Talk:Christine Maggiore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Offering help

Hello. My name is David Crowe, formerly going by an obscure IP address (due to my lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works not any desire to be anonymous). I'm interested in getting the Christine Maggiore page accurate and factual to avoid an editing war. Much of the mainstream information posted is not correct, but it's very hard to add the correct information and then all the references if it gets taken down right away. I propose that we start at the top of the article and work down until we can agree on the content of every paragraph, removing everything that is controversial if we can't come to an agreement. I'm still trying to learn how the wikipedia codes for references work. So rather than take down stuff that doesn't have a reference it might be more productive to request one as, in every case, they do exist.

• Paragraph 1: "Christine Maggiore is an HIV-positive activist and...". I agree with the contents of this paragraph.
• Paragraph 2 has a number of problems. First of all, medication cannot be shown to prevent the transmission of HIV unless HIV has first been purified. Since HIV has never been purified, this is impossible. Medication has been shown to reduce the risk of finding fragments of DNA/RNA considered to be from HIV and to reduce the risk of finding antibodies believed to be from HIV. I cannot provide a reference for the statement that HIV has never been purified because I cannot prove a negative, but I request that someone provide a reference for purification of HIV. Obviously without purification it could not be known if HIV had been transmitted or not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRCrowe (talk • contribs)

Thanks for bringing your comments to the talk page. I think the issue is one of reflecting a scientific consensus. There is a general scientific consensus (disputed by a small but vocal minority) that HIV has been purified, that it is the cause of AIDS, that HIV testing is accurate, etc. I will grab a reference on purification, although it will probably not satisfy you as I know one dissident camp disputes the methods by which HIV has been cultured. Deciding whether a scientific consensus is "right" or not is outside the scope of Wikipedia; the goal here is generally to reflect the majority view as the majority view, and to give it correspondingly more weight than views held by a small minority of scientists. That said, there is quite a bit about AIDS dissident arguments at AIDS reappraisal, and that page could be linked from here; however, re-fighting all of the arguments about whether HIV exists, is pathogenic, etc is outside the scope of this article. The relevant Wikipedia guidelines are WP:NPOV and the WP:NPOV/FAQ. These are my 2cents, and I will grab the reference you requested. There are not many editors on this page, but often with controversial issues it can be worth seeking outside input depending on how well we can figure out a compromise. Again, thanks for coming to the talk page. MastCell 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire page. If anybody wants to work on a consensus page I am willing to help, but we cannot tolerate the publication of libellous material. Perhaps we can develop it on the sandbox instead. If not I will start uploading our material, ensuring that I have references for every statement that is made. DavidRCrowe 18:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we all share a desire to avoid libeling anyone. However, can you specify which parts of the page you considered libellous? In general, your edit to the page could be considered a legal threat, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. That said, again, if there is material you consider libellous, please specify your concerns, as I would definitely like any potentially untrue/defamatory material removed immediately. If you have other concerns about the content of the page or how it is presented, they are generally worked out here with gradual changes, rather than blanking the page entirely. If your objective is to replace the page, which was heavily sourced from the mainstream media, with "your material", then there's a very real problem here and I'd suggest reviewing the Neutral Point of View policy. MastCell 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting "Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter, as she does not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Eliza Jane had never been tested for HIV.[2] "

I have deleted "Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter, as she does not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Eliza Jane had never been tested for HIV.[2] " for several reasons:

1. This is not the reason that Christine did not take AZT.
2. There are an infinite number of things that Christine did not do, they cannot all be listed.
3. This obviously could not have been the immediate cause of death

