Talk:Duesberg hypothesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

AZT

From the literature included with AZT in prescription form: ""WARNING: RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) [=AZT] MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE WARNINGS). PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR [=AZT] HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. RARE OCCURRENCES OF LACTIC ACIDOSIS IN THE ABSENCE OF HYPOXEMIA, AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY WITH STEATOSIS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITH THE USE OF ANTIRETROVIRAL NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES, INCLUDING RETROVIR AND ZALCITABINE, AND ARE POTENTIALLY FATAL (SEE WARNINGS)." - from Glaxo Welcome AZT product information

If Glaxo claims that AZT may produce HIV-like symptoms, then it's safe to assume that AZT may produce HIV-like symptoms. Furthermore, the very fact that AZT was originally used in Chemotherapy, but {ahem} was deemed to dangerous, supports this hypothesis. I removed a claim to the contrary that cited an article that made no DEFINITIVE CLAIM, and IN FACT showed that the AZT group in the clinical trial had MORE DEATHS THAN THE CONTROL GROUP. Whether or not these deaths were "statistically significant" is not germane. The point is that this article is hardly a valid source toward any claim that AZT "Does NOT produce" symptoms similar to HIV. 70.130.205.163 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The quote above says that AZT can produce a myopathy similar to that seen with AIDS. Myopathy is a muscle problem. It says nothing about producing immune deficiency or any of the other manifestations of HIV infection. Yes, AZT may cause a muscle problem similar to one that HIV causes. No, AZT does not cause AIDS, nor does the citation above suggest that it does. That's known as original research and an improper synthesis and is against Wikipedia policy. The claim about AZT being "too dangerous" as chemotherapy is an old canard which is rebutted in many places. As to your claim about MORE DEATHS, the source clearly explains that Duesberg's claims to that effect are unsound methodologically. Again, please avoid pushing your novel interpretation of the source. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. RE: AZT being "too dangerous", I suggest you work on the AZT article here, since it reads, "It was originally intended to treat cancer, but failed to show efficacy and had an unacceptably high side effect profile", among other things. By the way, I never made the claim that AZT causes AIDS - though, you seem to think I believe that I do. RE: "more deaths" in the AZT group in the reference, that is simply a fact. The interpretation of that fact is debatable, and I make no claim in that regard. However, that there were more deaths, as a percentage as well as pure quantitatively, is a simple fact. 70.130.182.123 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add comments at the bottom of the page. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from the source:

• "...researchers who have conducted largescale studies of the drug’s [AZT's] effects say that it does not cause the fatal illness."
• "The Concorde data in “no way argue in favor of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by AZT,” Concorde’s French principal investigator, Maxime Seligmann of Paris’ Hopital Saint-Louis, wrote Science in response to a query."

The article text states that the Science magazine article concluded that AZT does not cause AIDS. I can modify it to say that the article quoted a number of AIDS researchers who stated that AZT does not cause AIDS if you like, but don't remove the source again, as it clearly addresses the issue of AZT as an alleged cause of AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: your first quote. In the article you say, they "presented evidence that AZT and illicit drug use do not cause an immune deficiency similar to that seen in AIDS" - but your quote above presents no evidence. That some scientists think A and others think B does not refute A, nor does it "present evidence" as such. Also, your words are "does not cause an immune deficiency SIMILAR to that seen in AIDS", while your quote says it does not cause AIDS. Don't you see the difference?

RE: your second quote. That the ref article "does not argue in favor of " the Duesberg claim does not refute that claim. Don't you see the difference? Maybe you should tone down your claim and say something that accurately reflects the ref article. 70.130.182.123 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the above accurately reflect the article, but since you'd like something more precise I've taken another shot at it. If you're not happy with that, perhaps you'd propose some wording rather than deleting it again? MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I deleted INACCURATE information. Your latest correction accurately reflects the reference article, though, you should probably quote it since your used the same wording. Nevertheless, please do not be offended at the deletion of misinformation. 70.130.182.123 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section on Africa would be stronger if some mention of the African cultural factors was made: dry sex (a preference for drying out the vagina, causing more open sores for infection), visitation rights (having a relative visit/have sex with the widow of the deceased, infected or not), and other practices. Part of Duesberg's claim was that Africans are genetically the same as American blacks and there was much resistance to the idea that Africans were more promiscuous, but the cultural differences mentioned here could seem to explain great differences in heterosexual infection between the US & Africa without resorting to Duesberg's hypotheses. Sorry I don't have specifics on this - someone else I'm sure will do a better job of explaining this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.208.26.41 (talk)

Putting a copy/link of the AZT label in the article would certainly clarify Duesberg's position. It would also verify his position from the best possible source - the manufacturer of the drug. 159.105.80.141 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to cherrypick its opponents. Go directly to Duesberg site and you get to see a very large and impressive bunch of supporters. From the article I got the impression he drooled and had a couple of dumb friends - not really true. Truthfully this article's main help is the link to Duesberg's site.159.105.80.141 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 86.142.123.40

Hello. Could we please discuss this edit before again re-inserting it? My concern is that it presents the supposed increase in drug use as a fact, when there is strong evidence that no such increase exists. This is inaccurate, and you also removed a reliable source supporting the fact that Duesberg is wrong here. You also removed the sourced facts about KS, and made the claim that illicit drugs and AZT can cause AIDS, which is untrue and completely unsourced. MastCell ^Talk 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The quotations section seems horrifically unbalanced and vicious. I am no expert, but the quotes all seem to be taken from the most radical viewpoint on Duesberg's opposition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.50.82 (talk)

I dunno... the editors of Nature and Science, the president of the International AIDS Society, and the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease hardly strike me as "vicious radicals". That said, I'm not a big fan of such "Quotations" sections and wouldn't be too sorry to see it go. MastCell ^Talk 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let's remove it (I think I'm getting worried that you're adding this stuff to my user page--I lived a much happier life not knowing this article existed). As for those editors--they walk around in Birkenstocks and wear tie-dyed shirts. Very radical. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a full article?

There is already a sentence that breachs this subject in the HIV article (although not by name just reference). I would prefer just a paragraph in that article or AIDs origin article rather than trying to develop this hypothesis into a full article. It seems unwaranted. It is fine to mention alternative hypotheses, but given the limited nature of this research compared to the vast sea of HIV literature I just don't get it. I could see an article about Gallo and Montgnier, and breach other researchers with alternative hypotheses. I am all for being complete and NPOV, but this seems severe. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that gloss over or barely mention an area of a topic despite hundreds of publications to the posit. This doesn't hit the mark. I guess next there will be the addition of Intelligent Design as an alternate hypothesis in the Evolution article. The gist of this article can be summarized in a paragraph and still maintain the contributing editors work. I would encourage an effort to develop said paragraph and place it in HIV or AIDs origin article. Regards GetAgrippa 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I found 14-15 articles by Duesberg related to AIDs. Most of his research is related to his aneuploidy and chromosome abnormality cancer hypothesis which posits mutations don't cause cancer. Interesting reading. The AIDs research is not a huge body of work. How many of you are published researchers whose efforts have been more fruitful without the pleasure of special article? I guess I didn't realize there are no criteria for developing any topic or subject. How naive. GetAgrippa 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to get at. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the article exist with such a small basis? Most of his work is cancer related (significant body of work) and his cancer hypothesis is not even mentioned in the cancer article. Now a whole article derived from 14 or so papers (his contribution)?? I think it should be addressed directly in HIV or other AIDs related article (a paragraph or sentence). The weight of evidence doesn't support an independent article, least I saturate an article with my publications and POV. The undue Weight clause seem applicable.GetAgrippa 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, now I get it. Although most of Duesberg's published work deals with aneuploidy and cancer, his major impact (that which makes him notable) has been in the area of AIDS reappraisal. He has published little and conducted no research in the field of AIDS (in fact, this is a major criticism of him). However, there are actually tons of secondary sources discussing his central role, and that of his eponymous "hypothesis", in the AIDS reappraisal movement (though perhaps this article does a poor job presenting them). It would certainly be worth considering merging this article into the main Peter Duesberg article. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea-one central article. A section for the Duesberg Hypothesis. Develop the aneuplody-chromosome cancer hypothesis also. Add the link to the HIV article and Cancer article (since it is not mentioned). GetAgrippa 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias in reporting

This article is basically an attempt to tow the insitutional line on HIV/AIDS rather than providing a fair hearing to the matter under consideration, namely Duesberg's refutation of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It totally neglects to examine the core contentions of Duesberg's critique, and mainly relies on vague statements like "the scientific community regards this as false" to dismiss Duesberg's alternative chemical/lifestyle theory. For instance, the link which supposedly documents how Duesberg misuses recreational drug use statistics does nothing of the sort; it merely is the NIH uttering platitudes about how drug use has existed long before AIDS, a point which no one, including Duesberg, is arguing. Additionally, this article fails to report on or adequately examine Duesberg's most devastating critiques of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, including:

1) The tautological error in the HIV/AIDS formulation, whereby AIDS is defined as an "AIDS-defining disease" plus a positive result to an HIV antibody test. But the list of "AIDS-defining" diseases has shifted several times.

2) Why is the sex ratio of AIDS in the US and Europe still >84% male, whereas any virus after 20 years would have equalized? And why is it sex-neutral in Africa?

3)Furthermore, why is the incidence of new AIDS patients linear rather than following the exponential curve like any other rapidly multiplying infectious virus?

4) Why is the overal mortality for AIDS, compared to the best estimates of the total number of infected people, so low as to be below the overall mortality rate?

The article also makes misleading statements like claiming that blood levels of HIV are correlated with disease progression. This is patently false. Blood levels of HIV peak within 2 weeks of infection and then decline rapidly, like any other virus, and then become barely detectable. Afterall, that's what PCR does-- if you actually understand it-- it magnifies tiny, difficult-to-find DNA segments, so that they can become detectable (and so you see, it's not even detecting the virus, just genetic fragments! This is why we use the antibody test as the "AIDS-test", because the virus is so damn hard to find!

