User talk:46.34.241.204

Not only that, you are constantly deleting two things without merit, one the words highly controversial, which is 100% true, and the other mention of the Bangui criteria which help explain his point. If you continue to do this you are engaging in censorship and I have to wonder why that is. The Bangui criteria were demonstrably different to how things were done in other places, such as the USA, Canada and UK, where for purposes of insurances the amount of T Cells people had would trigger insurance in the USA, whereas this wasn't even a criteria in Canada. The interview about Bangui 100% confirms his point people were treated differently. If that doesn't sit well with you, that is your problem. That happened and there is a vast amount of argument the criteria caused a massive amount of suffering equal to any people not taking AZT/antivirals, a highly dangerous drug. It has been argued by multiple people that had normal treatment not been withdrawn from people quite possibly not "AIDs" patients, or even if they were, still continuing to give care, would have had beneficial effects for their quality of life and perhaps helped them survive their ailments like TB. The fact of the matter is, AIDs changed in what it was supposed to be on multiple occasions, so for you to say "it is proven HIV causes AIDS" is not accurate, because AIDs changed as a definition on multiple occasions, meaning HIV did not cause some of the things AIDs at one point was assumed to be. It is also disingenuous, because there has never been a trial to check what happens to people if they take a large amount of drugs, do not sleep properly for over a year, have thousands of sexual partners and all the above at once, etc etc, because it would be fundamentally unethical. Therefore no one can disprove his supposition that in many cases, what was manifested wasn't a large part due to lifestyle. Not all people who had HIV positive tests had AIDs or do. From my understanding of your critique, I don't believe you have actually read Duesberg's book/work and fully understood his points. If you did, I don't think you would treat him the way you are.

July 2021

Your recent editing history at Peter Duesberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am engaged in a talk. Others editing are not.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Peter Duesberg.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---