Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon denialism.svg

This denialism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Contents

[edit] Title

its on my list...hopefully in during next 36 hrs--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:17, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Awesome. I think I started in the wrong direction (Reagan ignoring AIDS), the 2nd paragraph is what is really meant, right? humanbe in 14:27, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

My edit that added "combinations of factors"...I seem to recall that part of the controversy was that not all people who came into contact with HIV would go on to have AIDS or have a version that was less severe. Now, (in retrospect) we know there are several strains of HIV floating around (Not literally, thank the gods) but you know...ANYway the "co-factors" seemed to center around sexual contact frequency, How many different men did one have sex with and like that.

I also saw a show, (produced by the BBC, I think, that seemed to say that HIV was the viral equivalent of Bubonic Plague (the Black Death), which was bacterial. This show also went on to say that men who were descendants of those who survived the plague might do better if exposed to HIV.

~~ CЯacke® 15:07, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
That was because a certain gene happened to provide protection against both diseases, that doesn't mean both are bacterial, it probably means both diseases share a vital protein.
MiddleMan 12:07, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
The black death has never been definitively characterized. It has always been presumed that it was Plague, but it may have been influenza or another viral disease. There is a cellular protein in some caucasians that seems to protect them from the worst effects of HIV.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 12:41, 23 July 2007 (CDT)


Basically, the HIV denial movement, led by folks such as Peter Duesberg and a few African leaders, says that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and demotes it to either a co-factor or a non-issue. Usually drug use or other moral depravity is named. Duesberg, an otherwise decent scientist, comes from that side. However, there is a mov't also that believes HIV is an engineered virus let lose on the world by The Usual Suspects.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 16:58, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

This seems more like an article on HIV/AIDS then on HIV Denial. ThunderkatzHo! 11:38, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Good point...I'm getting there, I promise...this is just the background on why they are fucked up.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 11:46, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Still working...

...and your patience is appreciated. I plan on finishing up about 2200 GMT. I've got a lot of stuff ready for it. 162.82.215.199 14:02, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry to be picky again, but shouldn't your summary be more about denialism that HIV/AIDS itself? Also, should this be under pseudoscinece? ThunderkatzHo! 17:28, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Good point again...hard to work on this and on work at the same time. I need to dig up the citations for Koch's postulates (time-consuming), and keep working on the summary, and maybe more...i'd be happy to have help as my espresso is wearing off.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:31, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

We also need to develop a section on African HIV denial.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:35, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Footnote on "History" header? Shouldn't it be after part of the "history" section? Just nit-picking, I know you're not done yet. humanbe in 18:26, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, i incorporated it later, but it's a well-used ref. Have to figure out where to put it.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:28, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
You could always do something like "This section largely based on [1]" ? humanbe in 18:52, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Has anyone else noticed how much work we're getting done without HoG around? Anyway, I could really use help with the Africa section. A good starting point will be the external link in the article.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:33, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I was just thinking that... humanbe in 18:52, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Assistance

I need an outside eye here. If someone could help me with the Africa stuff (if not, I'll get to it), also does anyone think we need more on Denialism, more examples, etc? More info to discredit the actual people involved? (although id rather let the facts speak for themselves). I'd like this to be good, so please be brutal.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:58, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, you guys just don't like me and want my wife to hate me, don't you?--PalMD-Goatspeed! 20:11, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Quit whining ;) I offered to copyedit, at least, when you're ready. I will also make brutal notes here if I think of any. I want to wait until you're kinda done to reduce edit conflicts, though. Although I will at least work section by section. Did you fix the repetition of the phrase "flooding hospitals" yet? humanbe in 20:13, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
No i didnt no i didnt.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 20:14, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Help!

HIV denialists are attacking the blog!User:PalMD

Fingers in ears: "La, la,la, la,la, la,la, la,la, la,la, ... Not listening!" SJGsjg 10:55, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

(sobbing) User:PalMD

[edit] Reagan

St. R. deserves his own section, methinks. "Despite lack of support from the Reagan administration" hardly does justice to the years of delay in attention to the disease due its mostly afflicting society's less popular members. And he was teh freakin' president guy. Didn't he even later regret/apologize for moving so slowly on it? humanbe in 18:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] AIDS as divine punishment

Top of this article says it "does not address the various ideas that AIDS is punishment from God". Do we have an article about this? I couldn't even see it mentioned in the AIDS article. If there isn't already an article on it, there should definitely be one, as this idea was a pretty big deal in the '80s, & is still clung to by a few repugnant crazies like Fred Phelps. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

If AIDS is a punishment from God, the lesbians are the chosen people. Francine 08:20, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Interesting. . . . weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:22, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
I had a science (I want to say chemistry, but I'm not totally sure) teacher at my public junior high school who used to spout stuff like this. I can remember thinking how silly and inappropriate it was, but I didn't have the guts to challenge it. This would have been circa 1987-88. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 08:17, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Wow. That sucks. How could a scientist possibly believe that crap? (Rhetorical question - I know some do). weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:20, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't remember us creating one specifically on that subject. I'm not sure what we'd say - except that some strange people believe it. One might argue that it doesn't really lend itself to debunking as nobody (as far as I am aware) claims to hold some pseudo-scientific belief which justifies it. One the other hand perhaps our more religiously-minded members would wish to point out that it would be a rather strange way for a hypothetically just God to behave. In any event I'll add a comment in Divine retribution- but that doesn't mean that you couldn't create an article Weaseloid.--Bobbing up 09:40, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

My mistake - it's there already, but not linked.--Bobbing up 09:43, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
I've added some content to the AIDS article about this (as well as a couple of other sinister beliefs about AIDS) but not in as much detail as I woukld like, since strangely I couldn't find much out about idea of AIDS as divine retribution, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet. I had thought there would be quite a lot of coverage about it. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Footnotes

  1. xyz

[edit] "Soft" AIDS denial?