In short, this Wikipedia article fails to give fair hearing to the subject its considering. It accuses Duesberg of "cherry-picking" and then doesn't even address the pith of his hypothesis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHDWikiMan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the article but when Duesberg published his papers he was quickly dismissed with data that refuted his claims is my recollection. I just want the article fused with Duesberg's article. As I recollect from one of Duesberg's Science papers that your first posit was addressed and an explanation provided by peer reviewers concerning the shift. My recollection is the gender differences and continent differences arise from homosexuality, drug use, prostitution, and cultural differences. The distribution of AIDS has been found to mirror the distribution of HIV. Anyways his peers have admonished him and his ideas is my impression so his ideas and opinions have garnered little support. Regards GetAgrippa 01:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did a quick Science search and found this article a well balanced and fair reading: "The Duesberg phenomenon": what does it mean? C Andrews. Science 13 January 1995 267: 157. Seems he has been ostracized. Regards GetAgrippa 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial post here is a pretty stale rehash of many of the arguments found on denialist Websites, and reproduces many of the same deficiencies in scientific literacy. The issue for Wikipedia's purposes is that this is a not a forum to uncritically rehash Duesberg's claims or give them a "fair hearing". It's a forum to report on those claims in the context of their reception and support in the wider scientific and popular communities. To discuss Duesberg's claims without mentioning the fact that they are considered completely unproven and baseless by the scientific community would violate our policy on undue weight. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's par for the course on Wiki, but the sort of nonsense being peddled by the resident denialists here is disturbing. Each of these critiques can be refuted in about five minutes - I'm wondering though to what degree these pages are subject to hijacking by people with an agenda of some sort. (And regarding sex ratios, the connection between HIV epidemiology and differential risk behaviours among distinct groups is, frankly, obvious.) I am new to Wiki insofar as editing or commenting on discussion pages goes but it seems that there is a degree of social responsibility implied by NOT permitting the dissemination of politically-motivated pseudoscience. --Jdmeds81 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your unpatronizing comments Agrippa. My point is that it's simply not true that "AIDS has been found to mirror the distribution of HIV". HIV is randomly distributed with regards to sex, both in the US/Western Europe and Africa, yet AIDS is not randomly distributed in the West, where 85% of the afflicted are still men! This is not Duesberg's view, or clever apercu: it is the facts, contained in CDC and WHO data, if you care to look. The shift of AIDS-defining diseases remains unaccountable scientifically-- as Duesberg demonstrated in "The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS epidemics" it is equally possible to attribute them to chemical causes, for instance poppers as well known cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma... For shame Mastcell! Instead of flinging vitriol at my position in the form of claiming "deficiency of scientific literacy" and hand-waving about "denialist arguments" would it not be better to acknowledge that I at least have a point that this article, in refusing to mention the reasoning and evidence for the pith of Duesberg's hypothesis, is negligent in reporting? Unless Wikipedia is a forum for the dogmatic defense of orthodoxy, it behooves any responsible article to do this. It's of course also your responsibility to discuss how the mainstream has received these outsider ideas, but simply because the mainstream rejects his ideas does not mean they deserve to be so insidiously misrepresented or flat-out omitted in a supposedly "encyclopedic" entry. Claiming "undue weight" is a serious cop-out, man. It's a way of avoiding the point. Afterall, if you think that views sympathetic to Duesberg's can be characterized by a "deficiency of scientific literacy" (by which literacy I can only assume you mean adherence to dogma), you should be able to clearly and fairly state the "deficient" view, and then explain why it's wrong, using scientifically valid arguments, and not just an abundance of references to how other people think it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHDWikiMan (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a cop-out. This is simply not the venue for my personal in-depth explanantion of why the Duesberg hypothesis is incorrect. There are many excellent websites which point out its deficiencies. It's interesting that you dismiss this article as merely "an abundance of references to how other people think it's wrong." What you're describing is exactly the elusive neutral point-of-view that we strive so hard for on these controversial articles. I'm heartened to know that we've apparently acheived it here. The talk page guidelines are probably also worth reviewing, as they discuss the intended use of article talk pages. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell: there are plenty of other articles online that deal with each of Duesberg's arguments in more depth. There is no need for Wikipedia to cover every single point; just a few examples are sufficient. But I feel I must at least rebut that statement about statistics: "HIV is randomly distributed with regards to sex, both in the US/Western Europe and Africa, yet AIDS is not randomly distributed in the West". This is of course untrue. The latest CDC report shows that in 2005, 74% of newly reported adult/adolescent HIV diagnoses were among men; of adult/adolescent AIDS diagnoses, 73% were among men. Similar consistency can be seen in data ordered by exposure category, race, location, etc., as well as in statistics from other parts of the world. Trezatium 09:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just tried to insert a very diplomatically-phrased (one parenthetical sentence) and rigorously objective statement about Kary Mullis' sourced and fully verifiable perspective, and witnessed it reverted by a clear dogmatist of the planet's reigning materialist-science Papacy who can't distinguish his POV from God's. I've no time to deal with dilettantes, so hope to awaken a bit of "dispute resolution activity" regarding the matter itself with others' help here on the article's talk page. Love, Time.s of the essence 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

footnote[3]NIH report - I actually read it. I was struck by the number of times the phrase "nearly all/always"( ie usually but not always). Is AIDS the first disease that "nearly always" is caused by the germ associated with it, but not always? How does AIDS skip this previously necessary step - or maybe the step is only "nearly alwys" neceassary.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)PS Is there a severe error in the NIH paper[3]? Koch's #1 postulate is that the disease causing organism is "always" present. Almost always wouldn't cut it in medical school. Is NIH saying they were unable to find the virus or antibody because there was too little and AIDS can be similar to a decades old delayed knockout? 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Science is not black and white. Every paper written about anything in science gives an out. However, they're probably 99.99999% sure. Since I went to medical school, I can assure you that almost always works in a lot of areas, including surgery, cancer treatment. Anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Browsing the net I came across Rethinking Aids wiki that gives a very good and complete rebuttal to the NIH Aids report. Far better than my amateur attempt. It turns out that since I checked the list of professionals - ie MDs etc - that had signed on the dotted line against the AIDS theory, the number of signers is approching 2600 scientists. A link to their article would give some scientific grounging to this wiki article - make it seem more like the opponents were not all nuts so to speak - a substantial improvement to the article, not easily dismissed - compiled and refernces experts in the field of medicine, etc.159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The external-links guidelines indicate that we shouldn't link wikis, particularly those without a large contributor base. The AIDS-denialism wiki appears to be essentially a one-man project and not an encyclopedic link, despite a relatively recent campaign by an invovled user to spam it about Wikipedia. As to the list of "rethinkers", you may want to see the AIDS reappraisal article, section on "Former dissidents", as quite a few people claimed by the denialist movement have long since repudiated their claims, but oddly remain listed on those sorts of web-based documents - another reason why these are not encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try to inform them of the people who have repudiated their former stance and get their explanation - if I can - of why they are still listed,etc. Be back , if successful, whenever I can.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC) The paper I cited, however, is not a one-man project and does not appear to reference goofs or the uneducated. However, the wiki may very well be a one-man amateur project, as so many wikis are.

The heading of the Discussion page says this is not a forum to blow the lid off the Duesberg theory. However, the entire atricle is a very strident attempt to blow said lid off, or so it appears to me. An article describing his theory would only be a couple of concise paragraphs I believe - of course it is pretty much a repeat of any wiki article that even mentions his name, don't you think - redundant,159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)His theory and the article on him could easily be combined into one and link to your favorite blow the lid off article.

Title change

perhaps the title could be changed to "rebuttal of Duesberg' hypothesis"78.29.210.205 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this notion. The article has been written in a biased way and should at least be labeled as a rebuttal, it expresses none of the positive views in support of the hypothesis, it misrepresents much of what Duesberg himself has been saying, it also omits large parts of the work. This article has confused the Duesberg hypothesis with criticism of the Duesberg hypothesis.

All aspects of the "Duesberg hypothesis" have been nearly universally rejected in the writings and statements of Duesberg's peers and by other reliable sources. The article on Duesberg's hypothesis cannot ignore this and in fact must emphasise it. There is next to no support for the Duesberg hypothesis, except in sources that according to Wikipedia usually lack fact-checking, verifiability and objectivity: blogs, personal websites and sites like the link you provided (and has been deleted). WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE are several guidelines that help me understand how Wikipedia articles are written and supported. You might find them useful, too. If you feel that "large parts of the work" are missing from this article, I encourage you to correct the deficit by adding material from reliable sources. Thanks for your comments, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Change the title to "Rebuttal of Duesberg' Hypothesis" if you want the article to stay in tact. Otherwise it should be overhauled for real neutrality. There should not be a response to everything Duesberg says in an article that merely states it. Make two articles. One stating it, one refuting it, and give them both appropriate titles. I'll carve it myself if I have to. Odostaples (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not neutrality - not as Wikipedia defines it, and not by a common-sense definition either. Would a "neutral" reference work present moon-landing hoax claims on an equal footing with the "mainstream" story from NASA? No, it would indicate clearly that the moon-landing hoax is a generally discredited fringe idea. It's not "neutral" - worse, it's not honest - to fabricate the appearance of equal footing or a robust debate where none actually exists. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Circular reasoning

The article says this: A large prospective study followed a group of 715 homosexual men in the Vancouver, Canada area; approximately half were HIV-seropositive or became so during the follow-up period, and the remainder were HIV-seronegative. After more than 8 years of follow-up, despite similar rates of drug use, sexual contact, and other supposed risk factors in both groups, AIDS developed only in those patients who were HIV-seropositive.

However, the presence of HIV is built into the definition of AIDS. AIDS is defined as an indicator disease plus HIV. Take away HIV, and all you have is the indicator disease -- it's no longer AIDS. Therefore the reason 100% of the AIDS patients were HIV positive is because no other outcome is logically possible. You might have indicator diseases in the HIV-negative group -- the article doesn't say. Since there are so many indicator diseases, I'm guessing there were a few in the HIV-negative group. But those wouldn't be AIDS, because there wasn't HIV.

More significantly, only about one third of the HIV-positive group developed AIDS within the period of the study.

This "scientific" article is completely meaningless. Except insofar as it supports the Duesberg hypothesis. Ungtss (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, in that we should probably improve the language of our article. The Lancet article (PMID 8095571) didn't use circular logic, of course. They took 2 groups with the same "risk behaviors" and divided them into HIV-positive and HIV-negative cohorts. Over the 8 years of follow-up, the HIV-positive cohort had a high rate of opportunistic infections (PCP, Kaposi's, M. avium, CMV, esophageal candidiasis, etc) and related deaths. The HIV-negative cohort had no such opportunistic infections, and the only deaths were due to suicide and heart attack. CD4 cell counts declined in the HIV-positive group, but not the HIV-negative group. And of course, the mortality rate was dramatically higher in the HIV-positive group.