Based on those reasons, the sentence is misplaced. DavidRCrowe 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk -- Please provide a reference that the reason that Christine Maggiore did not take drugs to "prevent the transmission of HIV" was because she does not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Please provide a reference that drugs "prevent the transmission of HIV" (at best they reduce it). Please provide a reference that the transmission of HIV can be detected through references showing that the gold standard of HIV, virus purification has even been achieved. Please also summarize why this sentence belongs in a paragraph describing the circumstances of Eliza Jane's death. Note that this current wording strongly implies that Christine caused her daughter's death. I note that the inclusion of "potentially libellous" material is forbidden by Wiki rules. DavidRCrowe 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons on your user talk page. We are reporting what the source says - whether you believe what it says or not. The LA Times is a reliable source.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Crowe is familiar with the fact that risk of vertical transmission from mother to child can be dramatically reduced if appropriate measures are taken. Let's quote "Mandatory HIV testing: Should screening in pregnancy be compulsory?", by David Crowe & Elyske Levinsky MD, from the Parkhurst Exchange Doctor’s Newsletter: "Highly effective antiretroviral drugs, elective cesarean section and formula feeding have been shown to reduce the mother-to-child spread of HIV from approximately 25% to less than 2%.". [1]. He's familiar with the facts. Questioning them here and asking for citations as though there's the remotest possibility that it's untrue is completely disingenuous. - Nunh-huh 00:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it seems that the quote above was from Dr Levinsky, a bioethicist, and not from Mr. Crowe - although that is an interesting source. The basic issue is that it seems User:DavidRCrowe wants to refight the issue of the existence of HIV, accuracy of HIV testing, etc - which is inappropriate for this page. A scientific consensus exists, reliable sources are aplenty on the transmissibility of HIV perinatally or in breast milk, and this needs to be reflected per the "Undue weight" portions of WP:NPOV. So-called "AIDS dissident" arguments are already probably given an undue amount of weight on their various pages on Wikipedia. This article should neutrally summarize what happened, including Maggiore's viewpoint and responses to criticism (which it does) - but the WP:NPOV policy does not mandate giving both sides "equal time" when one view is that of a small and shrinking minority and the other view has a broad scientific consensus behind it.

As far as references and the "gold standard", HIV has been isolated and cultured as early as 1984 (see PMID 6200936, PMID 6096718, PMID 6206563, PMID 2869262, etc). Since then, HIV has been repeatedly cultured to confirm the accuracy of antibody tests - see PMID 2298875, PMID 2046708, etc etc. I'm aware that some dissident groups quibble over the meaning of "purification", or try to claim that no one's ever actually "seen" or "purified" HIV. That's the view of an extreme minority. The fact remains that numerous respectable peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Science mag, Nature, etc etc) contain articles by virologists describing the isolation of HIV, and there's very broad scientific consensus that HIV has been adequately isolated, purified, and met all the relevant microbiologic gold standards. You don't have to agree, but such a broad, reliable-source-based scientific consensus needs to be acknowledged as such for Wikipedia purposes. MastCell 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pathologist, etc

I made a few changes for the following reasons. First, in the U.S. a "pathologist" is an M.D., whereas Al-Bayati is not an MD. Secondly, it is relevant that the person chosen by Maggiore to review the coroner's findings (and whose report argued that EJ did not die of AIDS/PCP) happens not to believe that HIV causes disease. I did remove the section on the reasons why Maggiore did not use antiretrovirals in pregnancy as it had been the subject of some controversy here. MastCell 01:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing that information is a problem though - as it is a direct quote from the source. Why should it not be included?-Localzuk^(talk) 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it seemed the wording was getting cumbersome... but in retrospect, as it is from the source and sheds light on the situation, perhaps it should go back in. I don't feel strongly about it - if you'd like to re-add it, go for it. MastCell 17:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"AIDS dissident"

Also, per User:DavidRCrowe's edit summary, since when is "AIDS dissident" a "pejorative" term? I don't go out of my way to offend, and I prefer to call people by the terms they choose for themselves, but I've been told by actual AIDS dissidents that this is the term they choose to describe their views. After all, "dissident" is hardly pejorative - it calls to mind the bravery and conscience of Soviet-era dissidents. Many "dissident" websites use this phrase as self-description - the idea that it's pejorative is new to me, but I'm open to using other terminology (within reason) if User:DavidRCrowe will suggest it. MastCell 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pap smear results

There's a general misconception about how Pap smear results work that had made its way into the article. The Pap smear is a screening (not diagnostic) test with a relatively high false-negative rate - hence it needs to be repeated yearly, although cervical cancer takes years to develop, to make sure abnormalities are picked up. A worrisome Pap finding should lead to more accurate/invasive testing (e.g. colposcopy). If you have an abnormal Pap, but keep repeating the test, it may "turn negative" - but that may very well be a false-negative, given the test's relatively low sensitivity.