I have seen some AIDS denial-esque arguments that don't necessarily deny that HIV causes AIDS but minimize it -- the two variants of this I've seen are the "AIDS in Africa is a myth" argument (see, e.g., Tom Bethell's PIG) and the "Heterosexuals are at minimal risk from AIDS" (e.g., Michael Fumento). Both seem happy to rip off some of the talking points of Duesberg and his ilk, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Clues

The article says: People who acquired AIDS were exposed to blood and body fluids of others with the disease.. Since this refers to AIDS before HIV was proposed as a causative agent, it implies there was a clinical definition of AIDS at the time. What was it? and why there's no clinical defintion today?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

wp:AIDS defining clinical condition Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
From your link: "According to the US CDC definition, a patient has AIDS if he or she is infected with HIV and presents with one of the following:...the person has one of the defining illnesses.". HIV infection is a necessary part of the definition of AIDS. HIV infection can only be established with a lab test, therefore AIDS is clinically indistinguishable from the "defining diseases" all of which existed before and whose causes were already known. So how was AIDS differentially diagnosed before HIV tests were available? By bone pointing?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And this is relevant because? Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright, so you accept there's no clinical definition of AIDS. What makes a random disease an AIDS defining disease, then?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a disease, but a set of diseases/conditions. Just like any diagnosis, AIDS diagnoses depend on fulfilling a set of criteria. Awareness that there was something new going on came about through a small group of sexually active people all presenting with unexpected cases of previously rare conditions. Further investigation led to the discovery of a previously unknown retrovirus. This is AIDS history page one. SophieWilder 23:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. You only need one condition to get an AIDS diagnosis. Read the CDC definition again! The question you're eluding is: What turns a random condition into an AIDS-defining disease?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
God you are obtuse. Since we know of HIV, you only need one other condition. prior to that, to be diagnosed with AIDS, you needed several, and they wanted to know you were in an "at risk" group. Again, it's wrong ful, but it is what happened. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Since we know of HIV, you only need one other condition. I was talking before the test, CLINICALLY. Anone home? Anyway, why isn't gonorrhea an AIDS defining disease? or acne?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Like any syndrome, you do your best. I'm not sure what your issue is, exactly, but assessing "AIDS" largely meant: are you gay, or have sex with prostitutes or use drugs and have the following symptoms: list symptoms. Hardly a good diagnosis tool, but then again, when you don't know what causes something, or why it happens to particular groups, you do your best.--Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Therefore magic beans cure cancer. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 22:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Rather....Therefore if you do "wrong things" your illness, whose causes were known since Roman times (irony for the impaired) became AIDS by virtue of "we're doing our best, now swallow this AZT".--Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
AIDS wasn't known in Roman times... and AZT wasn't approved for AIDS until 1987, three years after HIV was confirmed as the cause of the immunodefiency that was causing the AIDS symptoms. This is AIDS history still. Why do you not know this stuff? SophieWilder 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
HIV was confirmed as the cause of the immunodefiency that was causing the AIDS symptoms. Fine. Immunodeficiency causes many more conditions than covered by the AIDS list. If HIV causes immunodefiency then it can cause them too, why aren't all of them in the list? --Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
AIDS was not known in roman times. what the heck are you on to? And yes, sadly, medicine is often "here, we heard this works, try it". Hell, I just went into my doc and her answer was "let's try this for a week, then i have 3 other things to try". WE don't understand nearly enough about the body, but we do know some drugs help some things - even when we don't know why. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
AIDS was not known in roman times. None of the AIDS definig disease existed in Roman times? Preposterous. What turns a random old disease into a AIDS defining disease? --Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you not even read my answer to that? Do you not understand the difference between a set and an item in that set? SophieWilder 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
OK the set... How could I miss it? Read the f. CDC defnition, it won't bite! You can have the whole set of infections and cancers in the list and not be diagnosed with AIDS (testing negative). Conversely, you can be in perfect health with CD4 counts below 200/uL and be diagnosed with AIDS (testing positive). So the clinical picture means zilch to AIDS. This syndrome is everything and nothing at the same time. No serious scientists want to be involved in this.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The CDC definition applies even if only one item is present, so the set is irrelevant. Anyway, let's play... why isn't gonorrhea part of the set? What makes a random disease become an AIDS defining disease?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you all enjoy banging your heads against a brick wall? He's immune to education. Brasov - until you inject yourself with HIV and then reject all treatments except for whatever woo you believe in, no one wants to talk to you. Put up or shut up. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I inject myself with HIV. What will it prove? There are two scenarios in my favour:
  • 1) I remain "hiv negative".... AIDS "scientist" explains it out: "This outcome disproves nothing, exposure to HIV not always leads to infection".
  • 2) I turn "hiv positive" but get no AIDS..... AIDS "scientist" explains it out again: "This outcome disproves nothing, Elite Controllers a rare cases of untreated hiv-infection that don't develop AIDS".
So no hypothetical outcome of this experiment would disprove HIV/AIDS theory. HIV/AIDS is not testable, it responds to every falsification with ad hoc conjectures (push forward), therefore is not a scientific theory of diseaese. I stand nothing to gain. Even if I accept and I remain healthy, your amoeba-sized brains would still woo on and drone on. --Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Still that bravado costs you nothing, so I propose a balanced deal: I inject myself with HIV and you swallow life-saving AIDS drugs until either of us drops first. Deal?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll give you $100 to inject yourself with HIV if you'll sign a waiver of my design. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey I'll chip in 100 bucks, too. Maybe we could get a pool going to sweeten the pot? Cow...Hammertime! 15:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You're trying to buy your way out the life saving meds. Pathetic. The point is to prove that no meds is more survivable than AIDS meds. For some reason Science is only valid until you become the subject of testing. --Putin2.jpg Brasov 15:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't take antibiotics when I don't have a bacterial infection. I won't take anti-retrovirals until I have a retrovirus infection. I will, however, inject myself (again) with .5ml of flu vaccine for $100, no waiver required. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrovirals are now FDA approved for HIV negative people as a means of risk reduction, just like a vaccine. So you have nothing to fear. Take this "vaccine" instead. You can't weasle out of a fair deal.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 15:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Troll Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


