Talk:Peter Duesberg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Tenure at 36

I'm not sure that tenure at 36 is so remarkable - I'd have to know a lot more than I do about the science departments at Berkeley. At the American universities of my life it's been about right to be 36 and tenured in the sciences - it's a little young for a humanist, but not much below average. And for *anyone* on the research fast track like Duesberg it's not remarkable at all. --MichaelTinkler

The article hardly suggests that tenure at 36 is remarkable. It is simply biographical info about Duesberg. Clearly the intent is to show that the man has a set of academic credentials and is not some quack as the press would have us believe. - M.D. Edwards

Pathogens

The second line of this para. "On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS."- to be revalued. On the contrary, Robert Gallo ("HIV identifier"), upon discovering the HIV for the first time, never presented the research paper on his discovery for a peer review before giving it out for publication which really challenges the scientific consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.121.203 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Several thousands of peer-reviewed articles have been published on HIV and AIDS, including quite a few by Gallo. What are you suggesting in terms of concrete changes to the article? MastCell Talk 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Yes you may be right. There are several thousands (if not a million) peer-reviewed literature on HIV and AIDS (that include articles supporting the HIV-AIDS theory and vice versa). I am wondering whether you can show me the peer-reviewd research publication postulates the HIV and AIDS hypothesis, from Gallo, stating his discovery of the virus and AIDS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.121.203 (talk)

Again, several thousands of peer-reviewed articles have been published on HIV and AIDS, including quite a few by Gallo. What are you suggesting in terms of concrete changes to the article? If your goal is, as I suspect, simply to repeat a series of AIDS-denialist canards, then please seek one of the many alternate venues offered by the Internet. MastCell Talk 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the observation is that Gallo's original "discovery" was rushed to press - pre-peer review. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of thing tends to happen when someone describes the etiologic agent of a previously mysterious and (at the time) 100% fatal condition. I'm pretty sure that the discovery of the SARS coronavirus was described in a press release before the relevant peer-reviewed literature hit the newstands, too. OMG! Conspiracy alert! MastCell Talk 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An unfortunate result, however, is that by the time emotions calm down and the "press release" is verified - the government is already handing out $billions. The incentive to "peer review" all of a sudden seems, well not too smart a thing to do. A $billion could influence "peer review" I suspect - ( I would actually be stunned to learn that all scientists would just as soon be poor unheralded....159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not I-thought-of-an-interesting-conspiracy-theory. If you have nothing to contribute toward improvement of the article (which your history leads me to suspect), then further off-topic posts will be removed. MastCell Talk 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain "appropriate discussion" - I am hoping it doesn't just mean agrement. Please also list erased discussion in the future. Thank you. ) 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Appropriate discussion" is spelled out in the talk page guidelines; basically, it is discussion aimed at specific changes or improvements to this particular article. Speculation, general argumentation, I-heard-it-somewhere conspiracy theories, and the like are inappropriate for this forum. Removed comments are visible in the page history. MastCell Talk 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Following your advise then, I suggest that somewhere in wiki - this article seems as good a place as any - it is briefly mentioned that Gallo et al were not peer-reviewed ( and may not have been peer reviewed to this day). Skipping over the scientific established procedure should be at least mentioned in an encyclopedic arena. Avoiding the problem doesn't make it go away, was the HIV/AIDS ever scrutinized scienticially - or blindly excepted and the HIV/AIDS community moved on from there by faith.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Take it to Robert Gallo, maybe, but this hardly seems the place. Briefly, you're mistaken. Of course Gallo's work was peer-reviewed. What you mean (assuming you're parroting the usual AIDS-denialist line) is that his finding was announced at a DHHS press conference before his findings were published in the peer-reviewed literature. Press coverage prior to publication in the medical literature is a fairly common phenomenon, and for something as important as the discovery of the causative agent of AIDS, entirely appropriate. There are, of course, attempts to spin a conspiracy out of it, though. MastCell Talk 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparent violation of WP:BLP removed per WP:BLP and WP:TALK. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
MastCell, thank you for keeping some level of sanity in this article. Your level-headedness and attempt to dispel the ridiculous denialist claims are much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.145.124 (talk) 16:33, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttals

We really don't need "rebuttals" to external links here, especially a commentary that seems not to recognize that HIV viral culture (i.e., isolation of HIV from patients) is a routine clinical test (see here for just one readily accessable example). -- Someone else 00:05, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if a "rebuttal" addressed Duesberg's objections. -- Kwantus
There are articles at Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS reappraisal -- Someone else 02:45, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

dwindling support is not my impression, nor is it the one conveyed in AIDS reappraisal. -- Kwantus

To someone else: the article argues that HIV is not detectable in AIDS patients. Your link refers to the detection of HIV in those with HIV...big deal. - BOOYAA

Embarass to fallout

DAVID GERARD --

EMBARASS: 1 a : to place in doubt, perplexity, or difficulties b : to involve in financial difficulties c : to cause to experience a state of self-conscious distress <bawdy stories embarrassed him>

FALLOUT: 2 : a secondary and often lingering effect, result, or set of consequences <have to take a position and accept the political fallout -- Andy Logan> Merriam Webster Dictionary

It is my informed opinion (I know quite a bit about these issues) that the word "fallout" more accurately describes what Mbeki experienced, not "embarassment". To the best of my knowledge, Mbeki has never been embarrassed or ashamed of his questioning of HIV, or of the decisions he made as a result, or of his invitation of dissident scientists, etc. He has never PERSONALLY felt "in doubt, perplexed, or in self-conscious distress". He HAS suffered FALLOUT, secondary and lingering effects which have had a detrimental effect on his being able to govern as well as possible, and other political consequences he suffered. These are not the same two things. Replacing "embarrassment" with "fallout" was not intended to be a "whitewash".

I have given reasons when I make revisions because I think they violate NPOV. E.g. I explained WHY I thought the "conspiracy theory" link was POV at Duesberg's article, and you put it back in, with what type of explanation??..."reverting anonymous omission" i.e. no explanation. You should stop the habit of using the fact that contributors are anonymous as a justification to make any kind of edits you want of their writings. Besides being patently prejudicial and fallacious reasoning for making changes, it discourages anonymous contributors and makes them feel like second-class citizens. BTW, I'm actually NOT anonymous -- I took a vow not to visit my user page or login at all while I was completing my ph.d. dissertation the past few weeks, but I have snuck on occasionally at times anonymously, I couldn't help it. The vow helped me stay away enough to get the paper done. But you are the only person I've run into here that treated me any differently simply because I was "anonymous". You might want to stop and think about the image this sends to people who visit for the first time.