This study was a direct response to a challenge from Peter Duesberg. Duesberg kept claiming that it was anal sex, or inhaled nitrites, or other drug use that caused AIDS, rather than HIV. So the researchers organized two cohorts which were matched for those factors, and showed that HIV serostatus was the only predictor of CD4 count drops, of opportunistic infections, and of death. This directly refuted Duesberg's claim that HIV-negative gay male drug users would also get PCP etc. In fact, it directly falsified Duesberg's hypothesis, and it's a useful starting point for anyone curious about why HIV is known to be the cause of AIDS.

I hope that resolves your concern about circular reasoning, and provides the information you requested about the HIV-negative group (there were no "indicator" illnesses). Of course, all of this information is readily available to anyone who chooses to read the actual medical article rather than, say, relying on information from AIDS-denialist websites, but we should probably present it a bit more clearly here. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I wish I had access to the full article ... can't say the wife would be okay with me putting $30 into it, since this is just a hobby:). But it looks like you may have read it -- my question is: is there any research falsifying the hypothesis that HIV is itself an opportunistic infection, as opposed to the cause? That is to say, if the immune system is hampered by some other cause, HIV would spread in the system, because the immune system would no longer stop it. This would explain the fact that HIV is associated with opportunistic infections, because a suppressed immune system would be subject to both (the evidence provided by this study). But it would also explain two facts inconsistent with the HIV hypothesis -- first, the fact that only a third of those with HIV actually developed the opportunistic infections in this study -- because just because your immune system is suppressed and you've been exposed to HIV doesn't mean you're going to be exposed to (and succomb to) another disease. This fact is inconsistent with an HIV-cause hypothesis, because Koch said you need to always get the disease if you have the agent. It would also explain the occurred (outside this study) of opportunistic infections in the absence of HIV. This fact is inconsistent with an HIV-cause hypothesis, because Koch said you need to never have the disease if you don't have the agent. I've been interested in this topic for a total of two days, and I'm a total neophyte -- your insights are invaluable to me:). As a sidenote, the purpose of this question is article improvement, because a casual reader with 2 days knowledge of the topic is left with that question -- the evidence is presented as falsifying the Duesberg hypothesis, but it is actually consistent with it, because if HIV is itself an opportunistic (yet harmless) infection, one would expect it to be associated with major opportunistic infections, as an immune system suppressed by a third cause would result in both. Ungtss (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, because they pointed out an area where our article was unclear. I sympathize about the cost of journal access; Open Access is the wave of the future, but there's a ways to go. Depending on the quality of your local library, they may either stock back issues of Lancet or be able to obtain the article in question via interlibrary loan at no cost.

Space precludes rehashing the evidence which supports HIV as a cause, rather than simply a passenger virus, in AIDS. The NIH has a useful summary here, though it's a bit technical. A couple of specific responses to your questions:

• The fact that 1/3 of HIV+ folks in the study developed opportunistic infections is actually quite consistent with current knowledge of HIV/AIDS. The median time from HIV diagnosis to development of clinically apparent disease is about 10 years. Remember that the HIV+ cohort in the Lancet study included both those who were HIV+ at the start of the 8-year period and those who converted at some point during the 8 years, so not all HIV+ patients were followed for the full 8 years. With that context, it's well within the expected range that about 1/3 of the HIV+ cohort developed clinically apparent disease during the 8-year follow-up period.
• HIV does, actually, fulfill Koch's postulates. Claims to the contrary are rife on AIDS-denialist websites, and they usually stem from a misunderstanding of either HIV science or of the postulates themselves. Incidentally, the postulates are not written in stone - they were conceived before anyone knew what a virus was, let alone a retrovirus. Koch himself modified or disregarded the postulate you allude to when he realized that not everyone infected with TB or cholera developed disease. These days, asymptomatic carrier states are recognized for a wide variety of infectious diseases, and no knowledgeable person would claim that a specific organism must induce disease in all hosts to be considered pathogenic.
• The fact that very rare cases of PCP, toxoplasmosis, etc occur in people without AIDS is not evidence against HIV's role. Look, not all hepatitis is caused by hepatitis B virus. You can turn yellow and get sick from unclean food, or too much booze, or autoimmune disease, or a variety of infections. Hepatitis is the final common pathway. Hepatitis B virus doesn't account for all cases of hepatitis. But I've never heard anyone say that because not all hepatitis is caused by hepatitis B virus, then hepatitis B virus must be harmless. That doesn't make much sense, does it?

You left out some of the most convincing evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg claimed that only people with "deviant" behaviors like gay sex or drug use got AIDS. Then, when hemophiliacs started popping up, he claimed that hemophiliacs were sick to begin with, so of course they'd get the same opportunistic infections. I honestly have no idea how he explains children with perinatally acquired HIV, or people who were in a car accident and got 1 contaminated blood transfusion and got AIDS, or lab or healthcare workers who were otherwise healthy until an unfortunate needle-stick and then became HIV+ and developed AIDS. The only thing these people have in common is HIV. Couple that to the fact that we know HIV destroys CD4+ T cells (that is, a biological mechanism). Couple that to the epidemiology. Couple that to the fact that medications designed specifically to attack HIV (e.g. protease inhibitors) can dramatically improve or reverse the course of AIDS - how would that work, if HIV wasn't the causative agent? Uh oh, I've gone on too long. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time. You make an excellent point about Koch's requirement that a pathogen must always cause disease. A pathogen need not be a necessary nor a sufficient condition to be a strongly contributing factor. Duesberg neglects that point, at least in my reading so far. On the other hand, just because HIV isn't harmless doesn't mean it's the sole cause -- and if there's another cause of AIDS (something lifestyle related, perhaps) that keeps it so well limited to gay men, drug addicts, and hemophiliacs, maybe treatment could focus more effectively on the other (as yet unknown) cause or causes.

I'm curious about the latency period -- are there any studies showing the rates of clinically apparent disease beyond 8 years -- at 10, 20, 25? That would also be a helpful refutation to his hypothesis, if it's out there. And I'm curious about actual studies or stories regarding the lab workers that got AIDS from a needle-prick. Haven't been able to find anything but general references to "it's happened" so far. You said medications that attack HIV slow or reverse the course of AIDS -- he makes contrary arguments in his book, arguing that untreated HIV+ Africans have the same expected lifespan as treated HIV+Westerners. Is there a study showing the positive effect of those treatments?

Again, I really appreciate your time and am just asking the questions that come to my head when reading the article, to try and improve it. Thanks! Ungtss (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of minor points; HIV/AIDS is not a disease "limited to gay men, drug addicts, and hemophiliacs," although those are clearly risk groups in the US and Western Europe. In Africa, for example, HIV/AIDS is primarily a disease of heterosexual working-age people. There may well be cofactors which accelerate the decline in CD4+ T cells in some people with HIV+; for example, in an oft-misunderstood paper, a group from Boston showed that micronutrient deficiency might accelerate the progression of HIV to AIDS (PMID 15229304). But HIV positivity is the only factor which consistently and reproducibly predicts development of AIDS. That's not to say we shouldn't look for cofactors - just that they shouldn't provide a smokescreen for denying the obvious and central role of HIV.

Modern antiretroviral therapy dramatically prevents death and disease in people with HIV. I'm not sure what arguments Duesberg puts forth to the contrary, but I can assure you that they are contradicted by a large volume of data, as well as by the experience of anyone who has treated people with HIV/AIDS before and after the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy (protease inhibitors combined with RT inhibitors) around 1996. Check out references 54 through 63, inclusive, in this article for an incomplete list of studies documenting the benefit of these therapies. The following are a useful sampling: PMID 10909955, PMID 9516219, PMID 9848347. The development of such active therapies against an entirely novel pathogen within about 10 years of its identification is actually a remarkable achievement, which makes Duesberg's claims all the more odd. Of course, pretty much every truly remarkable advance in medicine attracts its naysayers and denialists (cf. vaccination, cardiovascular disease prevention, etc). Haven't seen any SARS denialists yet, but it's only a matter of time. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess some of the Pubmed articles are available free, others aren't. Luck of the draw:). The first one you linked was the most enlightening, I thought. The graph shows that all the drugs REDUCED survival rates below the original, undrugged cohort, until 1997, coinciding with the release of the bioavailable protease inhibitor -- which caused a dramatic improvement. Inferring causation from strong correlation, it was not a cure, but it certainly reduced death rates substantially. Still can't get over the fact, though, that since HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient for AIDS, there are probably significant cofactors -- which is the crux of what Duesberg was saying, after all. Interestingly, all of Duesberg's books appear to have been written before the 1997 bioavailable protease inhibitor that substantially improved survival times ... that's certainly interesting. In his 2003 paper, however, he points out that the anti-retrovirals simply attack certain cellular functions, and therefore act as a simple antibiotic. That would explain an increase in life spans, even without an HIV cause.

The African numbers are actually what got me interested in this -- when I learned about the Bangui definition, my ears perked up, because it reflects a profound misunderstanding of conditions in Africa, and looks almost deliberately fraudulent. I lived in Africa for a good number of years growing up, and there were months when I met the ridiculously low Bangui criteria -- just because I was sick as a dog. That definition of AIDS appears to me to be calculated to inflate AIDS numbers in Africa. Ungtss (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've drawn an erroneous conclusion from PMID 10909955. The authors note that "Receipt of antiretroviral agents without a protease inhibitor before or after AIDS significantly reduced the risk of death." That is, the earlier drugs did not reduce survival rates. Check Table 1, which demonstrates that any antiretroviral treatment was associated with a decreased risk of death. They conclude: "Persons treated with antiretroviral agents without protease inhibitors derived benefit from these regimens, but the size of the effect was dwarfed when compared with the effect of protease inhibitors." Read the discussion: the authors conclude that the increase in mortality in the early 1990's was probably a result of lead-time bias. With the widespread use of prophylaxis against common opportunistic infections (PCP, toxoplasmosis, etc), the development of clinical AIDS was delayed, so that the time between AIDS diagnosis and death appeared shorter. They support this argument by pointing to the decline in PCP as an AIDS-defining illness in the early 1990's. Again, check the article a bit more carefully - it certainly doesn't support the idea that early antiretroviral regimens were harmful - quite the opposite.