[edit] Meanwhile, on a planet far, far away

I know little about the AIDS controversy. (apart from the work of W.D Hamilton who was investigating the fact that monkey glands were used as a vaccine against Hepititus B and tested against New York Homosexuals. But obviously Aids is defined most by moral issues. Which immediately makes it suspect. What other diseases are framed in this way? Apart from drug 'abuse' or 'eating disorders' or schizophrenics (i.e those that do not conform to the norms of society groupthink). But I dunno... obviously STDs are seen as moral failures as opposed to the simple bacterial infections that are easily cured today by anti-biotics. But an STD related disease is 'caused' by morally deviant behaviour unlike a bacterial infection such as salmonella poisoning. Of course Homosexuality has been defined as a disease (and still is by certain psychiatric practitioners. All 'bad' behaviour is defined as being caused by a biological brain disease today (in the USA). As Szasz has said the Theocratic state has been replaced by the Theurapatic state. Both syndromes are the result of the same human thinking. (have we really evolved so much in the last 50 years or do we just believe we have?) Dirk Steele (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course 'meanwhile on a planet far far away' you will have to deny that medical science in the past has been mistaken. You probably think that disease is caused by an imbalance of humours cured by bloodletting. Can you not see you are a product of your time? No? Of course not. It is not a necessary condition for stupid people to even consider. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
So there are no cases of people getting aids from blood transfusions, biting, or other non sexual acts? can't wait to talk fibromialgia with you. and chronic fatigue. we must all just be a bunch of made up sick people!Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not qualified to even discuss AIDS. I can only state that I am suspicious of the definition of diseases that have a great moral disapproval by the majority of society. I think that it is possible that the vaccines developed to cure Hep-B (mostly to cure gays and drug users) which were created from the glands of monkeys caused an disease that jumped species. (and I am not an antivaccine nut but I do accept the possibility of iatronic deaths (third largest killer in the USA) being a moral problem open to discussion. An old New York friend of mine's son died from a blood transfusion. How prevalent was this condition? Dirk Steele (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This is starting to look more and more like a classic case of crank magnetism. You get extra points for admitting not to be qualified to discuss AIDS/HIV and immediately doing so by asserting a "suspicion".
Your "suspicion" fails into the American-Puritan trap of thinking of AIDS as a "gay disease". It ignores the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the genetic studies of HIV's history. If you are wondering how a virus can jump between monkeys and humans, here's a hint: bushmeat.
Oh, and it's "iatrogenic". And viral infections can't be treated with antibiotics, something everybody is supposed to know.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Loaded language in HIV/AIDS

The following has been removed before by some "elite" member claiming it was vandalism. I disagree. If other members see this section is an abuse of the wiki facility from my part, just say so and I'll remove it myself.

Scientists do resort to Loaded Language. When the best they have is an ad hoc speculation, Argument by assertion becomes appealing. The sneakiest variant is to include the conjecture in the name. HIV/AIDS is particularly fond of loading terms. Examples:

  • AIDS-Related Complex: Any minor condition a person might have, if she's labelled hiv-positive, we "relate it" to HIV.
  • Antiretroviral: They "stop retroviruses" by nuking any cell, through DNA termination, whether infected or not.
  • AIDS Syndrome: Set of diseases, all previously known and neither of which, alone or in combination, is exclusive of persons who test hiv-positive.
  • Asymptomatic: Healthy person in spite of being hiv-positive, and so falsifies the hypothesis HIV => AIDS.
  • Elite Controller: Healthy person that's been falsifying the above hypothesis after decades of refusing antiretroviral substances.
  • HIV/AIDS: Now the cause can't be challenged without contradicting yourself.
  • HIV Test: Here, "HIV" is loaded naming for surrogate markers (antibodies, gene fragments) of questionable specificity, rather than actual HIV.
  • Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): The proof of causality is already in the name, so look no further.
  • Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): Non-specific, proven cellular components p24 and/or Retrotranscriptase molecules in a patented cell line culture H9.
  • Peripheral Neuropathy: Effect of nucleotide analogues on nerve tissue while HIV gets the blame.
  • Specific p24 HIV core protein: A protein found in every healthy, uninfected human placenta and dozens of other tissues. Non-specific.
  • Wasting Syndrome: Extremely serious adverse effect of AZT, even disclosed in the insert, but still blamed on HIV and treated with AZT.