At times, there have been some real problems with the dissident articles, edit wars, fighting, etc. Usually, it is the result of a couple people who arrive with an agenda and want to smash it on everyone else instead of listen to everyone and arrive at something acceptable to all. I sincerely hope you aren't one of these people.

I won't get into some of the other changes. (Actually, most of them, you kept, so...) I'm just saying, if you want to contribute to these articles (i.e. articles remotely relating to the dissident movement), it's not going to be good if you come in "these are all the answers and I have to correct all the rubbish and pseudoscientific crap here". That mindset going in will only lead to edit wars and me and a lot of other people walking away.

Although I do object to the phrase "fringe" used with regards to dissidents, I won't try to change it now. As I've said before, part of the reason the dissident scientists are "fringe" is because they are FORCED TO BE -- i.e. "if you don't agree with us, get off the damn playground". Most of the scientists I know personally have great reservations about the HIV hypothesis -- these include biologists, doctors, mathematicians, and so on. If questioning HIV is so "fringe", why do I personally know SO MANY PEOPLE THAT DO QUESTION IT (and why do they personally know so many, and so on, and so on)???

I'm changing "embarrassment" to "fallout"; everything else I'll leave as is. If you wish to change it back, please explain why you believe "embarrassment" is more accurate than "fallout".

Revolver 128.111.88.227

Removal of Science magazine citation

This edit removed a quotation from Science magazine that appears to summarize mainstream science's characterization of Duesberg. Is there perhaps a better place in this article for that quote and citation? The Rod 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For an article to be balanced, it must point out the other side. I see another user has added the criticism back in. --Bob 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Duesberg injected himself with HIV, can anyone explain how he never got the virus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.56.122 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NO he didn't. He offered to do it, but didn't go through with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis#Duesberg.27s_offer_to_infect_himself See? 89.210.71.60 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rambling irrelevant quote

If you want to add that rambling irrelevant quote in the criticism section that's fine, I guess he really is a "hell of a guy". Nrets 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding POV changes to the criticism quote. To say the science article is merely an editorial is an extreme slant. It is a review article, as with most review articles these are invited by the editors of the magazine, but they are not someones "opinion piece". Nrets 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added the NPOV tag to the article since there are clearly issues here that need to be resolved over the critique of his opinion.--nixie 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It also seems like sgactorny has exceeded his 3RR for the day. Nrets 03:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't reverted anything even once. But good try. Sgactorny 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in your edit here, you changed "investigate" to "discredit" and "review" to "editorial". Nrets then changed those words back. Then, your edit here, your edit here, and finally your edit here all changed "investigate" back to "discredit" and "review" back to "editorial" after other users reverted you. Making more changes in your edits makes the revert a complex one, but it is still a revert. The Rod 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, each time the page was vandalized and innaccurate, orthodox POV was put in there, or unreferenced things were inserted, or dissident references and quotes were removed, I went through and re-wrote the section. I never reverted anything. Others did. As you can tell, their agenda is to promote the orthodox POV and censor the AIDS reappraisal positions. All edits on the Peter Duesberg page were put there too discredit him, not to inform readers. There is no agenda to make an accurate AIDS reappraisal page or to actually educate people about Peter Duesberg, by you or them. It is quite clear from the edits and the talk archives. The moment you actually embrace the point of WIkipedia, to make pages that accurately reflect the issues they are about, we'll be able to talk. But if Nrets and others continue to try and mislead the readers by vandalizing the pages with orthodox POV, there is nothing to discuss. And if all of you continue to refuse to actually get informed about the issues you are so passionate about editing, there isn't much to talk about. Sgactorny 13:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What we are doing is not vandalism, at least 4 editors disagree with your changes, which basically reaches a consensus, yet you choose to ignore this, accuse others of vandalism and introduce highly slanted and POV language. Nrets 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you just reverted to a past article, removing legitimate dissident quotes and references about Peter Duesberg. This is not acceptable. You are also inaccurately describing an eight page editorial in a magazine as a "science review article." This misleads readers of Wikipedia and is orthodox AIDS POV. It was an editorial, written by a reporter, and not peer-reviewed. Peer-review is a process that legitimizes articles, even though it is a flawed process and is still filled with politics. This editorial was not peer-reviewed, and should be noted as such. Editorials are, by defintion, overtly political. Your presentation gives readers the false impression an unbiased review of Peter Duesbgerg's claims were made. Since you admit you haven't even read Peter Duesberg's work, you cannot judge whether the editorial actually examines the issues. It doesn't. And even if it did, it is not a "science review." It is an editorial that was designed to discredit, not examine, Peter Duesberg's claims. You admit you hate Peter Duesberg, and you admit you do not want his views accurately represented. Change your agenda, and we can talk. 

Sgactorny 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, review articles are different than research articles, and the review process is different that research articles. But let's go to the source, Science claims this is a review and therefore it is a review, to call it anything else it's POV. Even the quote you include calls it a review. I never admitted to hating anybody, and again your personal attacks do not stop. I am going to revert to the consensus version, do not revert it. Plus do not remove the quote I add after that paragraph. I accidentally deleted a chunk of the Gallo quote, but put it back. Nrets 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Science editorial also claimed that although Duesberg and the dissident movement have garnered support from prominent mainstream scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, 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 horse poopy. Revolver 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I checked the changes made by Grcampbell and in fact he is correct, Duesberg did reply to the review article. Even the quotes you added call it a review article, and the editor of Science was behing the article. Finaly do not delete the quote by Martin Delaney siince this is also referenced. If you want to revert these changes state a better reason than "rv orhtodox vandalism, put here to try and discredit duesberg on his own page". Valid, sourced criticism is not vandalism, this is not Duesberg's "own page" it is a page about DUesberg where both good and bad statements, as long as they have a source, are included. Wholesale reverting of these edits will show that you are not trying to edit these articles in good faith. Peace, Nrets 13:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I guess you are not here to edit in good faith after all. Nrets 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "contrarian" is clearly loaded (I note Wiki has no no entry for the term) in that it suggests disagreement for its own sake. The normal scientific term is sceptic (or skeptic in the US). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.39.56 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) "Denialist" with its clear comparison to holocaust denial even moreso. Neil Craig