HIV is necessary for AIDS. It's also sufficient. I'm not sure what led you to conclude otherwise. Duesberg's silence since the advent of protease inhibitors is indeed curious - for a long time, the standard AIDS-denialist line of attack was that the "HIV paradigm" had not yielded effective treatments. Then, after 10 years of intensive research effort, suddenly there were effective treatments based on the "HIV paradigm". The scientific method might dictate a reappraisal of one's conclusions, but the response has been more along the lines of silence or goalpost-shifting. The idea that protease inhibitors prolong life by "attacking cellular functions" or acting as a "simple antibiotic" don't really make any sense to me on a logical or biological level.

One can argue about the Bangui definitions. I think they probably lead to error on the side of overclassification, rather than underclassification. That said, they were developed to try to come to grips with a deadly, explosive epidemic in areas where high-tech microbiological testing was not always available, and are best understood in the context - as the best effort of public health professionals working in adverse circumstances - rather than as a deliberate fraud. Even if you take the dim view, it seems quite odd to leap from that to the conclusion that HIV is harmless. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my conclusion was erroneous ... my approach was not to take their conclusions at face value, but to actually evaluate the data. The chart I linked (directly from the paper) shows that for the first year after diagnosis, all cohorts in the study had very similar fatality rates -- roughly 40% died during the first year in all the groups. And in fact, the lines with the least steep slope (meaning the lowest death rate during that first year) is the earliest cohort. That's where I drew my conclusion from. I understand their conclusions do not match that, but in my line of work I see too many people draw bad conclusions from data to pay much attention to conclusions -- instead, I always go back to the data. In this case, I think the data supports a conclusion that something in 1997 profoundly changed the prognosis for AIDS patients -- presumably the new drug released that year. However, I think the effect of all prior drugs was absolutely minimal. I'm curious for your insights on the "AZT acts like an antibiotic" argument, because it seems compelling to me. It goes like this: If AZT inhibits the replication of genetic material, it would slow the growth of all pathogens, both viral and bacterial. It was, after all, originally designed to inhibit the growth of cancer. As a result, it would act like an antibiotic, reducing rates of infection and slowing death. At the same time, because it is itself highly toxic, it would also contribute to the patient's slow deterioration. Does that not follow in your opinion? I certainly wouldn't jump from "Bangui definition is overly broad" to "HIV is harmless." My only inference was that it is such a poor definition in my opinion that it casts a negative light on the credibility of the public health officials who made that decision -- which caused me to dig into the meat of the issue itself to see what was behind it. I'd never heard of this controversy before this week, really -- except in the context of Mbeki's "AIDS denialism." But today I was reading, and realized that his views are much more subtle than they are presented by the Western media -- he is not denying AIDS. He is arguing that AIDS is overdiagnosed in Africa (as a result of the Bangui definition), and that AZT does more harm than good. Right or wrong, it's not nearly as ignorant as I had been led to believe. Ungtss (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're not really going back to the primary data. You're looking at one figure (while disregarding the multivariate statistical analysis showing that even early antiretrovirals reduced the risk of death), and you're evaluating it in isolation without considering potentially confounding biases (e.g. lead-time bias). That said, I would agree that the effect of AZT and other antiretrovirals on long-term survival was minimal until the introduction of combination therapy with protease inhibitors.

There are a number of problems with the "antibiotic" argument. First of all, antibiotics each have a specific mechanism; none are broadly effective against all infectious organisms. There is some preliminary evidence that AZT may have some effect against specific bacteria (e.g. Salmonella, PMID 10228081; and see also PMID 17615154). However, the idea that AZT is globally clinically effective against the wide variety of bacterial, fungal, protozoal, and viral pathogens which afflict AIDS patients is farfetched. No antibiotic or "chemotherapy" drug works like that, though it would be great if one did. Given the evidence of HIV's pathogenicity and the clear suscpetibility of HIV to AZT, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the driving factor behind any improvement is the anti-HIV activity. Even if one accepts the "global antibiotic" claim about AZT, that doesn't explain the much greater clinical effectiveness of protease inhibitors, which were designed specifically to interact with HIV and lack any broader antibiotic effect.

Again, though, the focus on AZT is typical of Duesberg's and AIDS denialists' claims in general. AZT isn't a great drug by itself, but no one uses it that way anymore. It's meaningless to talk about AZT as if it were the only anti-HIV drug in use, or as if it were used in isolation. Highly active combination therapy has been around for 13 years now. It works. But AIDS denialists keep talking as if it were 1990.

Mbeki's views at present are a matter of conjecture - he clammed up after taking a beating for his embrace of AIDS denialism. But it's revisionist at best to suggest that he was just arguing about diagnostic criteria. That's not true. He embraced AIDS denialism - as in "a virus cannot be to blame". He ignored a mountain of evidence showing that antiretrovirals save lives - and it's not about AZT alone, it's about combination therapy. Mbeki even refused a drug company's gift of free antiretrovirals proven to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV - do you know how hard it is to lose the moral high ground to a drug company? It's ignorance, and the cost of that ignorance is well-documented (PMID 18931626). MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say AZT was a universal antibiotic ... I'm sorry if it came across that way. Certainly cocktails are the order of the day. But that fact has two potential explanations -- one is that the cocktails prevent the virus from developing resistance by attacking it from different angles. The other is that each of the elements of the cocktail has different antibiotic properties, and the more diverse the mechanisms, the greater the effect. How could we test the hypotheses? Well, my first question is, does HIV actually develop resistance? If you hit the drugs one-by-one, instead of at the same time, does HIV prevalence drop, then rise, then drop again (implying viral resistance)? Or is the overall effectiveness reduced from the beginning (implying a combined antibiotic effect)? That'd be an interesting study ... run into some hairy ethical problems in the testing, unfortunately ... maybe they could test it in culture? Ungtss (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

HIV develops resistance to single agents fairly rapidly. Its high rate of replication combined with an error-prone reverse transcriptase result in the production of large numbers of "mutant" viruses. Most of these mutations are deleterious, but some convey resistance to antiretrovirals. Combine that genetic variability with a selective pressure (e.g. antiretroviral use) and you have a recipe for rapid emergence of treatment resistance. See, for example, PMID 7824947.

Given the increasing prevalence of HIV isolates resistant to one or more antiretroviral drugs, it's actually possible to test a given patient's virus in the lab and determine which agents it is susceptible or resistant to. This information is useful in guiding treatment. In fact, such resistance testing is now recommended for all patients with HIV at various time points, given its usefulness (see current NIH guidelines, starting on p. 9). MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time with me. I understand that what you're saying is the common interpretation of the facts, and I'm sure that interpretation is used to in determining treatment. I'm curious if there's been any research to falsify Duesberg's alternative interpretation of the same facts. Did the PubMed article show a standard resistance profile in the virus -- meaning quick reduction on the first drug, then an increase after resistance is developed, then another decrease when a new drug is used? It didn't sound like it. That test would go a long way to determining the cause of the effectiveness of the cocktails, because it would show whether there actually IS the development of resistance, or if that's just an ad hoc explanation for the effectiveness of the cocktails. Ungtss (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not totally sure what you're asking. In the clinical world, the concept of "virologic failure" is more useful than resistance. Virologic failure essentially means that a given regimen fails to control a patient's HIV. There are two main causes of virologic failure: either the virus has developed resistance, or the patient isn't taking the drugs on schedule (or both). If you look at a group of patients who have been heavily treated with antiretrovirals - initially with success, and subsequently with virologic failure - you can demonstrate that their HIV strains have developed high-level resistance to multiple antiretrovirals (e.g. PMID 11176267). If you use resistance testing to select an antiretroviral regimen, you're more likely to be successful in controlling a patient's HIV (e.g. PMID 11819179). Those are pretty compelling support for the role of resistance mutations in the success or failure of antiretroviral treatment. Also, there's clear correlation between the site of resistance mutations and the site of action of specific antiretrovirals. For example, specific mutations to the reverse transcriptase gene confer resistance to RT inhibitors. Specific mutations to the protease gene confer resistance to protease inhibitors.

As to research to falsify Duesberg's hypothesis: it's already been falsified. Enough gaping holes have been poked in it that the scientific community no longer considers it viable. The lack of supporting evidence is particularly glaring compared to the obvious success of the "HIV paradigm" in explaining AIDS and developing effective prevention and treatment strategies. At some point, funding agencies and scientists have to decide how to spend their time and money. Should money and effort be taken away from the effort to develop new and promising antiretroviral treatments, or a vaccine, in order to refute a farfetched hypothesis which ignores reams of current knowledge? NASA doesn't spend money trying to refute the Flat Earth Society. Whether you call that "censorship by the orthodox scientific-industrial complex" or simply responsible resource allocation depends on where you're standing, I guess. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it -- we'll go with virologic failure. Let's assume Duesberg's hypothesis is true, for the sake of argument. Two things, then, are true: 1) HIV is harmless, and 2) antiretrovirals inhibit HIV as well as a variety of other pathogens. They are also toxic, and kill the patient in the long run. What would we expect? a) HIV would develop resistance to the antivirals -- combo treatments would suppress it. b) HIV would have no effect on the immune system -- however, over time, the antivirals would suppress the immune system, because that's what they do. The antivirals themselves would become the primary cause of the AIDS. c) The general antibiotic properties of the antivirals would suppress infection, temporarily decreasing mortality and morbidity; d) The patients would all die in the long run, because antivirals kill you. As far as I know, the facts as we know them are consistent with his hypothesis. The fact that HIV develops resistance to antivirals is irrelevant to the question of whether a reduction in HIV or the antibiotic properties of the antivirals themselves are responsible for the slight increase in longevity ... I'm curious if any aspect of that hypothesis has been falsified.

