Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive1

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? human be 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)

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. human be 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 " ? human be 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... human be in 18:52, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

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? human be in 20:13, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No i didnt no i didnt.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 20:14, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

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!" SJG sjg  10:55, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
 * (sobbing) User:PalMD

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? human be in 18:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

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.  w easeLOId ~ 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. . . .  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 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.  08:17, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow. That sucks.  How could a scientist possibly believe that crap?  (Rhetorical question - I know some do).   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 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.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 12:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

"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)

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?-- Brasov 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * wp:AIDS defining clinical condition Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>gnostic silverbrain.png 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.png<font color=#CC0033>sshole silverbrain.png 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. Sophie  Wilder  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. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  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.--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  22:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Therefore magic beans cure cancer. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>d hominem silverbrain.png 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? Sophie  Wilder  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.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  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? Sophie  Wilder  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)
 * Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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![[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  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)