Critics

  • Anybody familiar with the literature or, indeed, any science at all would recognize this representation of Duesberg's "critics" as an utter strawman. Do it again or don't do it all. 66.65.7.197 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I've replaced the section with a more accurate representation of his criticisms. Feel free to add to this, but don't just delete the entire section. Nrets 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better, thank you. Sorry for being so abrupt before, but a single article does not the full spectrum of his critics make. And, as you can see, I deleted the sentence that most bothered me (about the "experiments"):
1. Journals *never* conduct experiments on their own. They are simply compilations of others' experiments.
2. Review articles *never* conduct additional experiments. I feel that reemphasizing this point so strongly violates NPOV.
I would suggest that the "scientific review" be disambiguated from the normal definition of "review," since they are entirely different things. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Wikipedia in order to do so. 66.65.7.197 04:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if you could add material from other sources in the scientific literature that explicitly talk about the Duesberg hypothesis. I agree that journals do not conduct experiments, that phrase was added as a result of an earlier dispute with another user. As far as review goes, you can amke a new page called "Review (disambiguation)" and provide a list linking to the different kinds of reviews. However this seems a bit cumbersome, especially since the article Review is fairly short and dividing it into sub articles would make a bunch of tiny articles. Finally, I would suggest making up a username for yourself so that messages can be left on your talk page. Nrets 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's one for starters: Genetica. 1998;104(2):133-42. Really, since the situation in Africa, most people do not devote any time to this hypothesis any more, so there's going to be a paucity in the recent literature devoted to the "Duesberg hypothesis." If anybody needs the Genetica pdf to "respond" to, I have it. And you're right, disambiguation of such a small page is not worth it.66.65.7.197 07:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind adding a paragraph about it to the article? Nrets 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Good luck finding responses. There aren't many. And funny how it's okay for Science to conduct a "review" of Duesberg, and then accuse him of "not doing experiments" or "not producing research". Typical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.59.188.232 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-27 16:57:19 (UTC)

Two paragraphs need to be removed

The last paragraph of the opening section beginning with the sentence "Dissident viewpoints like Duesberg's are quite diverse." does not add much to an entry on Duesberg. Neither does the last paragraph of the last section beginning with "While the Science editorial mentions Robert Willner, Kary Mullis, and Serge Lang." If they are not there already, these paragraphs properly belong in the AIDS reappraisal entry. Jsterron 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Science section

Dissidents also claim that Science refused to allow any of Duesberg's colleagues the right to reply to many of the articles claims and that the review was written by a reporter, not a scientist and that it was not peer-reviewed for accuracy. Duesberg was allowed a brief reply. Was he or was he not allowed a reply? Kim van der Linde at venus 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He was. Nrets 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the text claims both. Kim van der Linde at venus 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can dig up in the next couple of days the reference to the 'Science' issue where he replied. Nrets 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the text is wrong. He replied in the 20 January 1995 edition of Science PMID 7824919 --Bob 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe ( from reading Duesberg ) is that Science allowed a very incomplete response ( after a long struggle). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

POV

Anyone reading this article without prior knowledge of Duesberg would not realise that his theories on AIDS are viewed as dangerous pseudoscience by the vast majority of scientists. Trezatium 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone without prior knowledge of Duesberg would hear mostly rabid statements by his critics. Read his website to catch up on the science, or lack of it, in the AIDS mess. I doubt Duesberg is involved in too much pseudoscience - as a matter of fact he gets no money for his position. Pseudoscientists usually don't refuse large gobs of cash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).
Trezatium - that is very true, however it would have to be properly sourced if it is to be added here. If it is, I would support its retention. This article should not be used as a political platform; it should be encyclopedic. NYDCSP 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for major revision

How about cutting all of the details about Duesberg's AIDS theories from this article and incorporating them into Duesberg hypothesis? I suggest removing the sections called Praise from Robert Gallo (I wonder if anyone has read some of the more recent comments from Gallo - they're not exactly complimentary) and The Journal Science criticizes the "Duesberg Hypothesis" (because it is only one of numerous critical articles, which can be better covered in Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS reappraisal). Trezatium 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The praise from Gallo was there due to an edit war with another editor, and I second that it can go, since I don't think Gallo would concur with his past statements. The ref to the Science article is there, because it is one of the most comprehensive critiques of his theory appearing in a major journal, so I think it should stay. Nrets 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We had this discussion at AIDS Reappraisal (see the talk page), and concluded that presenting the Science review by itself was misleading. Anyone reading the current article would get the impression that the only response to Duesberg's theories has been an "eight page special news report" from 12 years ago, which is of course nonsense. Duesberg hypothesis already does a much better job of describing the man's theories, so why try to duplicate? The section called His claims is probably sufficient for this article. Trezatium 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made some changes but I think these should be regarded only as a temporary fix. I don't mind the retitled Criticism section remaining, but I think it should be more wide-ranging. Trezatium 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - leave the article alone. In any of the AIDS articles the political emotions ( why I can't understand ) are so high that nothing gets done. It seems few of the hyper types go any further than the main AIDS page - thankfully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

I don't know how much work has been done along these lines since last July. But I can see how such material might need to be trimmed back, especially when other articles are a better fit. But cut ALL the details of his theories?
I'd say that, insofar as his theories define his work, and insofar as his work defines his life, and insofar as this an encyclopedia biography, some kind of outline, sketch, quick-read, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it, where relevant, ought to be included here.
That said, in addition to my other edits, I am eliminating the section The Duesberg AIDS hypothesis, and incorporating the paragaphs and the link to the main article on his AIDS theory, under the His work section. ô¿ô a.k.a. User:Jstanley01 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your edits are an improvement, and there's probably no need to make any big cuts. But we should keep an eye on the relationships between the three articles: Peter Duesberg, Duesberg hypothesis and AIDS reappraisal, and avoid any major duplication or contradiction. Trezatium 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. ô¿ô 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bibliography and Mainstream scientific sections

I'm wondering, what's the purpose of having a Bibliography section, here and elsewhere on Wikipedia? Is this supposed to be a bibliograpy of Duesberg's books, or of books sourced for this article? If the former, I have misplaced the Bialy entry. If the latter, IMHO, the section ought to be dropped and whatever sources are used ought to be referred to exclusively via footnoted references.

The links, before my last edit, in the Mainstream scientific section divided into two groups, 1) those that mentioned Duesberg and 2) those that didn't.