I understand the urgency to find a cure makes people reluctant to pursue alternative hypotheses. However, historically, this resistance to experimenting with other approaches has caused great tragedy. Because they thought scurvy was infectious, they didn't experiment with vitamin c deficiency. Because they thought pellagra was bacterial, they didn't investigate niacine deficiency. Because they thought beriberi was infectious, they didn't investigate thiamine deficiency. They all thought they had the answer, and treated people based on their infectious hypotheses for years or decades -- but they were wrong, and because they were both wrong and stubborn, people suffered and died unnecessarily. AIDS is by definition simply chronic suppression of the immune system. chronic drug use, sleep deprivation, blood transfusion, and malnutrition are all known to adversely affect the immune system. If those are the cause of AIDS, then HIV treatments are not only useless, but also harmful -- because antivirals are deadly drugs in the long-run. And from what I've seen, the correlation between those conditions and AIDS is much stronger than the correlation with HIV. Duesberg's papers cite studies that 90% of AIDS patients (excluding cases falling under the meaningless Bangui definition) are still male homosexuals and drug users. Blood transfusions with unrefined factor VIII clotting agent were known to have immunosuppressive qualities as early as the 70s. If we're treating the wrong condition with a poison, it's a living nightmare. And if it hadn't happened so many times in the past with other lifestyle diseases mistakenly treated as infectious, I'd be skeptical. But the same thing has happened a dozen times before ... Ungtss (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That summary may sound superficially appealing, but it glibly ignores reality. No one gets PCP, M. avium, toxoplasmosis, PML, disseminated CMV, etc from sleep deprivation, or from chronic drug use, or from blood transfusions. That's a fact, documented by any number of reliable sources as well as by clinical experience. Most of the AIDS denialists aren't physicians, so they can glibly assume that "immune suppression" is a monolithic situation, or that a "global antibiotic effect" would prolong life. In fact, the vague (but probably real) immune suppression that accompanies blood transfusion has nothing in common with the severe and profound immunodeficiency seen in AIDS.

The main problem with Duesberg's claims is that they are completely unsupported - and often directly refuted - by available data, and by reality. His claims are theoretically possible - many things are - but one can only accept them by willfully ignoring a vast body of evidence. That's why the label "denialism" has been affixed to this set of beliefs at this point in time.

I understand the superficial appeal of analogies like scurvy or beri-beri, but they actually prove my point here. In each case, theoretically appealing but mistaken ideas about these entities were held for years. However, when the scientific method was applied, the actual nutritional causes came to light. Duesberg's claims are a priori theoretically as valid as any other explanation for AIDS, just like the infectious explanations for beri-beri or the miasmic explanation of malaria. However, the scientific method has been applied; Duesberg's claims haven't stood up; and they've ended up in the pile of initially plausible but incorrect hypotheses - just like 99% of all scientific hypotheses end up. That's the scientific method. To ignore the state of evidence and try to poke more and more farfetched holes while everyone else has moved on to developing effective treatments is something else. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We certainly agree on the goal -- application of the scientific method. The trouble I run into is that Duesberg's papers are full of studies tending to support his point, while this article (and all the other refutations of him that I've read) are full of conclusory statements about how scientific consensus rejects his hypothesis, rather than hard evidence and analysis which uses the scientific method to actually falsify it ... in any event, I really appreciate your time -- you've gone a long way to educate me -- I owe you one:). Ungtss (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The most useful evidence/analysis pages rebutting Duesberg are probably those at the NIH ([1]). A useful primer on some of the literature is here.

The AIDS denialists are fairly skilled at constructing a case which sounds appealing to people without scientific expertise. I know that sounds elitist and/or condescending, but the fact is that critical appraisal of scientific literature is a skill like any other, in that it requires training and expertise. You wouldn't expect an intelligent and otherwise capable layperson to be able to fly a 737, or take out someone's appendix, or rewire a house's electrical grid without some sort of training. Similarly, although scientific literature is (increasingly) freely available, its accurate and logical interpretation is not an innate skill. The AIDS denialists realize this, and I think that's why they've focused on the Internet and on reaching intelligent but scientifically untrained laypeople.

When Duesberg used his status in the Academy to publish his views in PNAS, the peer reviewers who looked at his arguments were aghast. Even the reviewer hand-picked by Duesberg thought his case was characterized by "misleading arguments", "nonlogical statements", "misrepresentations", and political overtones. Ultimately, the editor of PNAS acquiesced to Duesberg's right as an Academy member to publish the paper, but wrote: "If you wish to make these unsupported, vague, and prejudicial statements in print, so be it. But I cannot see how this would be convincing to any scientifically trained reader." (Check out Impure Science by Steven Epstein from your library - it's an interesting read). Again, I don't say this to belittle people without formal scientific training, but it goes a ways to explaining the gulf between scientists' appraisals of Duesberg's arguments and those of laypeople. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional resources -- I've already started digging through the abstracts. As to your bigger picture argument, I'm actually of the opinion that scientific training teaches scientists how to design experiments, record data and memorize theories, but does not prepare them to evaluate competing hypotheses. Where in a scientist's training are they given two competing hypotheses and a complex data set, and required to evaluate which hypothesis better fits the facts? Never, that I've seen. Scientists deal with a single hypothesis at a time. Lawyers, on the other hand, deal with at least 2 -- often more -- competing hypotheses. They're trained not only to see if a dataset fits one hypothesis, but to see which hypothesis better fits the data. In other words, I think that while trained scientists are infinitely better than the untrained in most areas of the sciences, in this area -- the area of "which competing concept is better?" -- it is the lawyers, and those who think like them, who are better suited to evaluate the evidence. I don't mean this to say that "I know the answer" -- only that I have seen too many scientists incapable of critically evaluating hypotheses against one another, because they are trained to think in a single line of theory, rather than living in a world of competing explanations for incomplete facts.

Evaluating competing sets of facts is a unique process. You determine what each theory predicts, and find data relevant to those predictions. If a particular datapoint is consistent with both hypotheses however, it's irrelevant to the question. That's the key issue. To be useful in evaluating competing hypotheses, a datapoint must be consistent with one hypothesis, but inconsistent with the other. The bulk of the "anti-Duesberg" evidence I've seen has, on closer examination, turned out to be fully consistent with his hypothesis, and therefore not useful in refuting it. For instance, the limited effect of the antivirals in extending lifespans does not refute his hypothesis, because his hypothesis predicts that a combination of antivirals would have a general antibiotic effect which would slightly increase lifespan. The only experiment that could falsify this aspect of the hypothesis would be to show that the increase in lifespan was due to the suppression of HIV, rather than a general antibiotic effect. I haven't seen a study that establishes that yet. That doesn't mean that his hypothesis is true -- only that I haven't yet seen its refutation. Evidence that 100% of the original AIDS victims were chronic drug users, however, is strong evidence to support his case that deserves some attention.

For this part of the scientific process, I feel no need to punt to "scientific opinion." I know enough scientists personally to know that many of them can have a very difficult time seeing the world from another point of view. I could never run the meticulous experiments or memorize the billions of facts that scientists do. But seeing and assessing things from other points of view is what I do for a living:).

This article, from the primer you linked, is the perfect example. It completely fails to control for antiviral drug treatments -- a very pertinent variable, given Duesberg's hypothesis. The data two things -- 1) drug use reduces t-cell count, and 2) The T-Cell count of HIV+ patients drops over time, while that of HIV- patients stays relatively stable over time. Fine and dandy. But Duesberg's argument is that the anti-HIV drugs themselves damage the immune system. Only HIV+ individuals are going to be on those drugs. Therefore, the cause of the drop could be either HIV or antivirals. The experiment has failed to control for an essential variable, and is therefore conceptually meaningless.

I see this problem over and over with the Anti-Duesberg's paper. At first glance, they look good. But when you look deeper, you realize they failed to control for an essential variable in the competing hypothesis.

Again, scientists are trained to test against one hypothesis -- that's what they do in school. But just because a dataset is consistent with a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis is correct. Another hypothesis could also explain the data. Unless you find data consistent with one dataset that is inconsistent with the other, both remain potentially valid. The authors of this paper either did not grasp that or chose not to apply it in this case.

From an outside perspective, the more often you read published papers that are touted as evidence proving something or disproving something, but fail to control for essential variables, the less faith you have in the "peer review" process. And the less seriously you take talk to scientific consensus.

When I read the papers cited by Duesberg, on the other hand, he consistently controls for his variables. He finds the few studies that remove HIV treatments from the equation, and BOOM -- the results support his hypothesis. That builds his credibility in the mind of an outsider. Ungtss (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Duesberg does not control for anything, and in fact he does not do any experiments whatsoever with HIV/AIDS: he picks and chooses articles (or more commonly sentences from articles) that he feels support his position. Usually, he has misinterpreted even these articles or is falsely presenting them.

It is unethical to perform experiments in which antiretrovirals are withheld from HIV-positive patients. The rapid decline in t-cell populations was well-documented before any antiretrovirals were in use.

As for scientists being trained to evaluate more than one hypothesis, this is precisely what scientific training aims to do. One of the first classes many graduate students take is a literature-based course in which data are evaluated critically to determine which of several competing hypotheses they best support. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm: What's your opinion of the study I just analyzed, which failed to control for anti-viral treatment? Also, what do you think of the fact that it evaluated all drug users, instead of evaluating hard-core drug addicts? If normal, recreational drug users see a T-Cell drop, how much more significant would it be in the case of a hard-core addict who is sleep deprivated, and also suffers chronic bacterial infections from anal sex? Figure five in this article is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It isolates HIV+ hemophiliacs and HIV- hemophiliacs by before and after the introduction of the antivirals. HIV+ after antivirals (which means 'treated') skyrocket. HIV- is the same as "all" before. If the antivirals weren't the cause and HIV was, there should have been a gradual increase in the "all." There was not. Also, "All" should have been higher than "HIV- after," because it included both HIV+ and HIV-. It was not. This is a meaningful study, insofar as it isolates the variables. Ungtss (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chao article clearly shows that HIV, not drug use, causes massive depletion in T-cell counts. Recent studies have shown that HIV (and SIV in animal models) severely depletes important reservoirs of T-cells within weeks of infection. In the peripheral blood, T-cell depletion occurs more slowly. While human subjects can lie about their drug intake, animal subjects cannot. It's retroviral infection that causes T-cell depletion in these animals. Not drugs. Not stress. Not anal sex. Not bacterial infections.

Of course, my opinion or your opinion of any given study is of no consequence. The only thing that counts here is that scientists who have gathered and published data in reliable journals find that HIV infection, not drug use, causes the T-cell depletions seen in AIDS. Duesberg has not performed any such studies, but rather (as other scientists have verifiably noted) has selectively presented (and misrepresented) data of others that he feels fit his hypothesis. The result is quite convincing...unless one is familiar with the actual papers and science he quotes.

In future, please remember that this talk page is to be used to discuss specific improvements to the article. There are many internet sites where AIDS denialism is debated daily; Wikipedia is not meant to be one of them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions and ad hominem without evidence are not science. MastCell and I have been having a constructive conversation which has led to several improvements to the article. I'm certainly not here to convince anyone. But neither am I here to blindly accept the "consensus" opinion as true. I'm here to sharpen the article and my own thinking in the process. Ungtss (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That Duesberg has not performed any experiments on HIV/AIDS is not ad hominem, it is verifiable information. That Duesberg has selectively presented the data of others has been stated on the record by several prominent scientists in reliable sources. That Duesberg has misrepresented the data of others...the same. No ad hominem here. What specific changes do you propose to the article? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're really interested in learning more about the topic, please see these articles in Science by Jon Cohen. The drug article gives references to several studies that disproved Duesberg's speculation, including studies he cited. It also shows how Duesberg represented the data of others by using his own definitions and speculating about differences between groups without any proof. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly interested. The articles linked fall into the same trap. The first one I looked at, this one, again failed to control for AZT use. You cannot test whether drugs or HIV causes aids when all your HIV+ people are on AZT, a drug known to have immunosuppressive qualities. It's poor science. No mention in the article of that problem. The article then goes on to cite other studies' conclusions, but fails to go into the methodology of the study. Since the author failed to properly analyze the first study, why should I trust his predigested conclusions in the rest of the paper? I don't. He's lost all credibility because he started out the article with poor science. Ungtss (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Specific change: Well, in a perfect world, the article would describe his hypothesis fully. It currently doesn't. By exploring and discussing it here, we prepare ourselves to describe it in the article. If you like, though, I'll take a stab at it right now. Ungtss (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ungtss, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but this talk page is not meant to be a general forum for discussion of the validity of the Duesberg hypothesis or any other aspect of AIDS denialism. See the header of this page.

I would caution against accusing scientists or writers of "poor science" or having "lost all credibility" unless you have reliable sources for these accusations (for example, a series of article in Science arguing that Jon Cohen has lost all credibility). Without such sources, you are arguing from your personal views and your own understanding of the literature: not a valid basis for an encyclopaedia article and also a violation of our policies on living persons. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For the second time now, I am not here for general interest -- I am here to improve the article and believe that fully grasping the issues is the first step toward that end. The article as it stands is typical of articles describing "non-consensus" views -- full of conclusory generalizations and original research rather than descriptions of the view at hand. I'd like to fix that. However, unless you and I agree on the underlying philosophy the article should take (that is, "neutral point of view" or "view sanctioned by the federally funded scientific establishment point of view,), I'm well aware that I would be wasting my time. So I'll ask you a second time: Do you think this article should accurately describe Duesberg's hypothesis and its evidence and reasoning through cited, sourced statements, followed by an analysis of it, also based on cited sources? Or do you believe it should set up a stripped down straw man of his point of view and then repeat, over and over, that "the majority of scientists reject this," citing no sources for this statement, and then shooting off half-cocked original research arguments like the one about "epidemiological evidence." Your call. But unless we can agree on a purpose to this article, I'm certainly not going to waste time on the mainspace. Ungtss (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For medicine-related articles, Wikipedia's point of view (NPOV) is defined as the prevailing scientific consensus, or, if you prefer, the views of the "federally funded scientific establishment". This isn't my "call", it's just how things are on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that the article lacked references for criticisms of Duesberg, but if you would like to give specific examples of statements lacking citations, I'll be pleased to help remedy the problem. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the question is whether the article should more fully elaborate on Duesberg's claims. The trick is to come up with a formulation that describes the debate without engaging in it. Whenever I see a long list of point-counterpoint arguments in a Wikipedia article, WP:NPOV has just died a little bit.

I'm open to the idea of elaborating on Duesberg's claims in a more systematic, organized fashion. However, any such elaboration would need to clearly spell out the unanimity with which his claims are rejected, as well as the reasons why they are rejected. It must not give Duesberg the "last word" merely because he's published a "rebuttal" of the scientific community on duesberg.com.

Alternately, one might conclude that an encyclopedia should simply summarize Duesberg's claims and briefly summarize the reasons for their rejection, with references to other sources which handle them point-by-point. This was my goal in initially reorganizing the AIDS denialism article. It's not Wikipedia's place to systematically debunk Duesberg; it's rather a place to describe his claims and note that they have been debunked. People curious about the details can follow the links to Duesberg's papers and to the various scientific websites which still bother with demolishing his claims, and get the nitty-gritty there. Both approaches have their limitations. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article content discussion

I appreciate your approach, MastCell. I propose the following outline:

1) Duesberg's arguments regarding definitions -- his objection to lumping immune suppression beyond a certain threshold and a diverse set of diseases into a single "syndrome" with a single cause. Cited refutation.

2) Duesberg's arguments that HIV does not cause immune suppression. Cited refutation.

3) Duesberg's arguments for the cause of AIDS

a) Long term, high-frequency drug use. Refutation.

b) Bacterial infections from frequent, unprotected anal sex. Refutation.

c) Factor VIII clotting agent. Refutation.

d) AZT. Refutation.

e) Malnutrition. Refutation.

I have no objection to having the CDC have the final word. I'd only ask that cited statements of Duesberg's arguments be permitted to stand without themselves being chopped up. In other words, "Duesberg claims light is dark. However, the CDC says light is light," rather than "Duesberg wrongly claims light is dark," or "Duesberg claims that light is dark based on incorrect assumptions" or "Duesberg claims that light is cheese." What do you think? Ungtss (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In theory, that approach sounds fine to me. In practice, it has been difficult to achieve, but we can try again. It would be useful to hear from some of the other regular editors of the page as well. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll give the "definitions" section a shot, and propose tearing it up among all the editors until we have a rough consensus, then move onto the next section. Ungtss (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Duesberg's quibbles with the Bangui definition are already covered in the "AIDS in Africa" section. Of course, the Bangui definition was superseded in 1994, and has been obsolete for at least 15 years - but the rhetorical clock seems to have stopped, as with AZT. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Reliable sources rejected all of Duesberg's claims 15 years ago. There has been no new evidence for, and much new evidence against, Duesberg's hypothesis since then. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Duesberg's offer to infect himself

Wouldn't this section be better titled, "Gallo's challenge to Duesberg: go infect yourself." This hardly looks like a "stunt" by Duesberg, as the article says, since Duesberg didn't initiate it, but only responded to a "stunt" by somebody else. Ungtss (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that it's unsourced. It should probably be removed, unless/until a reasonably reliable source can be obtained to substantiate it. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prediction

The article previously said that Duesberg predicted increasing AIDS simultaneous with increasing drug use. In his paper, however, he argues that the increase in AIDS would be expected to follow the increase in drug use by about a decade, because it takes about a decade for the effect of the drugs to become pathogenic. So I fixed that, with a cited quote from his paper.

However, now the article follows that by saying: "According to the National Institutes of health, these claims are not supported by epidemiologic data. Widespread recreational drug use preceded the onset of the AIDS epidemic." There are two problems here. First, it doesn't refute what Duesberg actually said -- he predicted a decade delay, not a simultaneous correlation. Is there any study refuting his "delayed correlation" claim? Second, the link doesn't lead to an article. Ungtss (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I made a couple of changes. I fixed the dead links to the NIH website - they moved things around, apparently. Secondly, the current "rebuttal" at the NIH website focuses on the cohort studies which proved that recreational drug use didn't cause AIDS (the ones where HIV-negative drug users remained healthy while HIV-positive ones developed opportunistic infections and died). They don't really go into the epidemiology of drug use anymore. I've altered our text to reflect the current sourcing at the NIH website. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the information concerning the decline in absolute numbers of drug users from 1974 to 1992. Duesberg uses data that doesn't necessarily quantify actual drug use, i.e. number of drug users, such as quantities of seized drugs, etc. The number of drug users is more important, as the NIAID document shows. Drug use didn't begin in 1974. So even if Duesberg's speculation is correct (that drugs take several years to over a decade to cause AIDS), there should have been a peak in AIDS cases in the mid-1980s, followed by a steady decline. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can't find the cited article, either. I hope I have a printout somewhere... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

His argument is that there would have been a peak in the 80s and subsequent decline, but for the decision to put thousands and thousands of people on AZT in the 80s, which caused its own AIDS epidemic. Ungtss (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is really physically hard to read such assertions without debunking their obvious fallacy, but I will try. Let's leave it with what the source (NIAID) says. As KC notes, the source used to mention epidemiologic data on drug use to rebut Duesberg (if I recall correctly); it now cites the numerous cohorts which have more directly falsified Duesberg's risk-AIDS claims, so we'll follow the source. I'll look around for the epidemiological arugments; if there's another source, we could reinsert them. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The old source is not all that important. The reliable sources not that while recreational drug emergency room visits and deaths have risen considerably since the early 1990s, and while the number of people taking AZT and other antiretrovirals has also increased, AIDS deaths have dropped by 2/3 to 3/4 in areas where ARVs are widely available. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Digging up the dead...

Having read the article, I tend to agree with the original poster that it gives an aura of POV.

For instance, "scientific consesus" is a last-resort arguement because science (at least imho) is not democratic concept based in polls and gallups. Moreover, the mention that the effectiveness of antiretroviral medication refutes Duesberg hypothesis, does not seem a valid arguement, because it can be a matter of coincidence and for all I know it is not permanent. On the contrary I guess one could say that the incapability of the scientific community to find a definite treatment or even a vaccine would be a point in favor of Duesberg.

Anyway, the point I would like to make, is that the central part of the Duesberg hypothesis, in my mind, is the connection between the HIV and AIDS, and more specificly the role of HIV in the decline of the CD4 population (which, below a threshold, becomes the defining part of AIDS in comparison with HIV).

In Luc Montagnier's book, "New concepts in AIDS pathogenesis", Medical, 1993 the subject is mentioned twice.

Pg 292: DOES HIV REALLY KILL T CELLS? Whole passage, but more specificaly, "...The interpretation is that the virus does not kill T cells under physiological conditions..."

Moreover in chapter 9, it is further discussed the fate of the CD4 population. The death of the cells, and the decline of their population is actually atributed to apoptosis and not necrosis, meaning self-destruction (or PCD as mentioned) and not destruction by outer factors, like the HIV virus.

If this is indeed correct, then HIV alone cannot lead to the destruction of the cells, but there may be other factors contributing to it. It also seems to support the idea of Duesberg, that retroviruses do not actually destroy cells, an so they may be harmless.

http://books.google.gr/books?id=o4_aPTuHD1oC&dq=Montagnier+hypothesis&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Aljawn (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. The scientific community has found effective treatments for HIV/AIDS. You think that the lack of a vaccine or cure - for a novel retroviral disease first identified only 25 years ago - supports Duesberg's claim? That seems illogical. There is no vaccine against malaria despite decades of effort - do you therefore deny that it's caused by Plasmodium? There's no vaccine against hepatitis C - does that support the idea that hepatitis C virus is harmless? I could go on - the list of viral diseases lacking a vaccine or cure is lengthy, but for some reason only HIV/AIDS seems to attract this sort of fallacious argument.

Clumsy attempts to quote Luc Montagnier out of context are sort of a staple of the AIDS-denialist movement. I think these sorts of intellectually dishonest and transparent gambits have contributed to the fact that no one takes AIDS-denialist claims very seriously even on a rhetorical level anymore. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Out of Context Makes This Too Vague

Regarding...

Duesberg writes, "retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA."[1] Duesberg elsewhere states that "the typical virus reproduces by entering a living cell and commandeering the cell's resources in order to make new virus particles, a process that ends with the disintegration of the dead cell".[43]

This makes it sound like Duesberg is affirming two conflicting ideas, when, in fact, the latter quote Duesberg could be saying, "a virus uses the living cell until its natural death", instead of, "a virus uses the living cell causing its death". Out of context it is not clear enough which meaning is intended. The quote should be removed.

Duesberg's overall meaning COULD simply be that "in comparison to other viruses, HIV cannot cause any unusual damage to cells because of a virus' need to have ongoing hosts for replication. This replication would obliterate all the cells if it weren't for the immune system"? This section needs more detail. I know what the author's intent is, but I have no idea what Duesberg's was in the first place. Am I making sense? Odostaples (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed False statement

I've removed that point on the Scientific response to the Duesberg hypothesis part.

• HIV fulfills Koch's postulates

The two provided references does not validates the Koch's Postulate but rather explain why this could be irrelevant for HIV. Ie: HIV does not fulfill the Koch's postulate, but neither others deseases, on which direct causal relation had been proven. weweje--213.228.1.121 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't engage in separating "False" from "True"; we simply report from reliable sources. The NIH and Science are reliable sources on this point. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article says that Koch's Postulates are fulfilled but the two citations don't say that then the article is using original research. It may be bulkier, but the wording should be changed to say that current medical/science says that the Postulates are not hard and fast rules, or as weweje says they are irrelevant ( but they don't fulfill them either ......). If the references are scientifically valid then they should be used as the source of the article not some made up cr... 159.105.80.220 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Even in 1994, as the Science articles show, HIV was thought to fulfill Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. Additional evidence (lab accidents resulting in HIV infection and AIDS; transmission in animal models; the remarkable results of antiviral treatment) has led to the firm conclusion that Koch's postulates are indeed fulfilled. I cite two reviews (1996 and 2010). The take-home message is this: according to the sources, there is no longer any debate on this matter in the scientific community, and even in 1994, even with a super-strict interpretation of the mutable postulates, the scientific evidence was thought to be overwhelmingly against the Duesberg hypothesis. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Citing two sources does not establish "there is no longer any debate".Roberterubin (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

More than 60 sources are cited in this article, and many more could be cited. There is absolutely no scientific debate on HIV as the cause of AIDS. None. Nor has there been any serious debate in almost twenty years. If you have reliable sources for an ongoing debate, please present them. Otherwise, this is not a forum for continuation of an imaginary debate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Article violates Wikipedia NPOV policy

The comments in the section on Scientific community and Mullis demonstrate the bias of one of the editors, who routinely and aggressively, removes any reference to supporters of Duesberg in the scientific community. They exist, and include the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis. Note the biased characterization of HiV discoverer Luc Montagnier.

One issue is the fuzzy characterization of the "Duesberg Hypothesis" in the first paragraph. Propoerly stated, it should probably refer only to Professor Duesberg's view that HIV does not cause AIDS. His ideas on what does cause the conditions associated with AIDS have been put forward by Duesberg as alternative views better supported by evidence, but requiring further study.

See the body of this discussion page for more evidence of violations of NPOV.Roberterubin (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See my comments above, and have a look at some of our sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Until reliable secondary sources providing support for Duesberg's hypotheses is provided, this is a frivolous tagging and would support it's removal. Yobol (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But apparently Dr. Duesberg himself is not to be considered a "reliable source" concerning his own views. The Duesberg articles that are cited do not support what is attributed to them as citations. This article is a textbook case of NPOV violation, IMHO. Roberterubin (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course he is reliable for his views. His views are not reliable for what is accepted in the medical community, which does not hold his views in high regard. To suggest that any of his ideas have support would required WP:MEDRS compliant sources stating such. This discussion is going nowhere without high quality sources. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As I stated in response to Rubin on my talk page, the medical literature is universally dismissive of Duesberg's notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. The only reason anyone still mentions it in the literature is because of the profound toll it has taken on human lives and health. See this recent MEDRS-compliant review. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Yobol for removing the frivolous tag, where the editor obviously misunderstands what constitutes neutral POV. No one of note, other than fellow deniers, of which there are maybe 3 prominent scientists. But since science doesn't work on a voting democracy, but on consensus, publications, data review, etc. etc., until these nutjobs can provide sources that they are not nutjobs, the article is perfectly NPOV. Perfectly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me just go over what started all of this. I made two minor edits to the article: One cited Kary Mullis, the inventor/discoverer of the PCR test, as a supporter of Duesberg (which he is, according to "reliable sources" -- see his forward to Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus"), and to insert "majority of" in front of "scientific community" in describing support for the conventional wisdom about HIV causing AIDS (which I agree with, BTW). That's it. The response was not discussion, but deletion of my edits. Then came the name calling. At which point I inserted the POV tag. You may not agree with it, but it is not frivolous. Now, judging from the vociferous reaction to those two very minor edits as well as to my suggesting that such a strident reaction may be evidence of bias, and then the reaction to THAT (which included a threat, by the way) I do not think that any further posts are worth it. It is curious, however, that given the article is titled "Duesberg Hypothesis", and Duesberg was considered a "reliable source", at least until he began dissenting from the HIV view on AIDS, that a direct quote of his position as well as the published responses he has provided to his critics, are both not present in the article. Now if the article was captioned "HIV and AIDS" or something along those lines, I can understand such omissions, but in this case it smacks of POV by the two editors involved in this who appear to believe that because a scientist's views become unpopular, those views need not be stated accurately and carefully. And THAT is not consistent with Wikipedia policy So with that, I'll let the uncivility and bias so amply demonstrated here have its day without further comment or objection.Roberterubin (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to water down the phrase about the consensus against Duesberg without providing any reliable sources to back that up. Until you provide said sources, this discussion is going nowhere. Yobol (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, this conversation with Robertrubin has gone round and round. I've seen this kind of editing before. They editor's imagined version of NPOV is their version of POV. Duesberg is an AIDS denialist, not because thousands of scientists support him, but because maybe three or four. Changing that in any way without verification is not acceptable. But now Robertrubin is going to waste our time with a mediation which will go nowhere, unless we're supposed to mediate every fringe idea. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The dispute seems to be over two edits, as best I can tell. Kary Mullis has expressed sympathy for Duesberg and some degree of support for his ideas over time. Assuming this could be properly sourced, it might be worth a sentence in this article. Alternately, it is presumably verifiable that Mullis wrote the foreword for Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus, so we could simply mention this fact (e.g. "The foreword to Duesberg's book was written by Kary Mullis.")

The second issue is the "majority" of the scientific community (vs. simply "the scientific community"). Here I agree strongly with Orangemarlin and Yobol. It is technically correct to say that the "majority" of the scientific community dismisses Duesberg's claims, in the same sense that the "majority" of the scientific community accepts the reality of gravity and heliocentrism. However, it's a bit misleading, because it's not just the majority - it's the entire community. I am not aware of any ongoing scientific investigation into Duesberg's claims - they don't have the necessary plausibility to interest any serious scientist in testing them. We shouldn't use wording which suggests there is a division of scientific opinion (into "majority" and "minority") where no such division in fact exists.

Finally, as a meta-issue, I think it's a common fallacy (but a fallacy nonetheless) to ascribe Duesberg's failure to "unpopularity". That makes it sound like his ideas simply lost out in a popularity contest, when in fact his claims were rigorously tested and rebutted through the scientific method. Duesberg didn't cease to be "reliable" when he started "dissenting" from the HIV/AIDS hypothesis - he ceased to be taken seriously when it became clear that no amount of objective evidence could convince him that he was wrong. That's why reliable sources typically describe him as a "denialist" (someone who denies an objective, widely understood reality) rather than using the more explicitly political term "dissident". He failed on a scientific level, not a political one. But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell. I agree with your recommendation. In fact I had submitted a revised edit which kept the Kary Mullis reference and dropped the "majority" qualifier.Roberterubin (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We said this all along. However, it isn't quite what MC said. Source it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

MC, I'm less bothered by the Kary Mullis issue, since he is an AIDS denialist too (but of a different sort). The issue of a small number of scientists supporting a denialist point of view runs across numerous denialist or pseudoscientific articles, whether it's Creationism, Homeopathy, Sasquatch, or anything in everything else that's been debunked. First of all, there is way too much undue weight given to the fact that 3 or 4 scientists have denialist viewpoints. Second, science isn't a democracy with a vote. You know if there were a few hundred scientists, with great credentials, who hypothesize that AIDS is not caused by HIV, and there was research published in peer-reviewed journal, and there were huge arguments at major science meetings, I would say that there might be something to be said about the denialist viewpoint. But right now, there is no controversy. Duesberg is a denialist by any definition. He uses rhetoric rather than science. Using political terminology only seals the deal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Although Mullis wrote the foreword to Duesberg's book in the early 1990s, he seems to have been relatively silent on the issue in recent years. I agree that Mullis's past activities could be mentioned in the article, but probably not in the lead and not in the sense of "Check it out! Nobel Prize winners support this hypothesis!" I also can't agree with the idea that the entire article is POV because it doesn't mention Mullis or grant equal time to science and denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling, though I have no evidence, that Kary Mullis must feel like the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield's Lancet article.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Here's the response to the request to "source it": Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter H. Duesberg, Forward by Nobel Lauriat Kary Mullis (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996, ISBN 0-89526-399-8)Roberterubin (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that Mullis wrote the foreword to Duesberg's book almost twenty years ago. Where is the evidence that he was and is a prominent supporter of the Duesberg hypothesis? If this evidence exists, is it sufficient to place Mullis in the lead, or in a sentence elsewhere in the article? Basically, where are you getting your information on Mullis, Montagnier, and others as supporters of the hypothesis? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You may read the Forward yourself. As I said, this started with two minor edits, and I agreed about removing the one that qualified scientific consensus, and just wanted to insert Mullis as a supporter of Duesberg, since he is more prominent than the ones listed. But, frankly, as mentioned earlier, and for the reasons given earlier, I have lost interest in pursuing this. I do think that the article should be more rigorous in stating Duesberg's views, whatever his current standing is among the HIV research community. I also think more civility and less name calling would be beneficial in discussions of this sort, but let us simply leave it at that. I don't think further discussion would be useful to anyone.Roberterubin (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert, this isn't a negotiation. Removing the statement about "a majority of scientist" doesn't mean we then ignore WP:MEDRS and put in the information that isn't sourced. You'll have to do better than something that's 20 years old. Has Mullis written or said anything that could be considered to be support of Duesberg or any other AIDS denialist POV? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And who's calling whom names? Who's being uncivil? Just because we don't agree with you hardly makes us uncivil nor does it mean we're calling you names. Got to any article on Creationism....there's real incivility and name calling. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the foreword, and I've also read Mullis's book. They don't answer the question: Is Mullis currently a supporter of the Duesberg hypothesis? As for name-calling, the word "denialism" is used for the Duesberg hypothesis and related belief systems in reliable sources; that's why we use it here. I agree, however, that further discussion is pointless. Unless all participants understand the basic principles of weight and what constitutes a reliable source, we're not speaking the same language. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This can probably be solved by noting that Mullis wrote a foreword (or a "supportive foreword", although that may be redundant) to Duesberg's book in 1990-whatever. If he's been quiet since, then we can leave it at that, neither suggesting that he's changed his mind nor that he continues to vocally support Duesberg. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mullis has certainly made denialist statements. In addition to the Duesberg foreword, he made AIDS comments in his Dancing Naked in the Mindfield book. He even did one of those classic "You can't show me the single paper that proves..." fallacies. I agree that since this is all well in the past, we wouldn't want characterise Mullis as a prominent supporter of the Duesberg hypothesis without some more recent evidence. Another problem is that if we introduce Mullis the Nobel Prize laureate, we should probably present this in the context of Mullis's other, shall we say, interesting beliefs and behaviours. I think it's better just to leave him out of this article, but I'm not opposed to MC's suggestion of a brief note. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion that any reference to Mullis' support for Duesberg should include extraneous material to discredit him seems to me entirely improper. Moreover, the article's enumeration of who the "most prominent" supporters of the "Duesberg Hypothesis" are is sheer opinion, violating both the OR and reliable source policies. Finally, I am not an AIDS denialist and resent that characterization. I believe the conventional wisdom about HIV and AIDS. I also believe in fairness and accuracy. Sorry to have weighed in again despite having said I would not, but I do feel the need to defend the integrity of my position.Roberterubin (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in learning more about this topic and some of the individuals mentioned here, I would recommend Seth Kalichman's book, "Denying AIDS". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Scientific community and Mullis

An editor has stated that Kary Mullis is a prominent proponent of the Duesberg hypothesis and that "a majority" of the scientific community opposes Duesberg. Neither modification is supported by the sources. As I explained on my talk page:

First, Mullis is prominent, but his views on AIDS, although probably denialist, do not seem to fall squarely under the "Duesberg Hypothesis".

Second, no respected working scientist agrees with Duesberg, and even those few who once supported him for one reason or another have changed their tune. The notion that Luc Montagnier is a "rethinker" or otherwise agrees with Duesberg is what is referred to in polite society as bullshit. Montagnier reportedly has some bizarre ideas (water memory, etc.), and has said some controversial things, but at no time has he espoused the Duesberg Hypothesis. Yes, you can find this sort of nonsense on the Internet, but Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Montagnier has stated repeatedly that he believes HIV infection can only lead to AIDS if cofactors are involved. At one point, he suggested another microorganism for this role. And Mullis wrote the introduction to Duesberg's book and has since then repeatedly questioned whether HIV is the cause of the conditions associated with AIDS. Whether these views fall " squarely" in support of "the Duesberg Hypothesis" as described in the article is an open question, given how vaguely the latter is stated. But they do support Duesberg's central claim that HIV is not the cause of the illnesses that define AIDS.Roberterubin (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't given a source in this entire conversation, but even if Montagnier has invoked cofactors, it would still mean that he thinks HIV is necessary for AIDS. That's not the Duesberg hypothesis at all. If you can't provide sources for Montagnier (or Mullis) as supporters of the Duesberg hypothesis specifically, you're wasting your time and ours. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention Mullis' support for AIDS is like a mechanic supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis in the face of all those structural engineers and architects. Mullis is not an AIDS researcher, none of the denialists are. Mullis also believes in astrology and that a glowing raccoon from another planet talked to him once. Mullis is apparently quite a brilliant biochemist but not much of a virologist or critical thinker in general. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Virusmyth.com

I got information from an article found on virusmyth.com that was written by a Law Professor, a Doctor who won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and an ex-representative of the state of Georgia, and it was reverted and accused of being "unreliable", please explain how these people are unreliable.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how virusmyth.com meets the criteria set forth for appropriate sourcing in our policies and guidelines. Specifically, do you believe that virusmyth.com has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that it doesn't check for facts and accuracy and you give no reason to believe that it doesn't. How would I go about getting this source confirmed as reliable?--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You would make a case that the site meets our sourcing criteria. The burden of doing so is on you, particularly since everyone else seems to see the website as completely inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly an inappropriate source for any information, especially WP:BLP information in this context. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly? Please elaborate, I see no reason why this source wouldn't be accepted, just because you don't agree with the message of the site doesn't mean that it is wrong. Please give me a good reason why this site isn't a reliable source. Specifically the article written by the aforementioned persons.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The website is a self-published website pushing fringe medical ideas. It cannot be any clearer. Yobol (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another site with the same exact information from a reputable magazine: http://reason.com/archives/1994/06/01/what-causes-aids . Would you consider this reliable?--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For what purpose? What content do you envision attributing to this source? MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Walter Gilbert does support the theory--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems doubtful that Gilbert does support the theory, at present. The Skeptic's Dictionary states that Gilbert is among a number of prominent individuals previously associated with AIDS denialism who "have changed their views and have come to accept that HIV is an important causal factor in the development of AIDS." ([2])

I would be very hesitant to ascribe AIDS-denialist views to Gilbert at present, particularly on the very limited sourcing you've provided (virusmyth.com, a 1994 article by several AIDS denialists). If someone as prominent as Gilbert is truly and prominently in support of these claims, then shouldn't we be able to turn up something a little more substantial, in terms of sourcing? Does that raise a red flag in your mind? After all, Wikipedia policy states that exceptional claims require high-quality sources, and the idea that a Nobel Prize winner supports a widely discredited fringe claim is pretty exceptional.

In Mullis' case, we have his own words on the subject, but in Gilbert's case it seems like you have to stretch and Google-mine pretty far to come up with anything. I think that, given this is a WP:BLP issue, we need to do better. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the site above is where the information that I found on virusmyth.com originally came from. Virusmyth.com just copied it. If you do not believe that Reason Magazine is a reliable source then I will respect your judgement and pursue this no further until a reliable source is found.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This page also states that Walter Gilbert supports the Duesberg Theory: http://www.smart-publications.com/interviews/mavericks-of-medicine/dr-peter-duesberg/ . Two very reliable sources state that Walter is a supporter, at this point I think it is safe to say that he does support the theory, any objections?--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I object. I'm not familiar with smart-publications.com and question its reliability. Jacksoncw, if you want to state that Gilbert is a supporter (present tense) of the hypothesis that "various non-infectious factors such as recreational and pharmaceutical drug use are the cause of AIDS, and that HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is merely a harmless passenger virus" as you have been trying to do you need to:

1. Demonstrate that Gilbert presently, or at least recently, doubts the mainstream opinion. Find something that actually quotes Gilbert from, say, the past decade. (Almost everything I've seen referring to Gilbert attributes undated opinions to him or quotes statements from late 80s/early 90s--20+ years ago--along the lines of "I don't think Koch's postulates have yet been met".)
2. Demonstrate that in addition to doubting the mainstream opinion, he supports Duesburg's alternate hypotheses.

Given the info found at Talk:Walter Gilbert, I will not support inclusion of this WP:BLP claim until both of these conditions have been met in reliable sources. — Scientizzle 16:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is the most recent publication of his opinion, and the most reliable source. If someone as notable as him had changed his opinion, I think he would have made it known by now. The most "recent" publication is this reliable article. So in my opinion, it does meet those conditions.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duesberg hypothesis. 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/20070614103019/http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.pdf to http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_treatment_en_pdf.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) 12:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: controversies

Fact is, the argument used against Duesberg (i.e. his data-selecting pro domo sua) may be also used against his critics. To really destroy Duesberg's hypothesis, you'd test the WHOLE world population for HIV. Only this way you could really see if the HIV infection is meaningful or not regarding AIDS. 62.117.240.189 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Kary Mullis again

It appears that the addition of Kary Mullis to the article's lede has already been discussed at length in the archives. Since Mullis wrote the forward to the book over twenty years ago, it would be inappropriate to use this primary source to suggest that he is currently a supported of this hypothosis. He very well could be, but this should be supported with a reliable contemporary source, and should also be contextualized in the body of the article, before being added to the lede. This should be done for all proponents, actually, but I will leave that up to further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Effectiveness of antiretroviral medication"

This section starts with "The vast majority of people with AIDS have never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT (zidovudine) in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications.", sourced to a 2003 UNAIDS report. Conditions in less-developed countries with respect to antiretrovirals have changed a lot in 18 years. I doubt any equivalent statement would be made today.

I hope someone with an understanding of the current antiretroviral drug situation in LDCs will kindly update the section, rewriting it in a nuanced manner from current sources. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

technicality

The 2008 (14) study did not find an effect on CD4 and CD8 cells whereas it is stated in the article that the study found there was no effect on CD4 and CD8 cells which could be considered misleading 101.174.216.174 (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead Cleanup

A heads-up: I was B and edited the Lead to make it tighter and hopefully slightly more stylistically elegant. 100% of the content and citations prior to my edit are retained after my edit, and I’ve added in nothing new. The ordering of content is also nearly identical to the prior version. Normally, I wouldn’t make a note of making an edit like this, but since this is a controversial article and since I modified the Lead, I just wanted to make a note of my edit here on Talk. As always, feel free to R if you don’t think my edits were an improvement, and then we can start the D. I’m not watching this page, so please ping me if you’d like to discuss. ThanksForHelping (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)