Jump to content

Talk:Duesberg hypothesis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Older discussions

It would be interesting to know when the Duesberg hypothesis was postulated to understand that in the right context. -- mkrohn 21:19 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

The "Duesberg hypothesis" was not formulated by Duesberg at all. It was in fact the first hypothesis given by the government researchers themselves, before 1984. The idea that drugs and environmental factors were the priamry cause of AIDS was the predominant scientific opinion at one time in the early 1980s. Only after the "announcement" of HIV as the cause did this change. But ideas that poppers were a primary cause of many early AIDS cases came straight out of the NIH itself in the beginning. Revolver
To answer your question though, the first real signficant published article to challenge HIV appeared in 1987 by Duesberg, "retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens, expectations and reality" Revolver

I take real offense to the placement of a link to "AIDS misconceptions and conspiracies" in this article, esp. the "conspiracy" part. I think it violates the NPOV stance by making those who question the HIV hypothesis out to be "conspiracy theorists". I think the link should be removed. Revolver

Strictly speaking, the idea that HIV might not cause AIDS is not a "hypothesis". The "drug-AIDS hypothesis", that hypothesises drugs as a possible cause of AIDS illnesses, is an example of a true hypothesis. Saying that HIV does not cause AIDS is not hypothesising a new fact, it is challenging a previously existing hypothesis (namely, that HIV causes AIDS). The only reason "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" is considered a "hypothesis" is because the claim that HIV causes AIDS has become so widely accepted that people psychologically consider it an obvious fact of reality, rather than a scientific claim. Even if all the evidence does support the HIV hypothesis, this doesn't make the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS itself a "hypothesis", it's just a claim against the original hypothesis. The idea that questioning HIV is itself a "hypothesis" is wrong. I can question the existence of gravitational force or electromagnetic force, but this by itself isn't putting forward forward a positive claim, it's arguing against a hypothesis, whether or not the hypothesis has enough evidence to support it or not. Revolver

I agree, but I've usually heard it called the "Duesberg hypothesis." Unfortunately, I haven't followed recent discussion of this idea. Read quite a bit about it a few years back (including Inventing the AIDS Virus, Rethinking AIDS and a couple other books); I've been wanting to tackle this issue since I became a Wikipedia contributor, but am worried that I may be uninformed (and quite biased, since I strongly tend to believe the "Duesberg hypothesis"). Though, considering this article (and the AIDS article), it seems to me such a bias might be needed in order to counterbalance the existing treatment of this as a "conspiracy theory" of sorts. The article on Duesberg's hypothesis could certainly be much more detailed. Any ideas on how to proceed? I'd have to get back into research before I'd feel comfortable contributing to this article... -- Wapcaplet 01:32 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Wapcaplet, I've had many of the same thoughts. I've been a dissident since 1996, and have thought of adding to this article or starting a new article, but I haven't, mainly for the reason that I fear my own POV is too far from neutral. The only reason I keep thinking of doing such a thing is that most people's idea of a "NPOV" stance is, in MY eyes, far from neutral. It would be a good exercise for me to try to give an real account of the controversy in a NPOV, but I've had other things to do, and I wouldn't look forward to the inevitable conflicts that would arise from people's reactions. If you want to talk about it, give me an email (dbrown@math.ucsb.edu) cheers Revolver

The "Duesberg hypothesis", as I understand it, most frequently refers to the hypothesis by Peter Duesberg that AIDS is caused by hard injected drug use, and not HIV. Though there are many who are skeptical that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the Duesberg hypothesis is simply one of the alternative explanations, by the man who is probably the most vocal opponent of the HIV-AIDS idea; others have suggested alternative hypotheses, or who do not have a hypothesis for the cause of AIDS (but who still question HIV as a causative factor). At any rate, this article should be about Duesberg's hypothesis. A separate article should be used for exploring the more general notion of "those who are skeptical that HIV causes AIDS." I've encountered no simple, terse terms to describe such ideas, so here are a few suggestions for article titles:

Any other suggestions would also be welcome. I believe this subject can be treated neutrally, provided we stick with the known facts and findings. I am not sure how useful I will be in contributing to this article right now, since it has been at least 4 years since I've followed any of the news on AIDS, but the primary arguments against HIV-AIDS I've usually seen are:

  • The lack of any study or other publication proving HIV to be the cause of AIDS (if this is still true; I know that as of 1999, one had not turned up)
  • The failure to isolate "pure" HIV
  • Individuals with HIV but no AIDS, or AIDS without HIV
  • Difficulties with false-positives in HIV testing
  • The CDC statistics disproportionately indicating hard drug use, especially among males, as the primary risk factors, even until recent years
  • Positive correlation between AZT treatment and the onset of AIDS-related illnesses