--Putin2.jpg Brasov 12:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Troll sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think these are strong objections that any rational person should consider. One question for you Brasov: while HIV tests do test for antibodies and surrogate markers, do you have a evidence or a source that claims that even the Western Blot test is unreliable? That is the test that is put forward by the article as definitive.97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have trouble seeing from this that anything specifically should be changed. The "Asymptomatic" claim above is wrong specifically. That's like saying people who are asymptomatic of chicken pox means that chicken pox virus does not cause chicken pox. Well, chicken pox actually recurs in old age as shingles for people exposed to the virus in youth. Similarly people with HIV/AIDS who go off ART often re-express AIDS. The idea that "HIV Test" is loaded language is patently false. It is not uncommon in scientific and medical literature as a shorthand for the different types of tests.[1] Bongolian (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll actually rephrase and say, I think there are a few good points here. The post "A convincing paper on HIV denial?" in the talk section actually has stronger evidence. It even answers my question about the Western Blot test:
"In 1990 the HIV genome was said to consist of ten genes. This year Montagnier reported that HIV possesses eight genes and according to Barr‚-Sinoussi, HIV has nine genes. Neither is there constancy of the number of nucleotides in the “HIV genome”. Also, to date, only 11 full length “HIV genomes” have been sequenced and accordingly, HIV genotype consignments are derived from sequence analysis of subgenomes measuring 2% to 30% of the total. The data is that such “genomes” vary between 3-40%. (If 30% of the HIV genome varies as much as 40%, how much does 100% of the HIV genome vary? In the HIV Western blot, how can an HIV producing one set of proteins detect antibodies that are produced in response to the set of all other disparate “HIV genomes”? When does “HIV” become some other entity?). Thus, not only are there no two HIV genomes of the same length or nucleotide composition, there is no single genetic entity “HIV DNA” to describe the myriads of “HIV genomes”. It is also estimated that patients contain between one and one hundred million distinct HIV DNAs at the one time. Neither is it correct to encompass such DNAs under the umbrella of a quasispecies of “closely related genomes” (Eleopulos, 1996)."
I think they also meant to say loaded with assumption, not loaded language in reference to the HIV test, which as has been shown, does not test for HIV directly in any way. His point is getting ahead of himself though, as he didn't put forth sufficient evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (which I think there is, in the previously mentioned article - http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/200303-NIHRebuttal.pdf). 97.70.1.221 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Elitism

I don't think it's helpful or realistic to act like the west is highly enlightened and that the rest of the world has no reason to not trust western scientists. It's perfectly legitimate and a part of the scientific method to continuously review published research and try to reproduce it. That's just a part of the process, even if we don't like it, that during the process it might be denying people treatment that would have helped, this happens in all countries (think about terminally I'll patients and radical treatment theories that could save them but is considered unethical to use the treatment since it may cause more harm than good). Further it's woefully ignorant of other people's culture and distrust of foreigners. I hardly think its unreasonable for an African country especially South Africa where it has only recently freed itself from white oppression, to doubt western science when we haven't really done anything to earn that trust, we have done plenty to earn their distrust. So get off your soap box when you want to judge people.

[edit] A convincing paper on HIV denial?

http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/200303-NIHRebuttal.pdf — Unsigned, by: Pentrazemine / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 20:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting quote: On April 23, 1984 Dr. Robert Gallo filed a patent application for an antibody test, now generally referred to as the “AIDS test”. The same day Gallo announced at an international press conference that he had discovered a new retrovirus that he called HTLV-III (now known as HIV), and that it was “the probable cause of AIDS”. This announcement caught even the scientists in the audience by surprise. Gallo had circumvented an essential part of the scientific process; he had not published his research findings in any scientific or medical journal or subjected them to the normal process of peer review prior to being announced to the public.
Another:HIV has never been “isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.” Proof of purification requires an electron-micrograph showing [pure] viral particles with the morphology of retroviruses — and nothing else. Such an electronmicro-graph has never been provided for HIV (Papadopulos, 1998b). Attempts to show the purity of so-called HIV isolates have been a complete failure (Gluschankof, 1997; Bess, 1997; De Harven, 1998a).
More: The word ʻisolationʼ is commonly used in HIV research papers and, to most people, implies that the virus has been purified. Yet, in reality, the term has been degraded to utter meaning-lessness because all that is looked for are surrogate markers (e.g. certain enzymes or proteins) which are believed to come from HIV. Not even one single intact viral particle is identified, and none of the surrogate markers that are used are actually specific to HIV. The process starts with unpurified extracts of body fluids being added to a culture of cancerous cells along with some stimulating chemicals. After several days or weeks, the culture is usually examined for one of the following signs: the reverse-transcriptase enzyme, the protein ʻp24ʼ, retrovirus-like particles or proteins that bind with antibodies from AIDS patients. None of these are specific to retroviruses. Cultures are radically changed by being exposed to atmospheric oxygen levels (21%) rather than the 0.5-10% found within the body. It seems that this is just another indication that culture systems are unrepresentative of the real world: Roy S et al. Oxygen sensing by primary cardiac fibroblasts a k key role of p24. Circ Res. 2003; 92. ( Ranki, 1988; Roy; Papadopulos, 1993a).
Another quote: Not one paramedic, emergency medical technician or surgeon in the U.S. has contracted AIDS from on-the-job exposure (CDC, 2000). Out of 733,374 total U.S. AIDS cases through 1999, only 25 are thought to be occupationally acquired, based on presumptive evidence — meaning they admitted no other risk factor (CDC, 2000). In Canada, out of 17,389 AIDS cases through 2000, only 5 are reported as occupationally acquired (PPHB, 2001). Only one case has been documented, and the evidence was weak and circumstantial (CCDR, 1992). Con-sider that the 1 million needle-stick injuries among health care workers in the U.S. each year result in about 1,000 cases of hepatitis among health care workers annually. That means that in the 18 years of AIDS, health care workers contracted 18,000 cases of hepatitis and 25 cases of AIDS. Pretty strange if HIV is a blood-borne virus!
This is a seriously devastating article backed with good sources. Seems the main page should be significantly changed.97.70.1.221 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] A few minor corrections and suggestions for improvement

From the opening paragraph: This is based on bad scientific foundations and false accusations similar to those of vaccine denialists that ART (antiretroviral therapy) is toxic.

This seems to be both false and misleading. The attempt to tie-in vaccine "denial" is clearly stretching, as anti-vaccine people think vaccines have small amounts of toxins in them (and most do have some aluminum, a neurotoxin, to initiate an immune response), and anti-HIV people are saying the drugs that were formerly used to treat HIV were toxic (in the same way chemotherapy is toxic but still considered useful) and that HIV itself is a harmless retrovirus. These are significantly different claims.