The confusion may arise from women who have an "abnormal" Pap, are told to come back in 3-6 months, and then have a normal one. These women have a finding of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASCUS), or a "grade 1" abnormality. Maggiore stated that she had a "grade 3 Pap smear with cervical dysplasia", which presumably corresponds to high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (HGSIL). With a finding of HGSIL, the reassurance value of subsequent normal Paps is low, and the general medical recommendation for someone with HGSIL would be immediate colposcopy. For a reference, see the 2001 Consensus Guidelines for management of abnormal Pap results (PMID 11966387). Again, I'm not trying to offer medical advice, and I don't have any familiarity with or access to anyone's medical records, so this isn't intended to be a diagnosis or treatment recommendation. However, I do think it's important not to give a generally wrong impression in the article; medical guidelines state that if someone has a significant abnormality on a Pap (LGSIL or HGSIL), repeating the test is generally not recommended and may provide false reassurance. MastCell 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary sources

<Moved from User Talk:MastCell> I have replaced the references. I'm willing to discuss a major reduction in the scope of the paragraph, but including a reference to a tertiary source does not illustrate the complexity of the reasoning that mothers must go through regarding these decisions, and ignores the significant financial conflicts of interest of many of the members of the panel (e.g. the recent Vioxx scandal, where a highly conflict FDA panel allowed Vioxx back on the market). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidRCrowe (talk • contribs).

OK, about the edit by DavidRCrowe which inserted a litany of primary studies - please review Wikipedia's guidelies on the use of reliable sources and, specifically, examples of reliables sources for scientific questions. Secondary sources are, in fact, preferred over primary sources, and David's edit is a good example of the reasoning behind this policy. Lengthy citations of primary studies are both difficult for a lay reader to assimilate, and there is the risk of cherry-picking, selective citation, and/or original interpretations of the research (all of which David's edit exemplifies). The NIH recommendations are a valid secondary source for summarizing the data on mother-to-child HIV transmission. In fact, they recognize that there are "known and unknown" harms associated with AZT use, and they actually support Maggiore in that they say that although AZT is recommended, the final, informed decision should be made by the mother in a "noncoercive" environment - i.e. there is no generically "right" or "wrong" answer. I quoted the above for the sake of balance. Again, this is not the place to fight a debate about what should be recommended to pregnant mothers. It's an article on Christine Maggiore. It's relevant to note the official medical guidelines (and it doesn't get more official than the NIH) in a neutral way, from a secondary source. It's also relevant to note that Maggiore disagrees with them - but not to get into a selective rehash of a dozen primary studies. MastCell 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Christine Maggiore have HIV+/AIDS?

The article is unclear. It says she had a positive test, then a bunch of indeterminate tests, and finally says that her husband and son have been tested and are negative. Has she disclosed a subsequent confirming positive test? Whig 05:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence describes her as "HIV-positive". MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does describe her that way. But then it goes on to say, "However, following some anomalous HIV test results (negative, positive and indeterminate) and subsequently an interaction with prominent AIDS dissident Peter Duesberg in 1994, she began to question whether HIV did in fact cause AIDS. Maggiore came to believe that her positive test may have been due to flu shots, pregnancy, or a common viral infection.[2]" Whig 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The report of "anomalous" test results is, I believe, based on Maggiore's own writing. As her daughter passed away from perinatally acquired HIV/AIDS, most people outside the "dissident" camp would conclude that the positive test was accurate. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maggiore denies that her daughter had HIV+/AIDS, as well. Does she now claim to have or not have HIV positivity? Whig 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know from the sources here, Maggiore has always felt that HIV is harmless and the HIV test unreliable. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at, or what part of it is specifically relevant to the article, which covers her history and beliefs in some depth. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence states a fact which Maggiore contests. If she is presumed HIV positive on the basis of the pathology of her daughter, then that's what the article should state. Whig 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if that's the issue, then numerous reliable sources describe her as "HIV-positive" and thus Wikipedia should do so as well. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No quantity of reliable sources can cause a fact to be true or false. Whig 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We could write, "According to [reliable sources], Christine Maggiore is HIV+." Whig 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability via reliable sources. This item is verifiable via reliable sources. We don't preface every verifiable item with "According to ..." MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not factually supported other than by the pathology of her daughter. It is not necessary to use the phrasing, but a citation should be placed so that readers know what source they are relying upon. Whig 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's factually supported - it's been reported by numerous reliable sources with fact-checking facilities, and the positive test has been described by Maggiore himself. It's utterly uncontroversial and well-documented, and your focus on this point is baffling. But if you want to stick an extra footnote in there, be my guest. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a ref regarding her primary diagnosis. Her child's death of AIDS is a secondary confirmation of the accuracy of the first diagnosis. -- Fyslee / talk 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative implications...