Again, not having followed the discussion recently, I am not aware whether these claims have been discredited or otherwise explained. I'd be obliged if anyone could direct me towards any recent news on these matters; much of the material I've seen is quite old and outdated. -- Wapcaplet 18:07 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since another article has been started focused on the dissident movement and questioning of HIV in general, I move that the current page be rewritten as a short article on the drug-AIDS hypothesis, which is really what most people involved in HIV (orthodox AND dissident) mean when they say "Duesberg hypothesis". I am NOT refering to the lay press. Revolver

Agreed. Duesberg hypothesis should be a redirect to that, then. I've also heard it called the risk-AIDS hypothesis, though that may be a conceptually different animal. -- Wapcaplet 22:46 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
=================

Very interesting. The same person who bans and harrasses anyone who tries to post anything that is neutral or not negative toward the widely disputed and actually discredited theories on nitrites and AIDS/KS, turns out to be over on this page, too. Let's watch to see if he'll ban, edit out, revert, or whatever the counter balance I've posted to the theories about nitrites and AIDS/KS, as contained in these sites: [1]

209.248.254.66 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently heard that inorder to have rats for cancer research the first thing that labs do is destroy the rats immune system with drugs. Then they - the rats - can be injected with the cancer cell of their choice. Without injected cells i suspect the rat would eventually get something - cancer, TB, etc. This sounds an awfully lot like Duesberg's theory - could have heard this from any lab worker, hardly need all this high priced talent. I have also heard that gays with AIDS die in their early 40s ( probably an average ) and gays without AIDS die about a year later ( probably an average too )- AIDS really doesn't have that big an impact on their longevity - 43 vs 42. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).
Are you suggesting that these rats were given cocaine or AZT? What's your reference for that life expectancy data? Trezatium 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


I hope someone can find it, the article I read also said that gay men rarely reach the age of 60 ( 1 in 100 I believe ). The rats are given a chemical that destroys their immune system - coke would work but why waste it. Poppers would also work, AZT I believe was originally a cancer drug that did kill the immune system ( too dangerous for cancer patients). Lots of things can kill the immune system and even more things if you take alot. I've seen men die at 40 from whiskey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).

Disputed

IMHO the neutrality and the factual accuracy of this article is still disputed, and without changes to the article, it will become worse, as year by year any remaining doubts whether the Duesberg hypothesis is nonsene vanish. You just don't see much disussion here, perhaps because other contributors don't know about the article or have resigned changing ot. For related discussions see this talk page and the main article AIDS and its talk page.

Anyway, I don't re-insert the tag for now, as the cost/benefit ratio of this action doesn't seem to be that good. Perhaps an RfC listing would attract some more editors.

Pjacobi 15:36, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem, Pjacobi. The article states what Duesberg thinks, and says very clearly that most scientists disagree.... What's the dispute? Whig 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Outline

These issues are important 66.81.16.73, but Wikipedia has articles, not outlines. Try to integrate these issues in a coherent style in the article (not the introduction), or they might be largely removed. Tfine80 17:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

You dont write "X says, but he is wrong", you write "X says, but Y disagrees". The article as it is is P O V. --Striver 22:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

So if someone says that the earth is flat and someone says he is wrong, that is POV? Duesberg is wrong on many many fronts, and has been proved wrong over and over again, yet he won't accept defeat. --Bob 22:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is pov. You can say "the majority of worlds scientis dissagree with the earth being flat". But not just say he is wrong. That is taking the majorities side, the very definition of pov!
And what the heck is this?!
Duesberg's most radical challenge to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is his offer to infect himself with HIV. However, he claims that it is not possible for him to do so without the approval of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the university where he works. Moreover, there are already some one million HIV-positive people in the United States, as well as some 34 million people elsewhere in the world who test HIV-positive, so the addition of one nearly 70-year-old academic is not likely to make much difference in this debate. --Striver 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please, courtesy and politeness on Wikipedia.
Where does it state he is wrong. I do believe it states the following: The current consensus in the scientific community is that the Duesberg hypothesis has been refuted by the huge mass of available evidence, showing that Koch's postulates have been fulfilled by HIV, that virus numbers in the blood correlate with disease progression and that a plausible mechanism for HIV's action has been proposed.--Bob 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry.
This quote is pov:
Duesberg believes that there is a statistical correlation between decreases in recreational drug use and decreases in AIDS cases. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Indeed, the numbers of recreational drug users is declining, but the number of HIV infections is still rising.
It takes the majority view as true. It needs to be refreased as "x shows/says that..." --Striver 00:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

So Obviously POV

Duesberg believes that there is a statistical correlation between decreases in recreational drug use and decreases in AIDS cases. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Indeed, the numbers of recreational drug users is declining, but the number of HIV infections is still rising.