On to why it's false: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138571/

Quote: Antiretroviral agents can be responsible for a wide range of toxicities, from low-grade intolerance that may be self-limiting, to life-threatening side-effects. Differentiating between complications of HIV disease and ART toxicity (also known as adverse reactions) is sometimes difficult.

And another source: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v2/n8/abs/nrd1151.html

Quote: Although adverse reactions to antiretroviral therapy are common and profoundly affect its clinical efficacy by limiting adherence, many such reactions are poorly studied and analysed, and are under-reported.

But more to the point, anti-HIV people were referring to older drugs (usually AZT) that were known to be toxic (in the same way many cancer drugs are toxic).

In light of this information, that sentence seems quite misleading.

In the Denialism section it states on Duesberg: His latest ideas vary little from his publications of 20 years ago.

So? What's the significance?

It continues: An editorial accompanying one of his papers endorsed this idea and cited the "gay lifestyle", which seems quite bizarre, given the AIDS pandemic is most prevalent in heterosexuals in the developing world.

Why is this presented as evidence against Duesberg? This is a piece of evidence that he uses to show that AIDS is something different in America than in the developing world. He suggests it's odd that in America (and countries like it) the majority of cases are in gay men, while in the developing world it's split 50/50. There are no other diseases that act in this way. I was in fact going to suggest that this argument be added to the article. To instead find it used as evidence against Duesberg is frankly bizarre and seemingly deliberately misleading.

He suggests that AIDS cases in the developing world are more or less cases of malnutrition or significant illness and poor hygiene. These are both things that can cause an autoimmune disorder. Cases in America were largely gay men who had done large amounts of a drug called poppers which can cause an auto immune disorder.

It continues: A strong response was given by Gallo and other respected scientists in the field.

Oh, a strong response? Is that why it's not sourced? Why not quote Duesberg's objections to HIV meeting Koch's postulates?

Duesberg: 2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host. 3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).

Hm... seems like we're gonna need to see that strong response, eh?

It continues: His criticisms have been dealt with in many publications, but, like any good crank, he recycles the same, unchanging arguments over and over.[9]

Or he repeats the same sound arguments despite poor rebuttals. On his website there's an article entitled: Duesberg's Response to Blattner and Colleagues.

Hm... seems like his criticisms weren't actually "dealt with" (is that scientific language?).

It continues: His publications do not seem to address the fact that AIDS is successfully treated with anti-HIV medications.

What does this mean? How is AIDS "treated successfully?" Well, if you're on the drugs and aren't dead yet - you're a success. This claim doesn't contradict Duesberg - he claims that those with HIV infections are not at risk - so, yes, those with treatment will remain healthy since they are healthy. There is no cure for AIDS, so to claim it's successfully treated is not true.

From the Summary section: HIV/AIDS has been an example of the most spectacular medical and scientific work of the last 50 years. Shortly after the discovery of an illness, the cause was found, and successful drugs were developed. With the introduction of protease inhibitors and Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy in the late 1990s, hospital AIDS wards in the developed world closed down for lack of patients.