Group 1
  • The Controversy Over HIV and AIDS, Science Magazine.
  • http://www.aidstruth.org -- A website that presents the scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS and that the benefits of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) outweigh the risks. It was created by research scientists and community advocates engaged in the worldwide struggle against HIV/AIDS.
Group 2

Note that Duesberg's name on the link at aidstruth.org is only used to link to the site's review of his book. A better fit here is to link directly to their review, as I have done. As I see it, the link to the aidstruth.org main page, along with both links to general mainstream scientific thought on AIDS under Group 2, would fit better on the main AIDS article, or attached to articles whose main purpose is to discuss the controversy in general terms.

It seems to me, as this is a bio of the man, that the links in this section ought exclusively to deal with responses to his theories from mainstream science (and future entries ought to adhere to the same standard). Otherwise the section becomes merely a promotional venue for generalized mainstream information on AIDS, for which there are ubiquitous other sources. Hence I have, at the date of this entry, made my edits to the section. ô¿ô a.k.a. User:Jstanley01 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Publication controversy

I could never quite understand why there were two "versions" of Inventing the AIDS Virus, and why Bryan Ellison was sometimes listed as a coauthor and sometimes not. So having done a little digging around the Internet, I've added a section on what seems to have happened. Reliable sources are hard to come by - there are a lot of conspiracy theories about Duesberg working for the gov't to suppress Ellison's version - but I think by using SFWeekly and Duesberg's own site the details should be accurate and verifiable. MastCell 22:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thanks. —EncMstr 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the "Denial Hypothesis" and replace it with "Duesberg Hypothesis," or something similar

The term "denial" carries very heavy con- notations. For one, as pointed out by Jeanne Lenzer in Discovermagazine June, 2008, it sounds nearly identical to the Denial Theory put forth by parties who wish to deny that the Holocoust ever happened. It also sounds almost identical to the Psychological term, which the OED defines as, "refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion."

Secondly, it is misleading. It sounds, to a layman who is unfamiliar with Duesberg's work, that they are denying that AIDS exists, or that AIDS should be treated.

Thirdly, the term "denial" carries connotations of negativity, refusal to face reality, and general dishonesty.

Normally I would not quibble over the name given to a theory, but this case looks strongly like it is a name carefullly chosen to sabotage it. "String Theory" "Chaos Theory" are nuetral terms; Denial hypothesis is not.

Threfore, I stronly suggest that the author use one of the alter- native names that have been given to the theory, both in the biography of Duesberg and in the article on the Denial AIDS theory. Duesberg is a scientist with a supportable theory. If the author wishes to stress that it is probably wrong, that is acceptable to me, but this biog- raphy and the article on Denial AIDS Theory strike me as an "ad homimem" attack. It should, IMHO, be rewritten or tagged as "objectivity questioned."

--AlRonnfeldt (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) AlRonnfeldt (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Denialism is very clearly denying the science behind a theory. The reason why the Theory of Evolution is acceptable is because a huge wealth of science supports it. Duesberg's "theory" is unsupported by hundreds of thousands of articles. Furthermore, Duesberg doesn't get to name his "theory" just to make it sound scientific and accepted. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and whole bunch of other stuff that is just piling on. One more thing, there are hundreds of editors to this article, not one single one. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
AIDS denialists such as Peter Duesberg all deny the existence of AIDS as it is now defined: an acquired (i.e. infectious) immunodeficiency syndrome caused by HIV. That other individuals deny other processes or events (such as the Holocaust) is of no relevance here and does not remove the word 'denial' from use in discourse. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
But who decides if a theory is acceptable? Who decides if enough science supports it? You are sidestepping the point. My point is not to argue that Duesberg is correct, but to protest the growing politicizing of science. To use your own example, when Darwin first proposed his theory, there was little outside scientific support. His work was the only material on evolution, that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong. If his opponents had had their way and been able to use all means to suppress him that have been used to suppress Duesberg, including naming his theory the "Man-Ape Theory", or the "Reductionist Theory" (on the grounds that it reduces men to the level of animals), or the "Denial Theory" (on the grounds that it denied the existence of God), his work might have not been accepted by most of the scientific community, and we'd still be teaching Creationism in our schools. In short, scientists and scientific theories should be proved or disproved, supported or disproved with facts and reasoning. We should have none of the "spin doctoring" and propaganda that dominates public opinion in other areas. This article, although it is not as bad as some I've seen on Wikipedia, contains propaganda, whether intentional or not.

AlRonnfeldt129.115.184.33 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the Holocaust has nothing to do with AIDS research, but that is still an non sequitar argument. Whether the name is chosen by it's creator or others, it should be nuetral and free of connotations. For example, if one discovered remains of pre-historic man on the slopes of Mt. Vesuvius, along the lines of "Ootsi," naming it "Vesuvius Man" would be a poor choice because, to a layman, it would lead them to believe that it was related to the eruption of Vesuvius in Roman times. A wrong first impression is hard to overcome, so it's best to be clear and nuetral and make an accurate first impression. This "Denialism theory" takes it a step further; it seems to be deliberately chosen to denigrate the theory. It's rather like a new theory on race relations being labeled "the Racist Theory."

129.115.184.33 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise. I think that the line "...the Duesberg Hyothesis, also called the Denial Hypothesis, states that..." would be suffiently objective.

129.115.184.33 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AIRonnfeldt, if you sign in before editing and sign your comments with four tildes, your username will be displayed automatically.
The politicization of science is quite interesting but not a relevant topic of discussion on this page. Duesberg denies the science of HIV/AIDS. He has no support for his theories. He is called an AIDS denialist by multiple reliable sources. You did not make up this title, nor did I, and we can agree with its use or not....none of that changes the verifiability of the substance of this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an article called Duesberg hypothesis. For consistency, I would favour using that phrase and linking to that article. Trezatium (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, should have noticed that there are already links to said article; please ignore comment. Trezatium (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Something more from the discover article

I think that quote:

"A 2008 Discover Magazine feature on Duesberg addresses Duesberg's role in anti-HIV drug-preventable deaths in South Africa. Jeanne Linzer interviews prominent HIV/AIDS expert Max Essex, who suggests that,

...history will judge Duesberg as either "a nut who is just a tease to the scientific community" or an "enabler to mass murder" for the deaths of many AIDS patients in Africa."

is, let's say.. a bit uncomplete. In the same issue, the autor of that article wrote this:

"Jeanne Lenzer...is an investigative medical journalist based in Kingston, New York. Recently she met with biochemist Peter Duesberg to profile him for DISCOVER. Duesberg received attention in the scientific community in the late 1980s after he advanced a controversial theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Throughout history, rebel thinkers have been essential to the advancement of science by putting conventional wisdom to the test. Lenzer therefore was stunned when, during her research, several respected scientists who were willing to consider Duesberg's theories told her they preferred to remain anonymous rather than risk being ostracized by their peers. "A few highly placed physicians didn't want their names used even though they thought Duesberg could possibly be right in part, if not in whole, about HIV," Lenzer says. "Some were skeptical but felt at a minimum his ideas should be tested rather than rejected out of hand." Lenzer is a frequent contributor to the British Medical Journal. Her work has appeared in The Scientist and Slate. She recently completed a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT."

http://www.duesberg.com/articles/new/2008,%20Lenzer,%20Discover,%20con%20p6,.jpg

I think to be fair, this should be put into the main article too. If we want to quote that magazine, it would be biased only the quote that parts of it, that are unfavourable to Mr. Duesberg.

na ja the above quote is wordly citated from this denialist web site and Duesberg website with dot dot dot etc. And claimed ananomous quotes outside the article versus statement from a famous scientist that gives his name. Just a mis-spelled name to change RetroS1mone talk 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

About the denialist website: I found that article on Duesberg's site (the jpg file) and because I didn't want to write the content of that jpg file word by word by keyboard, I entered a short sentence of it into google and then that site came up. The sentence I typed into google was "Lenzer therefore was stunned", and the only site that appeared is the above mentioned site. So I copied that text from there. It wasn't a political statement or something, it was just the only site that had the text in "text form" (and not as jpg article etc) It doesn't matter from where I copy and pasted the text - it's exactly the text that appeared in discover magazine. So, the quote is not from a "denialist site" but from the magazine. The same issue of the magazine, by the same author is quoted in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.10.90 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the term "denialist" is inherently biased

That's a loaded term. The only other usages I'm aware of are "Holocaust denier" and "global-warming denier". That's bad company, and it makes Duesberg out to be evil. He's not evil. He might be confused, but he's trying to be scientific. Calling him names violates wikipedia's NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not good versus evil at Wikipedia it is following sources and verification and consensus. NPOV is using terms people use verifiably in reliable sources. Some one's opinion about if Duesberg is evil or not is irrelavent. RetroS1mone talk 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(note, if this is not the correct protocol to contribute to the discussion, I apologise, as I'm new to Wiki, maybe some kindly sould would show me how - but prefer Encyclo. Britannica 2009 and Pears cyclo. :) )

I sympathise with both of you here However, denialism is a emotive and nonsensical term (for that matter so is 'Terrorism'!) To deny something implies a pre-existent absolute, and I feel it has to be acknowledged that *some* (or most if it is above 50%) agree with evidence and others (minority if it is below 50%) dispute it, a cyclopaedia leaves it at that!

Moreover, while the bulk of scientists, lay-scientists, researchers, journos et al support the mainstream AIDS research paradigm - if that's the right way of describing it, I venture it is important to remain as objective and neutral as possible:

As a lay scientist, I believe that on *any* issue, even ones we find offensive or morally objectionable, both sides should be given equal weight. Anything else in scientific debate is just not cricket.

Granted, using the modified Pareto 90/10 rule for argument's sake, 90% (perhaps) of all concerned hold the mainstream AIDS view. However, a person coming at the entirety of the AIDS paradigm with zero knowledge on it, say an alien, should be given along the lines of this presentation:

"...Most (As in this particular case it *is* 'most', and insert number if possible) (insert professions, groups or persons here) support the evidence that XYZ causes ABC

However a minority (not 'small' or 'tiny' minority, implies bias and is subjective) of (insert same as above) dispute the evidence that XYZ... causes ABC..."

That person can then take the arguments from both proponents - advancers and sceptics - and arrive at thier own conclusions, if you take my meaning, and not to view an article through the lens of the proponents of one view or the other.

I assert that stating, to use an extreme example, that stating the views of those who engage in paedophillia or dispute the 1940's Jewish genocide/'Holocaust' does NOT mean that in doing so the writer or cyclopaedia is endorsing those two. To put it another way, give people on both sides of an issue equal space and the truth eventually outs, as the data is the data is the data! repeatable observation or physicality of evidence arising from experiments are reality, not opinion