You need some evidence for this. I doubt if recreational drug use is declining but if it is let's see the evidence.

the number of AIDS cases rose exponentially

Again let's see some evidence. A graph of number of cases vs time would be a start. And don't forget ability to diagnose plays an important part here. Aids may have gone unnoticed in the past.

Duesberg states that HIV is not the cause for AIDS, so the rising number of HIV infections is not a contradiction to his thesis, while a rising number of AIDS cases would (given that drug use is really declining -- use of Poppers is certainly not).

User Grcampbell accused me of vandalism and "weasel wording". Calm down, be less aggressive and give reasons for your accusations! Here are the reasons for my edits:

  • The HHV-8 theory of yet another virus (or rather a combination of this virus with HIV) causing Kaposi's sarcoma remains unproven and is highly speculative. So the word "supposedly" in the sentence stating this as an established fact is justified.
    • Lets see. Have you heard of pubmed? Do a search and read a little. Perhaps starting with PMID 12891058 ; PMID 12705742 --Bob 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here you find some references showing that Nitrite inhalants have been observed to be both mutagenic and carcinogenic in animals and humans:
    • Hersh E.M., Reuben J.M., Bogerd H., Rosenblum M., Bielski M., Mansell P.W.A., Rios A., Newell G.R., Sonnenfeld G. (1983), Effect of the recreational agent isobutyl nitrite on human peripheral blood leukocyte and on in vitro interferon production. Cancer Res 43, 1365
    • Jorgensen K.A., Lawesson S.O. (1982), Amyl nitrite and Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men. N. Engl. J. Med. 307, 893
    • Mirvish S.S., Ramm M.D., Bobcock D.M. (1988), Indications from animal and chemical experiments of a carcinogenic role for isobutyl nitrite. In: Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants (Haverkos H.W. Dougherty J.A., eds.) NIDA Res Monogr 83, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington DC, P 39
    • Newell G.R., Mansell P.W., Spitz M.R., Reuben J.M., Hersh E.M. Volatile Nitrites Use and Adverse Effects Related to the Current Epidemic of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Am. J. Med. 78:811,1985.
    • Harry Haverkos et al., "Disease manifestation among homosexual men with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: A possible role of nitrites in Kaposi's sarcoma, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, October-December 1985. Harry Haverkos and John Dougherty, editors; Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants, NIDA Research Monograph 83, 1988
    • I. Quinto, "The Mutagenicity of Alkylnitrites in the Salmonella Test" (translation from the Italian), Bolletino Societa Italiana Biologia Sperimentale, 56:816-820, 1980.
    • Sidney Mirvish et al., "Mutagenicity of Iso-Butyl Nitrite Vapor in Ames Test and Some Relevant Chemical Properties, Including the Reaction of Iso-Butyl Nitrite with Phosphate", Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 1993;21:247-252.
The results about the carcinogenic, immunosuppressive, methemoglobinemia causing and other properties of Nitrite inhalants have never been invalidated. So the drug is dangerous in any case, independent of the HIV-AIDS discussion. If Duesberg's opponents acknowledged that explicitly instead of declaring the drug completely harmless, I'd consider them much more trustworthy. --DenisDiderot 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
So, you prefer to trust someone who sees fluorescent raccoons than actual data? --Bob 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks on Duesberg! The Duesberg hypothesis page is supposed to be neutral. If we agree on the point mentioned above, particularly in view of the additional Nitrite effects you mentioned below (thank you for that), then I suggest putting this in a new section "Common views of Duesberg and his opponents" of the article. --DenisDiderot 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I just added the new section I think we agree on. Please check it and let's continue the discussion tomorrow. Thank you for the discussion today! --DenisDiderot 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Soderberg LSF. Increased tumor growth in mice exposed to inhaled isobutyl nitrite. Toxicology Letters, 1999; volume 104, pages 35-41.
"A new study found that mice injected with cancer cells were more than three times as likely to develop tumors if they inhaled isobutyl nitrite -- "poppers" -- and that when tumors did develop, they grew four times as rapidly in the inhalant-treated animals. 75% of the mice receiving nitrite developed the tumors in this test, vs. 21% of the control mice (which received the same cancer cells but breathed only air instead). The amount of inhalant used -- 900 parts per million for 45 minutes a day -- was selected to approximate social use of the drug. Other laboratory tests found that isobutyl nitrite did not increase growth of the tumor cells; instead it suppressed certain immune functions, including cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) activity, and the killing of tumor cells by macrophages -- which was reduced 86% by 5 days exposure to the inhalation. Previously published work by the same team found that immunity in the mice recovered within 14 days of stopping the inhalant. (The current paper suggested that permanent damage might still be done if immune suppression allowed cancer, KS, or HIV itself, to become established.)" [2] --DenisDiderot 13:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Kaposi's sarcoma are a form of cancer, there is evidence for a connection to Nitrite inhalants by the references mentioned above. It is also noticeable that Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual AIDS patients occur mainly on the parts of the body most exposed to the Nitrite vapours: the lungs, the nose, the face, the neck, the hands. However, regular Kaposi's sarcoma, known since 1872, rather occur on the legs.
So what about all the homosexual AIDS patients that don't do nitites or other drugs that also have KS? Cherry picking of data is fun, but not very helpful.
How many cases are there? Please give statistics. According to polls by gay magazines, about 80% of the homosexuals in the cities take Poppers. --DenisDiderot 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
How many non-taking homosexuals read or participate in the gay magazine subculture? Again, you cherry pick data and you use non-scientific paraphenalia to back up your case. --Bob 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The magazines did the poll in bars, saunas etc. This neglects the monogamous homosexuals and those who live in the country, but the groups covered in the poll are more representative for the real risk group of homosexuals who develop AIDS.--DenisDiderot 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
So, they polled people who possibly more at risk of doing Nitrites than the average Joe? Nice. Means nothing whatsoever. That poll would hold no water under scientific examination. --Bob 19:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the poll covered the famous risk group of promiscuous homosexuals. --DenisDiderot 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, those with possibly more risk of taking Nitrites, so an estimate of the gay community that takes poppers based on this type of target group is statistically worthless. --Bob 19:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
They comprise the risk group of those developing AIDS among homosexuals. The fact that 80% of this risk group also take Poppers is not an assumption but a result of the poll. --DenisDiderot 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, Nitrites may have an effect on both the humoral and cellular immunity, but you fail to observe the fact that it also stimulates viral replication and secretion of viral proteins involved in sarcoma growth. --Bob 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Please specify. Does this mean that you acknowledge the role of the drug as a cofactor in the development of Kaposi's sarcoma if the virus is present? --DenisDiderot 18:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Who wouldn't? But it is not enough to say that Nitrites cause this, because it is not the case. Besides, KS is also found in Africa where Nitrites are not found. See previously mentioned references. --Bob 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so we agree on Poppers being a cofactor, but we don't agree on Poppers or other drugs being the main cause of Kaposi's sarcoma. Let's settle on the common view first and add it to the new section I propose. --DenisDiderot 19:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the HIV researchers' quest for indirect mechanisms of how HIV could kill T-cells is also justified. This is inded the main topic of contemporary HIV research.
    • I guess you haven't been reading anything in scientific literature sinnce 1995 then? It has been shown overe and over again how secreted proteins from HIV kill T cells directly. and HIV itself is cytotoxic over time. Try looking for articles that have in the title apoptosis, T cells HIV. --Bob 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll check that out. --DenisDiderot 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