Why is it left out that the "successful drugs" must be taken for the rest of your life and will never cure the disease? Why isn't it mentioned that though Gallo claimed a vaccine would be soon coming (after the discovery of HIV), there has never been a successful vaccine? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts on what you've written:
  • Yes, I think you are correct regarding the opening paragraph; it could definitely be written better, as ART certainly is toxic at some therapeutic doses.
  • Regarding Duesberg not changing for 20 years. That is relevant because the science of HIV/AIDS has moved well beyond entertaining any doubts that he could be right.
Bongolian (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"That is relevant because the science of HIV/AIDS has moved well beyond entertaining any doubts that he could be right." What? That's the point under debate, if we're gonna just assume Duesberg is wrong, why even pretend that the article is attempting to be intellectually honest? Why have any sources? Just say Duesberg is wrong because we know he's wrong because he's wrong. Several times in my post I point out Duesberg's evidence has never been "dealt with" let alone refuted. The section in the talk page "A convincing paper on HIV denial?" reiterates many of Duesberg's compelling and substantiated claims.97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a substantial body of work that does refute Duesberg, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.
  • Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication: Work by infamous AIDS contrarian passes peer review by Zoë Corbyn (05 January 2012) Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.9737.
  • Duesberg Strikes a blow for HIV/AIDS denialism by Mark Hoofnagle (January 6, 2012 6:00 AM) denialism blog.
  • Debunking the new Duesberg HIV/AIDS Denialist “paper” in IJAE by Emil Karlsson (January 11, 2012) Debunking Denialism.
  • Chigwedere, P., Seage, G.R., III, Gruskin, S., Lee, T.-H., and Essex, M. Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 49:410–415 (2008).
  • Concorde Coordinating Committee. (1994) Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Concorde Coordinating Committee. Lancet. 343(8902):871-81.
  • Gregson S; Nyamukapa C; Lopman B; Mushati P; Garnett G.P; Chandiwana S.K; Anderson R. M. (2007). Critique of early models of the demographic impact of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa based on contemporary empirical data from Zimbabwe. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 104:14586-14591.
  • Kalichman, S. (2009). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience and Human Tragedy. New York: Copernicus Books.
Bongolian (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you genuinely think those are good rebuttals, or are you just giving me any rebuttal you can find? Let's see if they successfully address Duesberg's claims.
Your first article: http://www.nature.com/news/paper-denying-hiv-aids-link-secures-publication-1.9737
This does not address any of Duesberg's claims, and basically just says Duesberg is a contrarian and wrong. It's only evidence is quotes of people saying Duesberg is wrong. It's not a scientific article in any way. Why did you post this as a rebuttal?
Second Article:http://archive.is/BNPjI#selection-1893.1-1893.46
It opens again with a long pointless, eerily familiar tirade against Duesberg, but this one actually does address some evidence.
"Then they use WHO statistics showing that population is still growing in South Africa, Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa to suggest AIDS deaths in this location have been exaggerated, and worse, use South African statistics which claim only 10,000 AIDS deaths per year between 2000 and 2005. Even if we believed these data were accurate, in an environment when HIV diagnosis conferns social disgrace and under a government that similarly denied the link between HIV and AIDS, this is proof of nothing."
This totally misrepresents Duesberg's point. He's saying that the rate of deaths don't match up with what we know about germ theory, and that the overall population rates do not match up with the claimed 300,000 deaths per year in South Africa. This "rebuttal" doesn't address Duesberg's point whatsoever.
Same article: According to the authors this should result in a bell-shaped curve with rapid rate of infection then passage of the pathogen from the population. This is, of course, absurd because HIV is not yersinia pestis or plague. HIV does not get transmitted through casual contact and it does not have a rapid onset of action, often taking years before the syndrome becomes clinically apparent.
This is begging the question. Yes, why is it that HIV, which is reaching epidemic levels across the world, is also uniquely able to infect you but not make you sick for sometimes 10 or more years, and can't be easily contracted? Mainstream science claims it takes 10,000 exposures through sex to pass HIV, not 1 in 10,000, it takes on average 10,000 exposures. This is evidence that AIDS is either insanely unique despite it having almost no genetic complexity (being a retrovirus) or more simply Duesberg is correct.
Same article: But even so he misrepresents the literature, including this paper to suggest that AZT is ineffective.
This is one solid criticism, it does appear that Duesberg mischaracterizes the study as having an untreated group. Though the findings of the study still match up with Duesberg's overall theory, he seems to have been mistaken or incorrect on this one point.
There are no other significant attempts to refute the rest of Duesberg's claims.
Third article: https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/01/11/debunking-the-new-duesberg-hiv-aids-denialist-paper-in-ijae/
"This is a flawed analogy, because unlike plague, HIV does not spread through casual, non-sexual contact as Y. pestis can and HIV/AIDS can take several years to be clinically obvious, rather than having an incubation time of a couple of days (Hoofnagle, 2011)."
I already rebutted this in the last article. Why do they not mention the many other diseases that are like HIV/AIDS? Is it because there are none?
Same article: "Also, population growth is not a good measure of the impact of HIV/AIDS, because the birth rates are quite high, thereby masking the effect."
Duesberg's chart in his paper is very straightforward. The population growth is easily predictable and has no evidence of the effects that 300,000 deaths per year for several consecutive years would have. This is not a rebuttal.
Same Article: "Africa, have seen a massive decrease in life expectancy over the years that correspond to the occurrence of AIDS pandemic."
This fits with Duesberg's claims, as the treatment itself, regardless of your opinion of it, is known to be toxic and known to cause quicker aging.
The only other "rebuttal" the paper offers is again about the study I admit was mischaracterized.
In total about three of Duesberg's points were even addressed. Two were false rebuttals. One rebuts a tiny element of his overall argument which is related to treatment.
So, if that's what you call rebuttal - there has been no rebuttal. Or maybe, since the body of work that does refute Duesberg is so very substantial, you have better rebuttals? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
How about checking out the other wiki on himWikipedia's W.svg first?
Besides, if AIDS was caused by drugs and other behaviors rather than HIV, why did hemophiliacs get HIV? CorruptUser (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hold on a second! If HIV isn't caused by drugs, then why did John Podesta eat so much pizza. This is freaking important because Podesta actually knew that pizza is an antidote for getting HIV because it reverses the quantum RNA catalysis Krebs cycle catalyst Hoffman degradation. This is solid proof that HIV doesn't exist. You know what the weirdest part is? I'm not even drunk. I think I need to take a break now...—127.0.0.1 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you check wiki's page on Duesberg? There are no attempts to refute his claims there.