The statement "Maggiore instead followed a naturopathic program and had a third Pap test performed by another doctor under an assumed name, which she wrote was normal" uses the words "she wrote" to indicate skepticism. Given that much of the article is based on Christine's statements (even many of the articles written about her are based on interviews with her and thus also based on her statements). I believe that these words should be deleted unless someone can provide a source giving evidence that they are not true (i.e. that her pap smear was not normal). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidRCrowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I prefer to include the attribution ("she wrote"). I don't view it as pejorative per se, but I do think that since Maggiore has an unorthodox approach to medical issues, it's best to indicate on medical matters when we are reflecting what she has written, rather than what is objectively corroborated. For example, regarding her test for HPV, Maggiore wrote that she had never had any sexually transmitted disease, when in fact she has HIV. Of course, HIV is transmitted in a number of ways (not just sexually), but nonetheless her statement reflects her minoritarian view of HIV as harmless, and thus should not be presented unattributed as fact. Similarly, claiming that cervical dysplasia "qualified her for an AIDS diagnosis" is incorrect - only invasive cervical cancer would be an AIDS-defining illness, and that diagnosis is not made by Pap smear alone. Maggiore wrote that "cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer" (emphasis mine) are AIDS-defining illnesses, when in fact only invasive cervical cancer is listed as such - an error, although clearly useful as a rhetorical device. Again, these are reasons why her writings on medical matters should probably be clearly attributed as such. That said, I'll wait to hear from other editors before making a change here. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"She wrote" is in no way pejorative, and improves the article's accuracy. It's appropriate to source a statement which reports the result of a test performed by an unknown doctor under a pseudonym. - Nunh-huh 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Similarly, claiming that cervical dysplasia 'qualified her for an AIDS diagnosis' is incorrect - only invasive cervical cancer would be an AIDS-defining illness, and that diagnosis is not made by Pap smear alone." Indeed -- an HIV test is needed, since the presence of HIV legally defines AIDS in the presence of a host of various illnesses, all of which can sicken or kill without HIV. Eye.earth (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

has medical science cured death?

"her death may have been preventable with proper medical care"

this comment is not scientifically accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.101.140 (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable way to put it. Had Maggiore taken HAART and gotten competent medical care including prophylaxis, she would be alive, not dead. When you postpone a death, we say you've prevented it, even though it's ridiculously obvious the person will still eventually die. - Nunh-huh 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. - Trezatium (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he is right. No treatment exists that would have saved her, she had terminal aids. It could perhaps have postponed it a little. It would be better to say "her early death...". IMHO. T.R. 87.59.77.16 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? AIDS is a terminal disease, but it can be delayed significantly with early treatment. In some cases, AIDS can be managed chronically with a long-term positive prognosis. Maggiore's denialist attitude took many years off her life, and that's sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "terminal AIDS". Even if someone is in the very advanced stages of disease (e.g. extremely low CD4 count or severe opportunistic infections), antiretroviral treatment may still bring them back to health (though earlier treatment is more likely to work). Antimicrobials can both prevent and treat PCP and other HIV-related infections. Trezatium (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Her death "may" have been prevented with "proper medical care" and may not have. Over half of AIDS deaths are due to to liver, kidney, and other organ failure. This is most commonly due to toxicity. In other words, the chemo-like pharmaceuticals prescribed by orthodox HIV/AIDS doctors may be responsible for AIDS deaths. The sentence in question is biased towards the viewpoint that AIDS dissidents are incorrect. Haytham2 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "stating facts" with "bias". - Nunh-huh 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a good point. Our article on Earth is biased toward the idea that it is round(ish). Our articles on space exploration are biased toward the idea that humans have landed on the moon. And our articles on AIDS are biased toward the idea that it's caused by HIV. This is by design, although it's always nice to hear confirmation that we're doing a good job. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