--DenisDiderot 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

'so the addition of one nearly 70-year-old academic is not likely to make much difference in this debate is maybe POV, but surely odd. I'd say that being 70 you can't expect he survive soo long as to prove anithing, but I'm sure I can't say it in english without being unpolite. Maybe the sentence is not essential, after all. I think this article is a little POV in both directions. it:wiki began the traslation of AIDS_reappraisal and discussion migrated there too. What surprised me more is I expected someone would refer the theory as the author itself conceived it. Instead here I find a debate, I mean: in the voice. I'd rather like to read the full D. hypotesis and in a different paragraph any critics. Xaura 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do retroviruses cause cancer?

"Due to the dependence of retroviruses on cell division, researchers in the 1970s suspected that they might be a cause of cancer. It was one of the major achievements of Peter Duesberg's career in the 1980s to show this not to be the case." Seems to me this is a matter of opinion - for example see this paper by Robin Weiss or this book chapter. (Incidentally, neither of these mentions Duesberg at all.) Trezatium 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove POV

Failing to see why a fairly well-written and balanced article should remain besmirched by the scarlet letter of NPOV, I have removed the tag.--Angio 21:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Various comments

This article is in desperate need of references and the removing of material that is unverified, irrelevant, misleading and/or inaccurate. Personally, I'd like to remove or completely rewrite the following parts, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

  • "thereby bringing into question the issue of whether HIV infection ever actually occurs" - But Duesberg definitely believes that HIV infection does occur.
  • "However, it must be remembered that HIV and AIDS were only discovered in the early to mid-eighties, so it is no surprise that the number of AIDS cases rose exponentially." - What is this supposed to mean?
  • "This assertion finds some support in the early Physician's Desk Reference listings for AZT (listed as Retrovir), where the drug's manufacturer warns that the drug's side effects are "indistinguishable" from the symptoms of AIDS." - Where's the reference? Is this information up to date?
REFERENCE: EARLY PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)
See Talk:AIDS_reappraisal#AZT_package_insert. If you want to put the statement back in then go ahead. But please respect NPOV. Trezatium 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "AZT also ... causes cancer in children born to AZT-treated mothers." - Where's the reference?
  • "Because of concerns with AZT's side effects, many AIDS patients are now treated with a cocktail of protease inhibitor and reverse transcriptase inhibitor drugs. However, any given drug cocktail may fail to work in any specific case, and in 1997, 53% of San Francisco's gay men had a strain of HIV that was resistant to one or more of the 20 approved anti-HIV drugs, with the result that AZT is still used in some cases." - This is a very confused couple of sentences. AZT is still a common component of current combination treatment, including first-line treatment. Combination treatment is used because it is considered to be the most effective therapy, not because of "concerns about AZT's side effects".
  • "The image above is a picture of someone who has been using Crystal Meth. As you can see, the drug and life style has taken a serious and visual toll on the persons body." - Where do these photos come from? What evidence is there that the change is due to crystal meth? In any case, is this relevant? Do we know the status of this woman's immune system?
A METH USER IS USUALLY NEAR DEATH _ I BET THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS ABOUT DEAD TOO - you dope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)
  • "Benzene intoxication shows some of the symptoms, e.g. immune suppression, cancer and inverted CD4/CD8 ratio, observed in AIDS patients as well." - Reference? - Sorted
  • "Above are two pictures of two Africans. One is dying of starvation and multiple infections. The other, is dying from AIDS." - What exactly do these pictures add to the article?

Trezatium 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Observation about this article

I think the fact that an article about duesbergs hypothesis has been hi-jacked is irony in itself. By the way, you and I both know EXACTLY what those pictures added to the value of the article so don't play games. I will get those pictures verified.

Edits by 70.237.102.248

I've reverted the recent edits by 70.237.102.248. They seem to have been intended to correct perceived POV bias. However, phrases such as "studies have found that..." are statements of fact, not point of view. Also, 70.237.102.248 changed a sentence about retroviruses and cancer. It previously read, "Most researchers believe that some retroviruses can cause cancer." It was replaced with, "The retroviral theory of cancer fell into disrepute in the early 1980s, though there are still holdout researchers who sincerely believe that some retroviruses can cause cancer." Can 70.237.102.248 supply an online, reputable reference to back this up I wonder? This isn't my area of expertise, but I believe that more than a few "holdout researchers" think that HTLV-I causes adult T-cell leukaemia (ATL), and that some other retroviruses cause cancer in non-humans (for example see here and here and here). As for the statement, "The presumed lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these dubious placebo-controlled trials remains the only counter to the argument that AZT causes AIDS", if that's not POV then I don't know what is. Besides all this, the edits made by User:70.237.102.248 messed up the formatting of the lower portion of the article. I suggest that in future this user discusses significant changes on the talk page before making them. Trezatium 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The web site aidsinfo.nih.gov, which is written by the NIH and CDC, says, "In rare cases, HTLV-1 can cause adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma, a rare and aggressive cancer of the blood." The HPA (a UK government agency) says much the same thing, as does the PHAC of Canada. Trezatium 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Go directly to Duesberg's site and read his reports - this AIDS infested site is very misleading. The number - better yet the quality - of scientists who have joined him is impressive, if yuo like to list PhDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Benzene

I've never come across any instance of Duesberg linking benzene to AIDS. Unless anyone can supply a reference, I suggest cutting all reference to benzene from this article. Trezatium 10:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph I removed: "Benzene derivatives in most sexual lubricants and already lubricated condoms are also suspected by Duesberg to cause intoxication, because they are absorbed well into the body if placed into the intestines.[citation needed] Benzene poisoning shows some of the symptoms, e.g. immune suppression, cancer and reduced CD4/CD8 ratio, observed in AIDS patients.[1] The fact that a large number of heterosexual couples also used sexual lubricants and condoms lubricated with benzene derivatives without causing a corresponding AIDS epidemic during the 1980s is not addressed by Duesberg."
Trezatium 10:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


I suspect that Duesberg loses interest in answering dumb questions. Benzene is known as dangerous yadayada.... I suspect that few heteros use anything like the quantity of benzene, etc and have few places like bathhouses to gather around. This is all so obvious that even I can't finish it - and I'm no Duesberg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).

Not verified

I've removed the "not verified" tag. Like many others, this article needs more references. However, I think that it is generally accurate and doesn't need the tag. Trezatium 10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

References for "pseudoscience", please

The Duesberg hypothesis is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community; there is broad scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Where are the references?. BTW, Duesberg and part of his supporters are part of the "scientific community". The statement must be sourced AND reworded to improve accuracy.

Moreover: Officialist AIDS researchers are NOT the "scientific community", they are just a minuscule part of that community. I am afraid that we do not know really what the "scientific community", i.e, the individual scientists, think about the issue. An extensive anonymous poll about the issue would be needed to support the bold statement I am disputing. AFAIK that poll does not exist.

If no source is produced, the "pseudoscience" categorization should be removed.

Thank you. Randroide 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence based on Grcampbell's edit to the AIDS reappraisal article. Is that OK? Trezatium 17:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
for the catgorization: PMID 11983241 and PMID 10841733 should do the trick. --Bob 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sources...

... can we get some citations for the exposition of Duesberg's hypothesis in the second section of the article? There have been "citation-needed" tags on there forever alongside quite a few vaguely worded and unsourced claims. I leave it to someone more familiar with Duesberg's work to supply the most appopriate citations, but they are sorely needed so that we can characterize his hypothesis accurately. MastCell 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

False info about KS

"The AIDS-associated disease Kaposi's sarcoma, which requires uncontrolled infection with the virus HHV-8 (since renamed KSHV for Kaposi's Sarcoma Herpes Virus), occurs in sexually promiscuous gay males but rarely in any AIDS patients of any sexual orientation who do not have a history of sexual promiscuity." This isn't true - in fact endemic KS is "fairly common" in much of Africa, and AIDS-related KS has become common among HIV-positive Africans (as was spotted in the early 80s). Trezatium 19:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And the subsequent sentence in the article is also wrong. Trezatium 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the two sentences in question. Trezatium 14:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

KS is common where people starve to death, sniff gas, etc.... anything that kills your immune system leads to it - poppers,etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).
Er... User:159.105.80.219... shouldn't you get back to praising and "defending" the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, expressing your opinions on the IQ of Jews, alleging repeatedly that Wikipedia is "Jewish-dominated", talking about how "beautiful" Auschwitz was, the "voluntary" nature of death marches... or hell, just come right out and deny the Holocaust — again and again and again and again... Dear God, after looking through your contribution history I feel filthy. Trolling here is apparently the least disturbing aspect of your contributions to Wikipedia. MastCell 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:63.121.66.97

Guess this was archived in the middle of the night - but anyway. KS in Africa - and whatever else happens for heatlh problems - is and always has been from extreme poverty. The apparent lack of the spread of AIDS seems to take a lot of the steam out of the germ/virus theory you would think. Back in the early 1900s the USA had endemic TB and I would suspect KS,etc - poor damp tenements,etc. Nothing like food, central heating, medicine, staying away from poppers, etc to cure AIDS ( ie in 1900 the current bunch of medicos would have said they all had AIDS.) Other rants - Auschwitz's architecture is grand - look at some of the available pictures. Also the continuously dropping death numbers seems to mean that more and more inmates survived - aren't you glad? ( I suspect if you think something is fake you don't care what the truth or numbers are - I wonder which side believes this way.) IQs - constant research seems to destroy many old ideas - higher IQs for different races for one - second generation Asians in USA become just like us ( hard work is more( or at least as ) important as ability for the majority). The racial groups who pride themselves on their great IQs are living on a bubble that always breaks. he rest of your rant goes nowhere much - as far as filthy I have never seen any of your mega ideas but so far bored fits.



The following comments (not originally in bold) were added to the article by User:63.121.66.97. I've commented out the last one and replaced the other two by "citation needed" tags.

  • AIDS in Africa has increased during the last two decades, in tandem with the prevalence of HIV. (This needs a date and a citation, and by what %?)
  • Sanitation and nutrition, on the other hand, have noticeably improved since the 1980s, when the Ethiopian famine was prominent in the news, yet AIDS case rates continued to increase. (same)
  • AIDS in Africa largely kills sexually active working-age adults.
  • The groups that have HIV are the ones dying from AIDS. For example, in areas where surveys show 50% of people with HIV are women, that area will show that 50% of people dying from AIDS are women. In areas where 20% of HIV+ people use recreational drugs, then 20% of the people dying from AIDS use recreational drugs. (If 50% of people in the general population are women and 20% in the general population use drugs, then it doesn't matter what % are HIV+, so state how these differ from the general pop.)

Trezatium 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for giving the statistics that finally disprove AIDS in Africa - you have saved millions of lives ( really if African governments would stop trying to get $$ from Westerners and instead feed and take care of their people AIDS/TB/starvation/etc would improve immensely. AIDS has turned into a money maker in Africa and US college labs, etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).


One of the main points that Duesberg made about AIDS was that it had become a money bag for researchers. This seems to not be in the article that I saw. Duesberg by the way stuck to his guns and was forced to continue work without access to the previously mentioned money bag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).

This article should be renamed

Since Duesberg has two recognized hypotheses, one on AIDS and another on cancer (check the His work section of his bio here), the name of this article should be changed to Dueberg AIDS hypothesis. I'd do so, but I'm not sure how (redirects? what? oh I don't wanna know!) ô¿ô 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether the aneuploidy hypothesis is notable enough for inclusion - it's not taken particularly seriously by most of the community, as best I can tell. Of course, one could argue the same about his AIDS hypothesis, but his AIDS hypothesis was, at one point, taken seriously enough to be decisively rebutted. MastCell 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Or the question may be, "How well can you tell?" No need to argue with me, I'm just another poor dumb Wikipedian selling pencils for free on the street corner. Argue with Scientific American, "Untangling the Roots of Cancer," by W. Wayt Gibbs, July 2003 whether Duesberg's cancer work is "notable enough." Your assertion may prove to be problematic in debate, however, especially when the hardcopy version of the article included a timeline graphic, depicting the most significant advances in cancer genetics over the last century, which noted Duesberg's 1999 aneuploidy hypothesis as being one of those advances. I'm sure your library has back issues of the magazine. Mine does. ô¿ô 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the last word on what's notable in basic cancer research (nor on anything, really). I'm afraid the link to SciAm you posted is broken. On aneuploidy, there was that New England Journal of Medicine article on aneuploidy and its influence on development of head/neck cancer (PMID 15070790)... pretty groundbreaking stuff, although slightly undercut by the fact that the article was susbequently retracted after an investigation found that the data in it was fabricated. As best I understand it, the role of aneuploidy as a causative, rather than correlative, phenemenon in cancer is controversial (PMID 15563660), as aneuploidy is not a prerequisite for cancer (contrary to Duesberg's hypothesis?). The distinction seems to be that most researchers think aneuploidy is an intriguing and possibly contributory aspect of carcinogenesis - but Duesberg holds that aneuploidy alone, without mutations, is sufficient, an argument not taken particularly seriously by much of the community (see the SciAm article you referenced, in which his aneuploidy-only hypothesis is dismissed by the good folks at the NCI).

On another note, I find it interesting that Duesberg is so quick to attack the proven HIV/AIDS link on the basis of the 0.001% of cases that it does not fully explain - while when it comes to aneuploidy, he's willing to write off whole categories of cancer (most leukemias & lymphomas) which are not aneuploid and keep pushing his aneuploidy-only idea. But again, this is not my field of expertise, so I could easily be wrong about all of this. If you want to write up his aneuploidy hypothesis, be my guest. MastCell 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Caesar's ghost! Lemme get this straight. You're telling me that this hypothesis of this Duesberg fellow, that aneuploidy is a causative, rather than correlative, phenemenon [sic] in cancer, is controversial? (although not notable enough to be decicively rebutted, it seems, only notable enough to be dismissed by the good folks at the NCI). I must say, I'm shocked! If only I had known. Boy do I have egg on my face. That's NOT how science is supposed to be done now days. Where's the man's sense of consensus when he comes up with these hypotheses? You know, I sort of suspected this kind of thing all along, what with him throwing a perfectly good career down the drain. And that's not to mention millions of dollars in research money he missed out on. Why? All for the sake of his self-righteous so-called scientific principles, whatever those are supposed to be. Ha. The guy's gotta be a head case. I mean, who in the heck does he think he is, attacking something that's been scientifically proven? Where's the man's sense of propriety? The nerve. Doesn’t he know that people are suffering? Why the next thing you know, he'll be pestering the British Museum to borrow Piltdown Man's bones, just so he can compare them with pig bones. Or he'll be whining at surgeons that they ought to wash their hands before they operate. Going against the scientific consensus like he does, what a nut job! ô¿ô 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. There is no scientific consensus on aneuploidy's role; it's controversial, as I mentioned above, so it's a little premature to cast Duesberg as tilting at the windmills of orthodoxy. But since you're in communication with Dr. Duesberg, you know more about it than I do. Again, if you'd like to write up his aneuploidy hypothesis, be my guest. Reliably sourced content (e.g. peer-reviewed literature or secondary sources preferred over duesberg.com) would be ideal. MastCell 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Deep breath. Hold nose. Jump in.
I apologize for being testy, but I still don't get your dismissiveness of my original suggestion. I'm not talking about "a scientific consensus on aneuploidy's role" in cancer. Why should I? Just like you, as far as I can tell, there isn't any. What I'm talking about is what to call a particular hypothesis in the title of a Wikipedia article.
It seems to me that, if Duesberg's cancer hypothesis has risen to the level of being controversial to the end that: 1) SciAm has lauded it, while at the same time, 2) the NIC has dismissed it, that it also just may have risen to the level that it might be a good idea, in a general-interest encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, to eventually cover it under the name "Duesberg Cancer Hypothesis." If so, that would necessitate at some point renaming the "Duesberg hypothesis" the "Duesberg AIDS hypothesis" simply to keep the two straight.
See what I'm saying? I mean, whether it's lauded or dismissed, both sides would "recognize" that it's a "hypothesis," right? And to me, it's gained enough attention, within the milieu of science, to be treated as a "recognized hypothesis" here, whether it's seen to be as cute as Shirley Temple or as ugly as Tiny Tim. I will refrain, however, from renaming this particular article until I've seen what ink is spilled around this joint on the aneuploidy hypothesis in the near future.
In the mean time I'd say, looking on your reaction to my suggestion, that your bias -- that Duesberg ought to be made to walk the plank at the point of a cutlass, to swim with the fishes -- is showing. And to the detriment of Wikipedia's NPOV. Nothing wrong with being biased, heck I'm biased as can be. But if we're going to, in this collaborative effort, live up to Rodney King's exhortation to "all just get along," we're going to have to at least be able to define the issues that we're discussing in a straight-forward and rational manner, with out a bunch of foo-foo and falderal.
Thanks for the invitation on where to focus my efforts on Wikpedia as your "guest." At risk of offending you, however, I must decline. If I decide, on my own nickel, to contribute anything here on the aneuploidy hypothesis, citing sources that meet your criteria won't be hard. I count at least twenty, from the professor alone, that have been published since 1997. (Source: Harvey Bialy's Ongcogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS, pp. 306-308.)
Well, I see that I'd better take this opportunity to talk about my contact with Prof. Duesberg, lest I be accused of being a sycophant or a mole. A perusal of my recent contributions will reveal extensive edits to the Peter Duesberg article. While doing those edits, I noticed there was no picture of him. So I emailed him, from the form at his web site, requesting permission to reproduce here the photo that appears there of him. He kindly responded by attaching the photograph that you referenced and that now appears in his bio. ô¿ô 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Notability: going back to the SciAm article you cited, there are 3 different aneuploidy ideas being kicked around. Duesberg's is the 3rd mentioned; why not articles on all 3 hypotheses? Because, individually, they're not that notable. I think aneuploidy's role in cancer would be a topic worthy for expansion. Highlighting Duesberg specifically, or his version of the aneuploidy idea, seems excessive to me at this point. Example 2: a Nature review on aneuploidy and cancer (PMID 15549096) - Duesberg is cited once, out of 50 references. There's no question he's publishing research on the topic, but singling him out as the "aneuploidy guy" again seems unwarranted/undue weight, based on the above.

Bias: sure, I think Duesberg is way off base on HIV/AIDS, and I think his selective application of skepticism (as I mentioned above) is curious. Duesberg's supporters, on the other hand, seem to be dedicated to presenting him as a lone crusader against orthodoxy, using examples like, say, hand-washing, Piltdown Man, etc. It's just not appropriate in this case. He's one of a number of groups working on aneuploidy, a controversial and unsettled area of research. Casting it as a matter of "scientific principles", or "attacking" something "scientifically proven", doesn't apply in this context.

"Be my guest": what I meant was, people tend to argue endlessly about a topic on talk pages. It's much more productive to have actual article content to discuss. I simply meant to encourage you - if you feel strongly that the "Duesberg" aneuploidy hypothesis deserves an article, then the most productive course is to start working on it. You apparently chose to regard this as some sort of provocation; that wasn't my intention, and I apologize.

About the picture: it definitely improves the article. Thank you for doing the legwork to obtain it. MastCell 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, all this ink, and on my part high blood pressure (yikes! could the rhetorical pistol, all this time, have been pointed at moi? heh), and this section (started by moi) ain't even about Duesberg's AIDS hypothesis, which is what the main article attached to this talk page is all about. Sorry about that. I'll get my nose back to the editing grindstone within articles. Maybe next, on the main article here. (How lucky can you get?) Trust me (or better yet, review my Wikipedia edits, most lately on the Peter Duesberg bio), my formost concern in my contribs is NPOV, illustrated by the respect I show (sometimes even undue) for viewpoints that I personally consider dorkier than Pee Wee Herman. Regarding the aneuploidy cancer hypotheses, and the one I'm fond of in particular, you may be right (and thank you for your patience with a hot head, namely moi), although I would put it that they may be too cutting-edge to be handled for the general readers here just yet. But "I'm-a-hearin' the hoofbeats" and "I'm-a-thinkin' aneuploidy! (A bit of a joke for those of you who've read Bialy). Cheers! ô¿ô 07:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Benzene-A Review of the Literature from a Health Effects Perspective
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duesberg_hypothesis/Archive_1&oldid=1136338319"