good? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC) What exactly are you proposing? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC) It procedes from the article that the HIV/AIDS Denialists are without a kind of basis. As inquiry continues, the scientific reasoning for the public, valid for both sides of the HIV/AIDS disputes, should be from the above list... I can't find any other basis for disagreement and for that matter, the public will then clearly know what this revolves around. Agree? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Are you proposing an edit or do you have a source to bring? The talk page is for improving articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC) I am proposing an edit, one that yields scientific points to both articles, HIV/AIDS and HIV/AIDS Denialism. In a democratic society, it's my view that the public has a right to balanced information and in this case, the above list, 6 pts., provides a critical light onto the HIV/AIDS as theory, one that may prove decisive! Can I be given some more time to come up with the references, please? Also, by the same listing, I ask the Wikipedia-community to work alongside so that criticism can prove successful or not (however, the countermoves toward Leukemia look strong, others cite Tuberculosis...). The symptoms list to HIV/AIDS is also massive. So, more time..., please? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Please look at WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. We don't do fair and balanced, we go with the scientific consensus. The encyclopedia is always evolving, so there is no rush. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Checked! (However, it can be stated that to WP:UNDUE for HIV/AIDS Denialism article there are the voodoo claims against HIV/AIDS in trying to present itself as HIV/AIDS Denialism in saying that HIV/AIDS proponents "are doing voodoo in the hidden" or whatever obscure "tiny minority" view!) Out from 62.16.242.213 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I'd like to respond constructively to your posts, but I'm completely unable to comprehend them. Maybe it would help to propose a specific content change along with specific supporting sources. MastCell Talk 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? A Stephen Allen film.

added an external link to a 2 hour documentary full of citations to respected journals and various papers.

would be nice to work it into the article as there is a huge lack of neutrality in this article. definitely seems to be written with a foregone conclusion that denial-ism is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTxvmKHYajQ i found it very hard to watch the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.200.140 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A "documentary" produced by conspiracy theorists to promote fringe theories does not come anywhere near to meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. The article as it currently is represents the overwhelming scientific consensus, and any inclusion of this movie would be undue weight. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And Wikipedia editors don't actually determine what is "right" and "wrong", we just follow the aforementioned reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I vouch for this. The discussion by the links hold many fine, educated points from members of the BMJ. Can we add a Yes/No popularity button for this topic? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't operate by votes, and please read WP:ELNO. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Add an AIDS Denialists who have died section?

I am just getting started on Wiki, so if I am making formating or protocol errors, my apologies. I know several websites maintain a list of AIDS denialists that have gone on to die of AIDS. AIDS Truth, is one such example. It might add some additional context and implications to the article (though I see South Africa and Christine Maggorie are already present). Does anyone have any thoughts about adding such a section? --Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a thought. I think the section you are proposing is morbid and pointless. It would be equivalent to adding a section called "Believers in the HIV theory who died of AIDS" to the HIV/AIDS article. Since that article doesn't list people who accepted the HIV theory who died of AIDS, why should this article list the people who didn't believe in the HIV theory who died of AIDS? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a very good reason that it does not exist on the HIV/AIDS page, and that is because the disease progression of AIDS is far from a "theory". "Belief". as you put it, is all that AIDS deniers can stand upon, as they have no scientific evidence in which to base their belief. The fact that some of them continue to deny until they find themselves dead goes a long way to showing their level of detachment from reality. Seth Kalichman, goes into far more detail about these psychological aspects in his book, and this section could show the final result of such thinking. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not the least interest in discussing the merits of the HIV theory of AIDS. That wasn't the point of my comment. Rather, all I was pointing out is that there is no more purpose to having a "list of people who didn't believe that HIV causes AIDS who died of AIDS" here than there is to having a "list of people who did believe that HIV causes AIDS who died of AIDS" in another article. Whether HIV causes AIDS or not has no bearing on the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, well I will wait and see if I get anymore feedback from others about the possibility of adding this type of content somewhere in this article. It would appear that you have a personal attachment to this issue, which might make it difficult for you to remain objective. Consequently, there is already a list up for HIV related deaths Here. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

What does Kalichman discuss in his book? I think a better/more important addition could be about the psychological aspects of denial and detachment from reality, this could mention one or two examples. I have to agree FKC has a point about morbidity. This might also verge on original research, is there any reliable source has composed and published such a list? Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, Your comment got the gears in my brain turning a bit. Perhaps doing a short section on the psychological aspects of AIDS Denialism might not be a bad undertaking, Especially since my expertise is psyche/sociology, and when you are a hammer you naturally see everything around you as a nail. Though there would also be substantial overlap with the more generalized psychological notion of denial, which is extremely well documented in the peer reviewed literature. Prof. Kalichman does go into significant detail specific to AIDS denialism in his book "Denying AIDS". The only thing that I am hesitant about is making an article for a pseudoscientific topic too long. As another alternative, we could always just add a link to the psyche article on Denial for economy and succinctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is you linked to is about Freudian psychology, and thus has no relevance to AIDS or HIV. I have removed the link. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel as though denial, as a psychological defense mechanism, is not relevant to the discussion here ? The behavior exhibited by people who embrace AIDS Denialism is so glaring it could be used as a textbook case study on the construct. Prof. Kalichman expresses some more detail on specifics here. I am not understanding your justification for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF first you want to argue that it's not a pseudoscientific view, now you purport that the psychological term denial is not relevant to an article on DENIALISM? Clearly there is a reliable source which considers the HIV/AIDS denial community and view appropriately analyzed in terms of psychological denial. A reliable source was presented before the content was added, your removal was inappropriate and and your conduct on this talk page is tendentious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To wit, "his claim that HIV is harmless reinforces the normal process of denial most people undergo when faced with traumatizing information" (Nattrass, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z). - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I have just reverted a well-intentioned edit by Bhny, which may the first sentence state that, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the non-scientific view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." The "non-scientific" part was Bhny's edition. I understand the reason for the edit, but I'm afraid it's really no different from adding something like "Hitler was evil" to the first sentence of the article on Adolf Hitler. Aside from being inelegant writing, it's unnecessary. Anyone can see that Hitler was evil. Anyone can also see, from the existing material in the lead, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. I'd like to ask Bhny to refrain from adding unnecessary verbiage to solve a problem that does not exist: no one is going to think that AIDS denialism is scientific simply because the words "non-scientific" are not there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning at all. AIDS denialism unfortunately is a weird thing believed by too many people, and some of these people do think there is a scientific basis for their denial. The first paragraph has to make it clear that it is not scientific. (There is no reason to call denialists "drooling idiots" or to godwin this discussion before it begins) Bhny (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the first paragraph does not have to make it clear that it is not scientific. Realistically, no one is going to read only the first paragraph of the article and somehow come away with the impression that AIDS denialism is scientific. It is impossible to avoid noticing the other paragraphs, which make it crystal clear that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. Your addition is poor writing, and it is an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. And for what it's worth, I didn't call denialists "drooling idiots" - you simply misunderstand what I wrote. Rather, the "drooling idiots" part referred to people who would read only the first paragraph of the article and then imagine that AIDS denialism is scientific. You seem to think that such people actually exist. Sorry, I don't think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note, by the way, that no article about a theory that has been rejected by the scientific community is written the way you think that this article should be written. Thus, the first sentence of Creationism, is "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation", not "Creationism is the non-scientific belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation." Try looking at other articles and you will get a better impression of what is and what is not considered acceptable writing on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is, by it's very definition, unscientific, so I have no problems whatsoever with using the terminology to describe them. As to it being unnecessary because any rational person could not possibly identify it as anything else? You have more faith in humanity than I do. The fact that AIDS Denialism exists at all is testimony to how people can pathologically take a vacation from reality. You can also take a cursory examination around these very talk pages as exhibit B to this phenomenon.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I pointed out that the lead already states, emphatically and clearly, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. That's why the extra "non-scientific" language isn't needed. "Faith in humanity" has nothing to do with it. Nothing that you said above qualifies as a rational response to what I said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to bother worrying about it for the inclusion of one word, particularly when it appears you choose to be condescending to anyone who does not share your views. You can be sanctimonious to somebody else.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You made an irrelevant reply that didn't even touch on what I actually wrote. I am sorry if you find it "condescending" of me to point that out, but I do prefer to be honest. There would be better ways of replying than making whiny comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph should make it clear. There are many readers who only read the first paragraph and many websites/search engines that display only the first paragraph or sentence. Why should the first sentence not make it clear? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, but one needs to consider how to do such things properly. The lead needs to use appropriate language, and any statement has to have a proper source. I suppose you could use the first sentence of the Intelligent design article as a model. Yet the language used there is not quite a perfect model for this article. "HIV/AIDS denialism" is not a "theory" as such; it is, as the article calls it, a view. A theory can be called pseudoscientific, but I don't think it makes sense to call something as loosely defined as a view pseudoscientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the content. If a point is adequately made in the content it can be summarized without additional sourcing. I think a view that A does not cause B can be called pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience as the belief HIV does not cause AIDS is. The foundation of the belief is pseudoscience, the content of the belief is pseudoscience, it has been called and described as pseudoscience by reliable sources thus calling it a pseudoscientific belief is valid. It's not like the advocates of this belief don't all rely on pseudoscience, this isn't a religious belief or a philosophical opinion, this is a belief that the science that says A causes B is wrong and other (pseudo)science is right. Pretty clearly a pseudoscientific belief, view, proposition, notion, idea whatever noun employed. I agree that good writing should prevail whenever possible, propose something good! Concise and razor clear without sounding awkward or pointed with as much detail as necessary to explain and provide context with nothing extra. As you might have noticed that is not exactly my strength as an editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is by definition something that claims to be science but isn't. A "view" does not automatically equate to a scientific claim, and it doesn't have to be based on something that is claimed to be science; views can be based on anything. "Pseudoscience" is thus not, in my opinion, a useful label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This view claims to be scientific. The fact that "a view doesn't automatically equate" is irrelevant. This particular view is based on (what is claimed to be) science. This is a view on a scientific subject. Being a "view" does not exclude the possibility of being a pseduoscientific view. Doesn't the article make clear that this view is argued using pseudoscience and based on pseudoscience? Doesn't stating that in the lead make it a fair summary? What in the article would not be described as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? All the legal and political stuff refers back to the (in)validity of the science. If a majority of the conduct of the individuals discussed in an article is engaging in, and arguing using pseudoscience, how is it not useful to label the view they are arging for as pseudoscientific? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, a view doesn't claim anything. Only people who maintain views claim things. I'm not especially impressed by your arguments for the appropriateness of the "pseudoscientific" label. Other editors may well agree with you, of course, and I've no interest in trying to impose my personal preferences here. If a consensus develops in favor of using such language, then so be it, but let's wait and see. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A weak attempt at semantic distraction. A position doesn't make claims either but a position can be pseudoscientific. I view is scientific if it based on and argued from science and relates to a scientific concept. I view is religious if it is based on and argued from religion and relates to a religious topic. A view is pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience and argued from pseudoscience and relates to a scientific topic. The cause of a disease is a scientific topic, denialism is based on and argued from a pseudoscientific basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think mentioning pseudoscience in the lead is a fine idea. I agree with MrBill3. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

'Agreed --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)