Now that Maggiore's death certificate is available (at [2]), we know that the stated causes of her death are "disseminated herpes viral infection" and "bilateral bronchial pneumonia", and that oral candidiasis is listed as contributing to death. Now, most physicians in filling out such a death certificate in a person that they know to have tested HIV positive would have listed AIDS as the underlying cause of death; however Maggiore's very compliant personal physician did not. On blogs elsewhere, it is opined that all three of the named conditions are "AIDS-defining" and this is very clearly not true. They are certainly all AIDS-related, but:

1. Oral candidiasis is not and has never been AIDS-defining: for candidiasis to be AIDS-defining it must involve the bronchi, trachea, lungs, or esophagus.
2. bilateral bronchial pneumonia is not and has never been AIDS-defining: for pneumonia to be AIDS-defining, it needs to be recurrent, and Maggiore's physician has not told us that it was.
3. disseminated herpes viral infection is probably AIDS-defining: it is certainly AIDS-defining if -- as seems likely -- it involved the lungs. - Nunh-huh 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Nunh-huh's assessment. I add that the LA coroner's office stated in the LA Times that Maggiore had been treated for pneumonia during the previous six months. The language is sufficiently vague that we can't be sure if this indicates recurrence or not. Also, since no autopsy was performed, we don't know if the pneumonia was PCP-related, which would also make it AIDS-defining. The extent to which the "oral candidiasis" was just oral will also never be known.

In any case, I agree that "AIDS-defining" for these three conditions is incorrect without additional information...which we now know will not be forthcoming. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Source

This site is quite well-written and illuminative. I'm not sure it can be a source for our article. Is it sufficiently peer-reviewed to serve as a source? In any case, there may be usable sources among the pages it links to. - Nunh-huh 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting site. I think it's arguably usable as a source - the editors of the site could reasonably be described as experts in their fields, though the site is not "peer-reviewed" in the usual sense of the term. On the other hand, for the more stringent sourcing standards of a biographical article, I think the site itself is probably too bloggy/self-published to be used. (Yes, I realize that WP:BLP mentions "living" people while Christine Maggiore is recently deceased, but I think it's reasonable to apply those sourcing standards in this case). My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

that's sort of my feeling as well...possibly usable, but a more stringent source would be desirable, though I think the editors there have done a remarkably good job on this story. - Nunh-huh 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with much of the article and could argue the info is from a reliable secondary source, I think we should be very careful as to how the source is used. From what I can gather, the author has no dealings with Maggiore and it could also be argued that it's just his opinion, albeit a professional opinion. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It reads like a blog. It could be used for an outside reading section. But some of the links could be used as reliable sources. Regardless, I've run across this site before, and it's a good catch Nunh. I'm bookmarking it for regular reading. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I wish I hadn't read that article. It reminded me of why I dislike CAM so much. As sad as Maggiore's story is, the death of her children is worse. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Death of her children? I think you mean child. Eliza Jane, unvaccinated, died of pneumonia as countless unvaccinated children have done throughout history. Her older brother Charlie, also unvaccinated, is alive and at last report well, as countless unvaccinated children have been throughout history. EJ's fatal illness, Pneumocystis pneumonia has been found in the lungs of infants and children for over fifty years, according to Wikipedia's own article on the disease. Fragmented and unregulated CAM has its bad side which Maggiore was unforgivably blind to, and which obviously triggered her own fatal pneumonia. But being fragmented and unregulated, CAM will never hold a candle to a government-sanctioned program, for good or evil. As for the article under discussion, the first thing that struck me was how Maggiore looked in the picture --- just fine. I wonder if she would have looked that way if she'd been taking AZT for all these years. What do you think? Eye.earth (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Um she would be alive pls get off your antivax soapbox and stop using Wikipedia like it is a blog. RetroS1mone talk 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One is reminded of the old joke about a man who goes south in the hope that the climate will improve his health - to no avail, for he dies four weeks later. At the funeral, a mourner gazes at his lifeless body in the coffin and says, "He looks so natural" and is met with the reply, "Oh, yes, that month in Florida did him a world of good..." I'm glad you're happy Maggiore died looking good; but the issue is that she died because she rejected the treatment that would have saved her. - Nunh-huh 00:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the "four weeks"? Maggiore got an HIV+ result on a blood test in 1992 and lived a healthy, productive, and controversial life for 16 years without antiretrovirals -- only to die of pneumonia following a 'cleansing' -- rather like the death of her daughter following her own encounter with CAM. Click on this 1992 link and see what was happening then. Contemplate the interval of time.

I suppose it would be a bit off-topic in the article, but being unimmunized left EJ open to a host of childhood diseases which her system would have had to fight off if not for the fact that virtually all of her childhood peers were vaccinated. (Maggiore herself was very probably vaccinated while growing up.) But I don't think flu/pneumonia vaccines are a part of the standard childhood-vaccine package, and pneumonia kills many infants and elderly, flu-vaccinated or not, HIV or not. We shouldn't forget that before childhood vaccines and truly scientific treatments (which EJ didn't get) children died like flies. Chemotherapy-drugs like AZT would have weakened EJ too, and her mother, neither of whom had cancer. A mourner looking (inevitably) into both their coffins would not have remarked on how "natural" they looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no vaccination against PCP, the vaccination status of Eliza Jane Scovill is pretty much irrelevant to a discussion of how her death could have been avoided. And, of course, calling AZT "chemotherapy" may seem rhetorically useful, but actually serves to reminds us how firmly rooted in the 1980s you are. -Nunh-huh 18:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"...how firmly rooted in the 1980s" I am. AZT is firmly rooted in the 1960s -- 1964, to be exact. Referring to AZT as chemotherapy is not only rhetorically useful, it's scientifically accurate as well. Eye.earth (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How silly. AZT is not now used as cancer therapy, never was used as a cancer therapy, and was never FDA approved as a cancer chemotherapeutic agent. It's "chemotherapy" in the same sense that any drug is: it's a chemical, and it's therapeutic. - Nunh-huh 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, this argument plays to an unsophisticated audience. The word "chemotherapy" is obviously used for its shock value; I'm not aware that reliable sources refer to AZT as such. Besides, "chemotherapy" encompasses a wide range of substances. Arsenic is cancer chemotherapy; so is Vitamin A. For the same cancer, no less! Employing the word as a scare tactic to imply toxicity is an editorial ploy best ignored; if there are reliable sources to be discussed, let's talk about those. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Any regimen that fits the clinical definition of a chemotherapeutic process (as in arsenic or Vitamin A) is chemotherapy regardless of its failure rate. It could hardly be otherwise. AZT is chemo. That its toxicity caused it to fail as therapy against cancer at the experimental stage is irrelevant.

Just as it would be dishonest for a doctor to say to a patient, "It's not arsenic, it's chemotherapy", or "It's not chemotherapy, it's Vitamin A", so it would be dishonest to say "It's not chemotherapy, it's AZT." The mechanism is the same as it was in 1964, and that mechanism fits the definition of chemotherapy today (see Chemotherapy) as it did then. Your problem is to finesse the prescribing [read: selling] of a lifetime's consumption of a non-selective thymine-analog DNA-chain terminator to destroy a dormant virus in healthy asymptomatic people whose antibodies demonstrate the virus' suppression.

"To imply toxicity" to AZT -- I award thee the coveted Pharmasock Barnstar with Pyrite Palm. Eye.earth (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for affirming the obvious - that you're injecting the term "chemotherapy" into the discussion for rhetorical effect rather than because it's informative. - Nunh-huh 05:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general note, I'm no longer going to contribute to these abuses of the talk page. I'll be removing posts that simply use this page as a forum to present personal opinions, debate, or canned AIDS-denialist talking points. It's probably time to take this talk page back from a certain oft-blocked agenda account and return it to its intended purpose: discussion about specific content issues, with reference to reliable sources. For the rest, shunning will probably do the trick. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to archive the page and start afresh, and then strictly apply WP:TALK per your suggestion. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Image request

It would be nice to have an image in this article. I think a photo of her grave would be a good choice, if anyone's in Van Nuys. 75.61.96.12 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What a macabre suggestion for a field trip. MastCell ^Talk 07:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Edit wars"

Please note that the generally accepted process is "bold change, revert, discuss", not "bold change, revert, revert, discuss". - Nunh-huh 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The moral imperative in editing

As Wikipedia editors we have an obligation to edit according to policies, inclusion criteria, balance, etc.. That's all fine and good, but it is not enough. We have other obligations not imposed by Wikipedia policies, but by moral obligations and common decency.

We need to be careful when dealing with this and other similar subjects to protect the public and patients. Reckless editing that only looks at what is required or allowed by Wikipedia can mean articles include statements or include omissions that put readers at risk.

We can see from the history of Christine Maggiore how her actions and the actions of other AIDS dissidents have caused actual deaths and no doubt will continue to cause many more by the propagation of their dangerous nonsense. If we edit in such a manner that readers are prevented from understanding the seriousness of this error, they too will be put in danger by OUR editing, and WE will become culpable for their dangerous decisions. AIDS denialism is causing people to refuse treatment and to act recklessly, thus endangering themselves and others.

If there is any doubt, we must err on the side of reason and safety, and this can be done while editing according to policies here. Just because something is allowed by Wikipedia policies does not mean it is necessary or wise to do it. We must make choices, and we should choose carefully when deciding what to include or not to include. I think that the excuse "I was just following Wikipedia policies" will ring pretty hollow when we are confronted with the knowledge that our editing has caused deaths. Careful editing can help prevent them.

Fellow editors, please keep this in mind when editing. Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee that there is a moral imperative, but the HIV question is in dispute, no matter how few or many people are on either side of the debate. Our moral imperative is to be accurate and unbiased, not to propagandize against those you disagree with. I am personally an AIDS dissident, and I consider it murderous to counsel people with a harmless passenger virus to death with toxic pharmaceuticals. In other words, you have already decided the scientific issue, so you are counseling others to "err" on your side. The fact remains that IF you are wrong, then you, not "denialists," are condemning people to death needlessly by steering them towards deadly orthodox HIV/AIDS treatment. In what you just wrote, you are essentially cheerleading bias, and I do not think that is appropriate. AIDS "denialism" (an insulting and inappropriate word I am disappointed that Wiki has mystifyingly adopted as NPOV, since dissidents do not deny the existence of AIDS, they only dispute its cause) does not counsel people to "refuse treatments" but rather to avoid certain treatments while sticking with treatments that have a more proven track record. And if by "act recklessly" you mean to educate yourself and ask questions, then yes, dissidents have promoted that.

In other words, don't inflate your importance as a Wiki editor. You are providing information, which may or may not lead to people making decisions which affect their health, but our main, even moral, obligation is to follow the rules of Wiki to best present information without bias. I am dismayed by your open mandate to throw Wiki policies out the window. It is our moral obligation, out of common decency, to make sure information is presented which is accurate and unbiased. Period. The above paraghraphs are another indication of bias which should make any Wiki community uncomfortable. Do you understand this objection to what you wrote above? Sticking with Wiki guidelines is THE highest imperative. Haytham2 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole article is strikingly biased, as are so many other sensitive ones. Wikipedia has policies that are not applied. Neutral Point Of View ? Hello ? Where is it ? I don't expect wikipedia nor wikipedians to improve, I'm just ranting. It is a hopeless case.78.114.181.162 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a biographical article