Thankyou for your patience over my well meaning attempts at article editing.


````Radiojonty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiojonty (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that the talk page is for discussion of proposed changes to the article, not for general debate of issues covered in the article. According to WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia does not give "equal space" to mainstream views and minority views. Instead, views are presented according to their weight in reliable sources. Currently, AIDS denialism and its proponents are supported by few if any reliable sources. If you feel that WP:UNDUE should be revised, you may present your proposed changes at the talk page of WP:NPOV. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Following Keepcalm...'s idea - let's stop cherrypicking quotes - even only the "good" part of a quote and leaving out the "truth". This is an excellent idea, whose consequencies might be NPOV ..gee whiz just what wiki wants, right.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While setting in the dentist's office about a month ago I was browsing a National Geographic mag. One article about world diseases had maps of the world showing each disease and coloring in where it was most prevalent. Interestingly the maps for AIDS and TB were almost identical - they could have saved the space and just published one map. This gives Duesberg's claim that in Africa, etc that AIDS may well be just another name for TB. If you ruled a poor country you would rather have AIDS blamed than your poor mangaement of the economy( Duesberg has always claimed that the cure for "AIDS" in Africa was testing the people( not guessing from symptoms and/or feeding and housing them at or above 1900 USA standards ( up till the early 1900s TB was the largest cause of death in the US as it still is in poor countries around the world - or does the AIDS establishment claim that pre1913 that most Americans died of AIDS.). A good test of this would be to have a lab receive blood samples from Africa, etc and do blind tests - I am sure Duesberg would be happy/willing and the AIDS/US government... would be sad/unwilling at the results ( quality control - Obama's claim to use the "scientific" method would be useful in this case ( don't worry he doesn't feel that brave I suspect). 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're using original research to state that AIDS and tuberculosis overlap, so they must be the same disease, when there is not one single iota of evidence that they are related, except maybe because of economic and healthcare situations lead to both. This isn't even close to being reasonable. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference error

Footnote 14 has disappeared - not much for support of the argument. If AIDS is given the same test in Africa and footnote 14 confirms it, then get a good link or paste the relevant test, please.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a publication in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" and is a good reference for the statement, the url is a courtesy link and is only unavailable as their website appears to have crashed. Verbal chat

Sorry I chased down footnote 14. The footnote says Africa uses the WHO(Bangui) definition. The WHO(Bangui) definition is what is used because medical/lab tests are NOT available. This is exactly what Duesberg has always said. The article should be changed to agree with its own footnote and Duesberg and the truth. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC) About 15 years ago, WHO updated their defintion slightly. They said that tests would be nice - knowing that in practice they are far too expensive for Africa. The symptoms WHO lumps together are common among starving poor populations - weigh loss( they must be joking - AIDS hits Africa with every drought it appears), etc. The symptoms they mention are common to lots of stuff besides AIDS and mess up any test anyway ( false positives - ie when you are dying of TB,etc every test shows your immune system is on the fris).159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As the reliable sources demonstrate, most countries in Africa now use the CDC or WHO (not' Bangui) AIDS definition. Duesberg may have had a valid point in the mid-1980s. I believe we're in a different decade now. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


1994 expanded World Health Organization AIDS case definition - this is a Wikipedia article I found on this subject. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Copied from the horses' mouths ( CDC )..... quote:

REDACTED unquote:

Even CDC goes OR to OR to OR and finally lands on symptoms if nothing else works - hell even in America not just Africa it appears. Where can I find the current WHO definition? Thanks - this is informative. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:FORUM, please take this elsewhere. See WP:TALK. Thanks. Verbal chat 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Inventing the Aids Virus: Proposed Article-Stub for the book

Being new to Wikipedia, I'm soliciting comment on a proposed stub for Duesberg's book. It's currently a blacklisted title and so resides on my talk page. Appreciate any constructive comment, as well as a cover-pix. Bruce Swanson 04:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs)

Misconduct investigation

Reference: "Exclusive: AIDS Scientist Investigated for Misconduct After Complaint", ScienceInsider, Greg Miller, April 16, 2010

UC Berkeley launched a misconduct investigation regarding Peter Duesberg's 2009 Medical Hypotheses paper. One of the complainants, Nathan Geffen of Treatment Action Campaign, claims there was an undeclared conflict of interest: "[article co-author] David Rasnick worked with Matthias Rath, a vitamin salesman, and that the basis of their business model was to claim that vitamins, not ARVs, treat AIDS."

Interesting... — Scientizzle 00:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This is a notable development, and I've added an under-construction section where the article in Medical Hypotheses, the retraction by Elsevier and the misconduct investigation should be described in more detail. See also the Zoe Corbyn pieces in Times Higher Education. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Berkeley's school paper has a story out, but it's not too different from the original Greg Miller piece: [1]. In the comments, though, a "contributor" to AIDSTruth.org asserts that Nathan Geffen isn't one of the two anonymous complainants. — Scientizzle 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

CDC Website as Reference

Take a look at this. I think it backs up Duesberg's asserted correlation of male homosexuality, drug use, and AIDS; and should be used as a supporting reference. Any comments? BruceSwanson (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR would prohibit using a primary source like this one to "back up" Duesberg's assertions. Additionally, it would be misleading: the epidemic is evolving differently in different regions of the world (example: in sub-Saharan Africa, heterosexual exposure is the primary mode of HIV transmission and women and girls have disproportionately greater HIV infection rates). See here for more. — Scientizzle 16:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Also, the CDC website does not mention correlation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we're enabling a basic fallacy here. Everyone agrees that male homosexuality is correlated with AIDS in the US. No one (except perhaps Duesberg) has asserted that homosexuality or drug use cause AIDS, or that this correlation somehow invalidates HIV's role in the syndrome. Male homosexuality and intravenous drug use are risk factors for the acquisition of HIV, which ultimately causes AIDS. That's what the CDC graphs show. We should not use those graphs to support Duesberg's argument, because they don't. If anything (and while we're on the original-synthesis kick), the CDC graphs explicitly refute Duesberg's claims: 32% of new cases occurred in heterosexual non-IV-drug-users. As far as I'm aware, Duesberg has no explanation for how such people develop AIDS, which shoots a rather large hole in his hypothesis. MastCell Talk 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that's original research and inappropriate. Further, Duesberg's opinion on AIDS in general are seen as pseudoscientific. We shouldn't be using primary sources to debunk secondary per WP:MEDRS. This may or may not be primary, but it seems to apply here. We shouldn't be arguing for or against something, we should be summarizing the opinions of reliable sources on Duesberg's hypothesis as a whole. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. On that note, a rather comprehensive review of Duesberg's activities was published in this month's AIDS and Behavior. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to get some responses. My comments:

Scientizzle:

You wrote that including the CDC-reference in the article would be misleading because "the epidemic is evolving differently in different regions of the world." The CDC reference is restricted to the U.S. so it couldn't really be misleading. Perhaps you meant unexpected. But the sentence containing the reference could specify that the correlation fits the Western World only. Such distinctions and the reasons behind them are a central tenant of Duesberg's hypothesis as I understand it. Of course the underlying problem with this discussion is that governmental web-sites describe "HIV/AIDS", whereas Duesberg contends that the two are distinct. In a way we're talking at cross purposes.

MastCell:

You wrote 32% of new cases occurred in heterosexual non-IV-drug-users. The CDC reference I suggested describes high-risk heterosexual contact, not non-IV-drug-users, which is a phrase that doesn't appear anywhere on the page. I think you concluded that because there is a pie-slice describing injection drug-use (17%) then the high-risk heterosexuals must then be non-IV-drug-users. But "high risk" is defined as sexual contact with persons known to have HIV infection or have a higher risk of contracting HIV infection. That second clause would presumably include HIV-negative heterosexuals who have partners who are also presently HIV-negative but who are also ongoing drug users and/or practitioners of unprotected anal sex.

I accept the judgment that my suggested citation (the pie-chart page above) would constitute original research, although it isn't a primary source by any stretch of the imagination. It is of course a compilation from many sources, which would seem to make it tertiary if anything. Nevertheless, it does require the reader to study it before coming to an independent conclusion regarding the sentence it is attached to, which is basically a form of original synthesis.

The problem is that this and other HIV-AIDS articles are chock-a-block with primary-source/original-research sources requiring all kinds of study on the part of the reader before a conclusion can be drawn. Just look at footnotes [5] (currently broken but formerly a fact-sheet very like the CDC one I suggested), [6], [15], [16], and [17]. Worse, some of them are abstracts without any supporting data, i.e. primary-source conclusions drawn from original research located elsewhere; or, worse still, mere dead-end portals to academic pay-to-read sites. All such stuff must go. From WP:NOR: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.

On my Talk page I'm going to be starting work on combining three articles into one: Peter Duesberg, Duesberg hypothesis, and Inventing the AIDS Virus, which I think should be done to simplify discussion. I'm going to delete ALL inappropriate primary source/original research references and then invite comment from one and all. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I think you might want to read the CDC report a bit more carefully. Click through to the technical notes and scroll down to "Transmission Category". Note that "Persons with more than 1 reported risk factor for HIV infection are classified in the transmission category listed first in the hierarchy." Thus, the "high-risk heterosexual contact" category is mutually exclusive with the "IV drug user" category. Injection drug use outranks heterosexual contact in the risk hierarchy (this is not clearly spelled out in the CDC document, but it's a matter of general knowledge and can be confirmed, for example, here). I hope that clarifies why I described the heterosexually acquired cases as non-IV-drug-users.

I will probably have a bit more to say about the primary-sources issue in a bit, but I would strongly disagree with a wholesale removal, which is not supported by this site's guidelines or policies. MastCell Talk 00:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Duesberg's hypothesis is unreliable pseudoscience and no editor should be trying to "prove" it. Your objections are reasons to edit the page and correct the errors, not perpetuate violations of wikipedia's policies. "Abstracts" do not "lack supporting data", the reference is to the paper and the abstract is merely for the convenience of the reader. Much like you would not turn in a research paper accompanied by copies of all references, all that is required is that material be verifiable, not easily found. The terminology you are using suggests a definition of a "primary source" that is out of keeping with WP:MEDRS - a primary source for a medical article is an original research paper based on a single set of data. A secondary source summarizes multiple primary sources, i.e. a meta-analysis or review article. For the most part articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources.
And again, irrespective, Duesberg's hypothesis is considered pseudoscience, junk science, and utterly useless by the scientific community. He is an lone voice grinding an axe who is funded by an equally axe-grinding private source. He has been marginalized, quite rightly, for hypothesizing, publicizing, and promoting junk science to the public that is not supported by any acceptable research. Duesberg is wrong and the page should not portray him as right. The scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS; that is the position wikipedia should take per WP:NPOV and any attempt to use other sources to prove him "right" is inappropriate POV-pushing, even if civil. You should carefully discuss any "inappropriate material" before deleting it, because I am very certain you will receive no consensus for such actions based on your comments to date. The fact that Duesberg is wrong should not be soft-sold. His position should not be portrayed as one of slight disagreement or a reasonable dissent from the scientific consensus. It is not one reasonable stance out of several competing stances. It is not a minor disagreement over one small issue. It is not a single controversial aspect of an otherwise uncontroversial hypothesis. It should not be given a long, loving or positive portrayal. It should be described accurately and bluntly as what it is - wrong. Duesberg has presented interesting ideas, controversial theories, pointed, at times provocative questions, but his overall thesis about HIV/AIDS is simply incorrect, and getting less and less correct as more evidence continues to mount about the true causes and treatments of AIDS. This applies to all pages that relate to Duesberg and his ideas.
Duesberg is not a scientific skeptic or critic. He is an AIDS denialist. There are cases where Wikipedia states a position is incorrect rather than attempting to present competing sides. This is one of them. It's in the same bag as Creationism, Flat Earth hypotheses, Moon landing conspiracy theories and satanic ritual abuse. Original research to try to support Duesberg's hypothesis is incorrect and should be removed on both principle and policy grounds. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My own test-article (mentioned above) will follow WP:NOR exclusively. I may even delete the sentence primary-source references are attached to. Readers can then decide.

The technical notes you mention agree with the point I made above: that high risk is in the official description of the heterosexual category, and means contact with an IV-drug user. You left the modifier out, replacing it with the phrase non-IV-drug-users, making it sound like the danger of AIDS is spreading into a new demographic. Fortunately, it isn't. Duesberg believes that it can't.

I found no reference to non IV drug-use, i.e. poppers; and perinatal transmission of HIV. BruceSwanson (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced my comments, and yours, after you deleted them inappropriately. Please do not do so again, particularly without good reason. My comments are valid, represent the policies and guidelines, and should not be removed or ignored. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Bruce, policy states that primary sources must be used with caution, because it's easy to abuse them. WP:MEDRS has more specific guidance, indicating that we should not attempt to mine and juxtapose primary sources to "rebut" the conclusions of reputable secondary sources. Every medical and scientific body on Earth has parsed the available primary sources and concluded that HIV causes AIDS. We cite those secondary-source conclusions. It is permissible, as a matter of illustration, to cite primary sources which illustrate the conclusions of those secondary sources. It is not appropriate to seek out individual primary sources and (ab)use them to editorially "rebut" or undermine the conclusions of reputable expert bodies. Does that distinction make sense?

Put another way: when we discuss the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS (with reference to various expert bodies), it is appropriate by way of illustration to cite key papers that underlie that conclusion. Doing so informs the reader, and it's an intellectually honest use of the primary sources. On the other hand, if you cherry-pick a single graph from the CDC website and (mis)interpret it to mean that Duesberg is correct - when the CDC obviously concludes the exact opposite - then you're misusing primary sources. There is no blanket prohibition on the citation of primary sources - only a prohibition on misusing them. MastCell Talk 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you may think my comments are inappropriate, but they are firmly within wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think the page can, or should, be adjusted to be less critical or more welcoming of Duesberg's hypothesis, you should be disabused of that notion rapidly to save us all time and aggravation. If you wish to advocate for Duesberg's ideas, or portray them as anything less than nonsense, this is not the site for you and I want to bring that to a head as rapidly as possible. Duesberg's ideas are nonsense, he's a once-respected scientist who has gone deep down the rabbithole of pseudoscience, and now it is firmly established that he is wrong. In 1994, one of the most esteemed journals in the world, Science, published a paper in that regard. In the 16 years since that time, his ideas have become even less accepted, not more. I'm not out on a limb here or expressing extreme notions. I'm summarizing the scientific consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with WLU and MastCell. Bruce Swanson should not waste time trying to remove accurate descriptions of Duesberg or appropriate comments by other editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NIAID citation in relation to Duesberg's claims

I recently removed one use of the NIAID source that had been added by Scientizzle, because it didn't address the specific statement it was being used to back up.

Keepcalmandcarryon, you added it back with the comment "The NIAID source is reliable and demonstrates that AIDS denialism is not accepted by science" and while I don't think anybody is questioning whether the source is reliable (I'm certainly not) the second half of your comment is beside the point — it's Duesberg's specific claims that are at issue, not AIDS denialism in general. The relevant statement from the article is this one:

Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims are rejected as disproven and incorrect by the scientific community.

While the NIAID source does show that some general AIDS denialist claims are soundly rejected by the scientific community, nowhere is the connection made to Duesberg or his claims, and Duesberg isn't even mentioned in the NIAID source at all. It's not hard to find other reliable sources that refer specifically to Duesberg (there are two others acting as citations for that same sentence in the article!) and the NIAID source is a good one that does directly relate to other points made in the article (and I left the other use of the citation in place for that very reason) so I see no harm being done by removing the inappropriate citation and indeed it clarifies the facts because the remaining citations are more specific.

I'd like to remove that citation (and leave the second use of it untouched, as before) unless you still disagree. I hope I've explained my reasoning well enough, and if you think there are relevant matters that I'm not addressing please share them here. Thanks! --Lewis (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this one? Nature 345, 659-660 (21 June 1990) It shows that as early as 1990 the mainstream scientific community was rejecting Duesberg's claims, and it does specifically mention him by name. There really are a lot more; we don't need to make the NIAID one stretch to fit where it doesn't actually belong. If it's just a matter of making sure there are "enough" sources to back up that claim, that shouldn't be a problem. --Lewis (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the few articles where I think there is merit to ignoring the prohibitions against syntheses; Duesberg's hypothesis is pseudoscience and it is important to contextualize it as such. HIV causes AIDS, and the authoritative NIAID reference does verify that. I don't mind reference-spamming something like this, but sometimes it is done in the form of <ref>Scientific organizations and consensus statements that conclude HIV causes AIDS include:
  • Reference
  • Reference
  • Reference</ref>
I think that's a reasonable approach. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think both approaches are utimately reasonable...for simplicity, I think I prefer Lewis's suggestion slightly more. NIAID is a good quality source for the consensus opinion, bolsterd by its accessibility and the organization's prominence, and should readily be used to cite any consensus claim. However, given there are ample excellent sources that trash Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims directly, those are better to cite for specific claims such as "Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims are rejected as disproven and incorrect by the scientific community". That Science commentary should find its way into this article if it's not already used. — Scientizzle 12:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. One could actually combine the two suggestions...The current text reads

Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims are rejected as disproven and incorrect by the scientific community.[NIAID][Schechter][Kalichman]

but could be reformulated to something like

The consensus scientific opinion is that HIV is the causal pathogen that leads to AIDS;[NIAID] or maybe nested refs Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been generally rejected as disproven and incorrect by the scientific community.[Schechter][Kalichman] & more?

I think it helps to establish the consensus opinion separate from the Duesberg framing of the issue. — Scientizzle 12:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the second option, I think it is important to emphasize the "HIV causes AIDS" angle, as well as the "Duesberg is effin' wrong" one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I support the use of both the NIAID source and Duesberg-specific sources. Medical misinformation should be countered with accurate information, even if the reliable sources do not mention Duesberg directly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
But with a definite eye kept on WP:OR; it's appropriate to mention this once, perhaps twice (lead and body), but not to engage in any SYNTH-based takedown. I'm sure we all assumed the same, but it's worth saying. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Fringe claims may be rebutted without a source specifically mentioning the article's title. Medical misinformation must be countered with accurate information from reliable sources. I think we've done that here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Keepcalmandcarryon, perhaps they can be so rebutted, but they don't need to be. There are plenty of reliable sources that show that mainstream science specifically rejects Duesberg's claims, and I don't even think Duesberg's supporters (or probably even Duesberg himself) would dispute that assessment — they (and he) simply think that mainstream science is wrong. At least that's my understanding of their (and his) position. I found one such source (the 1990 Nature article I mentioned above) with just a minimum of effort.. if the number of citations backing up the statement in the article is an issue, it should be easy enough to find practically as many replacements as we need. If there's some particular reason that the NIAID article should be used in that particular case, I'm interested in hearing about it. As it stands it doesn't seem like the most appropriate citation to use there. I haven't looked over SYNTH in much detail yet, but at first glance it seems like a better guide to making citations useful and relevant, than as a criteria for strict acceptance or rejection akin to the ones about reliable sources. I have a tendency to like to argue about changing the rules at times (though all my recent efforts in that area have seemed to result in failure.. except with regards to my learning things! :) so maybe I'll save my opinions on SYNTH for the talk page there, after I've had some time to think about its application. --Lewis (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


RE footnote 14 - "Science Insider article" - I am confused. #14 completley shoots down the credibility of the attack on Duseberg, I am surprised that wiki would include it. The attackers of Duesberg had their names blacked out - not a good sign. I guess I wont continue my search for more info on this event if this is the best that his detractors can come up with. Suggestion for the article - mention that the attack is anonymous and the footnote implies of little merit ( no scientic merit at all, little political merit either).159.105.80.141 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If this refers to Miller 2010, the article states that the names on the complaint letters are redacted, which is pretty standard for a COI investigation. The original letters to the university contained the names - they aren't anonymous. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Two possible sources

These may be useful here or perhaps in Inventing the AIDS Virus or Duesberg hypothesis. — Scientizzle 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nature review

I don't think

is suitable for the external links section since the link goes to a paywall. I managed to get a copy of the review and it looks appropriate to cite in the "reception" section of Inventing the AIDS Virus. That section currently doesn't cite any reviews from science journals. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track...there possibly is a free version out there (aidstruth.org hosted it before, though I'm not sure about copyright permissions and whatnot). However, it's perfect for the Inventing the AIDS Virus article. If nobody gets to it before I do, I'll try to incorporate it into that article. In the meantime, it's probably reasonable to remove the link on this page per WP:ELNO #6. — Scientizzle 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
People use the EL section as a holding area for sources, which is inappropriate. Something like that should be used as a reference, not an EL. It's probably appropriate for both articles, better if it discusses Deusberg specifically, but can still be used here to indicate his ideas don't have merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Duesberg/Archive_1&oldid=1137081464"