"Besides, if AIDS was caused by drugs and other behaviors rather than HIV, why did hemophiliacs get HIV?"
Ah, a good question. Did you know that hemophiliacs who don't have HIV can also become immune-deficient? Did you know that blood transfusions given to hemophiliacs often contain Factor VIII which is often contaminated and can cause immune deficiency? If HIV is a harmless passenger virus, then the more blood transfusions a person receives, the more likely they are to get HIV from one of the donors, and the more blood transfusions a person gets, the more likely they've received more Factor VIII. In the first case, the person does have HIV (even though it's theoretically harmless it would appear to doctors as very serious) and in the second case the person would appear to have AIDS (even though the transfusions caused the problem).
It's really not implausible that people repeatedly receiving blood transfusion would become immune deficient. Exchanging fluids at much higher rates than average increases one's likelihood of immune deficiency problems.
Any other rebuttals? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Erm... are you arguing that HIV is or is not the cause of AIDS? CorruptUser (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I've presented facts that seem to show that. Others claimed there are rebuttals to those facts but have provided no real rebuttals.97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Show what? That HIV is or is not the cause of AIDS? I'll ask again, are you trying to prove the HIV does or does not cause AIDS? No, do not answer with a "yes" that is ambiguous, say "HIV causes AIDS" or "HIV doesn't cause AIDS". CorruptUser (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"No, do not answer with a "yes" that is ambiguous, say "HIV causes AIDS" or "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"."
Why do I need to answer you in that way? This seems to be derailing the actual conversation. You are not addressing any points, you are demanding I make my opinion clear. Why does my opinion matter? Isn't the actual science the question here, not my opinion?
I agree with Dr. Duesberg's claims. I don't think HIV has been shown to be the cause of AIDS. I think the fact that the announcement that HIV causes AIDS by Gallo was at a press conference before any kind of peer review of his work had taken place should make anyone skeptical. Gallo announced he also had the patent on the HIV test. If that kind of violation of the scientific process doesn't concern you, I question your commitment to the science. However, if the data came to back HIV as the cause of AIDS, Gallo would be right despite his bad scientific practices. As I've shown, though, there are no good rebuttals of Duesberg's work, the data does not support the HIV hypothesis.
Would you like to debate the issue, or did you just want to know my opinion?97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are we keeping comments that say "This is freaking important because Podesta actually knew that pizza is an antidote for getting HIV because it reverses the quantum RNA catalysis Krebs cycle catalyst Hoffman degradation"? We're keeping nonsense comments that say pizza is an antidote for HIV? If I post a bunch of gibberish on various talk pages will they all stay up, or do you think people would delete those comments? Why was this comment deleted if comments shouldn't be deleted?97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, it's hard to debate with someone if you don't know what they're arguing for. Christopher (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm arguing specific points, all of which can be addressed head on regardless of my overall opinion.97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Some users get tired of talking to people they consider pseudoscientists and want an overall opinion so they can cite scientific papers disproving a certain claim. Christopher (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You have claims that HIV causes AIDS, I have Duesberg's claims that HIV does not. So now we must look at the evidence. I put forward earlier why HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates according to Duesberg (a renowned expert on retroviruses). Someone else said Duesberg has been refuted and gave me sources. I responded directly to all the claims in the all the sources and showed they did not address Duesberg's claims successfully. I asked for further rebuttal.
Your only rebuttal is appeal to the mainstream. Do you not see how you're avoiding the argument? If Duesberg's claims are wrong, show that they're wrong. It should be easy. Show that HIV does fulfill Koch's postulates - no doubt you can find sources that make the claim, but can you back up their arguments against Duesberg's? I have been willing to confront rebuttal's to Duesberg, you have said "ah, but I'm considered right, so I'm right."
And the most pathetically dishonest part of your argument is that I did not come into this talk page just saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS, I've made specific criticisms of the article as written. You demanded I say I don't think HIV causes AIDS so you can dismiss me without addressing any of my specific points. Your actions are transparent.97.70.1.221 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Mainstream science says unicorns don't exist, some random guy I met in the pub thinks they are. So now let's look at the evidence.
An appeal to the scientific consensus is valid. The burden of proof lies on you to disprove the current null hypothesis (when a strong consensus is reached on a subject the burden of proof shifts, for example, the null hypothesis is that anthropogenic global warming is real).
If you did not I apologize. It looks like you are arguing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. If you were actually saying something else I can't find it looking through your contributions. Christopher (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"Mainstream science says unicorns don't exist, some random guy I met in the pub thinks they are."
Why did you say this? Did I quote some random guy from the pub? I quoted an expert doctor on retroviruses, and he quoted scientific studies. You are still avoiding the argument.
"An appeal to the scientific consensus is valid. The burden of proof lies on you to disprove the current null hypothesis (when a strong consensus is reached on a subject the burden of proof shifts, for example, the null hypothesis is that anthropogenic global warming is real)."
I have repeatedly said that Duesberg's claims have never been refuted or addressed. One person attempted to rebut his claims, and I showed that the rebuttal did not actually address Duesberg's claims and asked for more rebuttal. HIV causing AIDS is not at the same scientific consensus as even anthropogenic global warming. I have quoted a prominent expert on retroviruses - who has no ties to whatever the equivalent of being connected to the fossil fuel industries in relation to climate change research would be. I'm standing by Duesberg's many papers, and have repeatedly told you I await rebuttal. You respond with more appeals to the mainstream to avoid the argument. Your entire argument is mainstream science agrees with me so nothing can refute it - that's not scientific, and it makes this article pointless. There's nothing I can show you to change your mind, because you won't even look at Duesberg's claims. And yes, you can find papers that say they debunk Duesberg, but do their claims stand up? That's my point - if you have a debunking to offer, go ahead, but if you just say the mainstream agrees with you so there's no need to even debunk Duesberg's claims - how could I possibly even attempt to convince you?
"If you were actually saying something else I can't find it looking through your contributions."