It is not appropriate to use this as part of a political wrestling match, except insofar as that controversy is properly contextualized. The vast majority of scientists accept that HIV causes AIDS, but this is independent of whether or not Christine Maggiore is HIV positive. Whig 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether or not she is HIV positive is being discussed in another section, not here. -- Fyslee / talk 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All that was needed here was a reference, and now two have been added, which is much better. Thank you. Whig 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"The vast majority of scientists accept that HIV causes AIDS" You say this is a separate issue from Christine's diagnosis, but then it's given as a reason to believe that she was HIV positive. And let's remember, the majority of scientists used to believe that the world is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and pain is the best medicine. Not exactly a convincing argument. 92.25.182.11 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. And let's remember that long after scientists showed that the Earth was round and revolved around the sun, small groups of vocal but ignorant individuals continued to deny those evident facts. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Memorial

What's the reason for removing the link to Christine Maggiore's memorial website from her wikipedia entry? I can't understand that decision. The only reason I can think of is bias. Just giving a link to a list of rules is not helping unless you specifically point out which rule you think it conflicts. Otherwise you can claim anything. I don't see any of the rules preventing a link to her website from being added to her wikipedia entry. So..? MastCell, Keepcalmandcarryon? Sadunkal (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The reasons are laid out in the links provided previously. As for "you can claim anything", anyone could also create a "memorial website" to raise money or promote a cause, then place the link on Wikipedia. That's not encyclopaedic, it's not notable and it's certainly not "her" website, since she is deceased. It would be a different matter if the New York Times did a piece on Maggiore and gave substantial coverage to this website, thus establishing its notability and authenticity. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are empty. It is clearly not about promoting a cause or raising money. That memorial gives a great opportunity to people for getting to know this woman through testimonies and photos of her. That's much more encyclopaedic than this pathetically biased wikipedia entry can ever hope to be. I sincerely hope that you'll one day be able to stop worshipping artifical authorities like the New York Times. Sadunkal (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am dissapointed in this wiki article, it is political and dogmatic and poorly referenced, nto to mention extremely biased and partial in it's rpesentation of the (selective) facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.202.61 (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL absolutely allows links to her memorial website (which looks to be run by Alive & Well, which she founded) and Alive & Well itself. There is no policy anywhere that forbids external links to these two websites. Metaspheres (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives probably falls afoul of WP:ELNO #2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I'm willing to accept it under the caveat to #2: "...to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting", as long as we make clear that it is an AIDS-denialist site to be honest with the reader and avoid misleading him/her. I am opposed to listing the memorial site as it is outside the typical purview of an encyclopedic biography; Wikipedia is not a memorial. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the watchers that are militantly preventing any information that Christine Maggiore actually put forth from getting into her bio why not answer directly and simply the questions about HIV causation of AIDS. There is not uniformity in AIDS testing across nations or even regions. Christine herself took repeated tests and continued to get different results. Directions in HIV testing kits include statements that infer that the tests themselves are not conclusive. Considering these simple facts how can billion dollar industries set up programs and pour money and resources into them without standardized testing? In addition it is taken for granted that Robert Gallo's images of HIV are true. Yet many intelligent, grounded scientists have questioned this. When modern images of HIV are displayed the scientists can still not categorically confirm that what is being seen is a HIV. This draws into question the commonly accepted "fact" that HIV has been isolated. Taking into account the numbers of AIDS diagnoses in relation to the changing definition of AIDS over time points to questionable science. The renaming of a variety diseases as AIDS points to the emergence of AIDS in Africa where people previously died in vast numbers due to issues of sanitation and malnutrition. Now they die of AIDS. What an amazing coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pak*1008 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

By policy, content in the Wikipedia must be supported by verifiable third-party reliable sources, and maintain a neutral point of view. Provide information that conforms to these standards and your additions can stay. Being a new editor, you may also wish to reference the Wikipedia policies regarding fringe theories and scientific consensus. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ending - "all of which can be linked to AIDS." Is there anything that can't be AIDS linked -ie broken toe..... 24.128.186.53 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Maggiore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002035909/http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/081306_ias_sat_journalism.pdf to http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/081306_ias_sat_journalism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Maggiore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928112905/http://www.aidstruth.org/ejs-coroner-report.pdf to http://www.aidstruth.org/ejs-coroner-report.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/a_daughter_s_death_br_a_mother_s_survival/3887/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)