This is entire section begins with my specific criticisms.97.70.1.221 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Welp, it looks like someone sucks ass at formatting on talkpages.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Here comes my following!
Your writing is a headache to read. While this doesn't prove you are wrong, it does imply it. CorruptUser (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this how you avoid the argument? Sorry my wiki skills aren't up to par yet, I haven't been here that long.97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone credibly debunk Duesberg's claims?

Bongolian tried, but his sources did not address Duesberg's claims. Here's our discussion from abov:

"That is relevant because the science of HIV/AIDS has moved well beyond entertaining any doubts that he could be right." What? That's the point under debate, if we're gonna just assume Duesberg is wrong, why even pretend that the article is attempting to be intellectually honest? Why have any sources? Just say Duesberg is wrong because we know he's wrong because he's wrong. Several times in my post I point out Duesberg's evidence has never been "dealt with" let alone refuted. The section in the talk page "A convincing paper on HIV denial?" reiterates many of Duesberg's compelling and substantiated claims.97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a substantial body of work that does refute Duesberg, so you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Paper denying HIV–AIDS link secures publication: Work by infamous AIDS contrarian passes peer review by Zoë Corbyn (05 January 2012) Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.9737.
Duesberg Strikes a blow for HIV/AIDS denialism by Mark Hoofnagle (January 6, 2012 6:00 AM) denialism blog.
Debunking the new Duesberg HIV/AIDS Denialist “paper” in IJAE by Emil Karlsson (January 11, 2012) Debunking Denialism.
Chigwedere, P., Seage, G.R., III, Gruskin, S., Lee, T.-H., and Essex, M. Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 49:410–415 (2008).
Concorde Coordinating Committee. (1994) Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Concorde Coordinating Committee. Lancet. 343(8902):871-81.
Gregson S; Nyamukapa C; Lopman B; Mushati P; Garnett G.P; Chandiwana S.K; Anderson R. M. (2007). Critique of early models of the demographic impact of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa based on contemporary empirical data from Zimbabwe. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 104:14586-14591.
Kalichman, S. (2009). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience and Human Tragedy. New York: Copernicus Books.
Bongolian (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you genuinely think those are good rebuttals, or are you just giving me any rebuttal you can find? Let's see if they successfully address Duesberg's claims.
Your first article: http://www.nature.com/news/paper-denying-hiv-aids-link-secures-publication-1.9737
This does not address any of Duesberg's claims, and basically just says Duesberg is a contrarian and wrong. It's only evidence is quotes of people saying Duesberg is wrong. It's not a scientific article in any way. Why did you post this as a rebuttal?
Second Article:http://archive.is/BNPjI#selection-1893.1-1893.46
It opens again with a long pointless, eerily familiar tirade against Duesberg, but this one actually does address some evidence.
"Then they use WHO statistics showing that population is still growing in South Africa, Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa to suggest AIDS deaths in this location have been exaggerated, and worse, use South African statistics which claim only 10,000 AIDS deaths per year between 2000 and 2005. Even if we believed these data were accurate, in an environment when HIV diagnosis conferns social disgrace and under a government that similarly denied the link between HIV and AIDS, this is proof of nothing."
This totally misrepresents Duesberg's point. He's saying that the rate of deaths don't match up with what we know about germ theory, and that the overall population rates do not match up with the claimed 300,000 deaths per year in South Africa. This "rebuttal" doesn't address Duesberg's point whatsoever.
Same article: According to the authors this should result in a bell-shaped curve with rapid rate of infection then passage of the pathogen from the population. This is, of course, absurd because HIV is not yersinia pestis or plague. HIV does not get transmitted through casual contact and it does not have a rapid onset of action, often taking years before the syndrome becomes clinically apparent.
This is begging the question. Yes, why is it that HIV, which is reaching epidemic levels across the world, is also uniquely able to infect you but not make you sick for sometimes 10 or more years, and can't be easily contracted? Mainstream science claims it takes 10,000 exposures through sex to pass HIV, not 1 in 10,000, it takes on average 10,000 exposures. This is evidence that AIDS is either insanely unique despite it having almost no genetic complexity (being a retrovirus) or more simply Duesberg is correct.
Same article: But even so he misrepresents the literature, including this paper to suggest that AZT is ineffective.
This is one solid criticism, it does appear that Duesberg mischaracterizes the study as having an untreated group. Though the findings of the study still match up with Duesberg's overall theory, he seems to have been mistaken or incorrect on this one point.
There are no other significant attempts to refute the rest of Duesberg's claims.
Third article: https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/01/11/debunking-the-new-duesberg-hiv-aids-denialist-paper-in-ijae/
"This is a flawed analogy, because unlike plague, HIV does not spread through casual, non-sexual contact as Y. pestis can and HIV/AIDS can take several years to be clinically obvious, rather than having an incubation time of a couple of days (Hoofnagle, 2011)."
I already rebutted this in the last article. Why do they not mention the many other diseases that are like HIV/AIDS? Is it because there are none?
Same article: "Also, population growth is not a good measure of the impact of HIV/AIDS, because the birth rates are quite high, thereby masking the effect."
Duesberg's chart in his paper is very straightforward. The population growth is easily predictable and has no evidence of the effects that 300,000 deaths per year for several consecutive years would have. This is not a rebuttal.
Same Article: "Africa, have seen a massive decrease in life expectancy over the years that correspond to the occurrence of AIDS pandemic."
This fits with Duesberg's claims, as the treatment itself, regardless of your opinion of it, is known to be toxic and known to cause quicker aging.
The only other "rebuttal" the paper offers is again about the study I admit was mischaracterized.
In total about three of Duesberg's points were even addressed. Two were false rebuttals. One rebuts a tiny element of his overall argument which is related to treatment.
So, if that's what you call rebuttal - there has been no rebuttal. Or maybe, since the body of work that does refute Duesberg is so very substantial, you have better rebuttals? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have any real rebuttals to Duesberg's findings? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, here you goWikipedia's W.svg.
Look, Duesberg is brilliant. Very brilliant. But he is utterly incapable of admitting he is wrong. He claimed that HIV and AIDS weren't causally linked back in the 80's before much was really known about AIDS, so his skepticism then wasn't entirely unfounded. But now? He kept doubling down on this supposed "conspiracy theory" because the longer he stayed on it, the dumber he'd look if he was wrong. And it's pretty fucking obvious that he's wrong. So he's this spoiled manchild whose "cause" is championed by other manchildren who are far less brilliant than he is in order to make themselves feel superior to everyone else, because conspiracy theories are the shortcuts to being smarter than everyone else without actually being smart or putting in the actual years of study required. CorruptUser (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Science, the premier US science journal, devoted 3 months of investigation to "The Duesberg Phenomenon" (vol. 266, 9 December 1994).[2] The main conclusions of the investigation were:

  • In hemophiliacs (the group Duesberg acknowledges provides the best test case for the HIV hypothesis) there is abundant evidence that HIV causes disease and death (see p. 1645).
  • According to some AIDS researchers, HIV now fulfills the classic postulates of disease causation established by Robert Koch (see p. 1647).
  • The AIDS epidemic in Thailand, which Duesberg has cited as confirmation of his theories, seems instead to confirm the role of HIV (see p. 1647).
  • AZT and illicit drugs, which Duesberg argues can cause AIDS, don’t cause the immune deficiency characteristic of that disease (see p. 1648).

Bongolian (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools