RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2951Goal: $5000

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. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This is an archive page, last updated 10 April 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Footnotes[edit]


Loaded language in HIV/AIDS[edit]

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)

Elitism[edit]

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.

A convincing paper on HIV denial?[edit]

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)

A few minor corrections and suggestions for improvement[edit]

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...—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talkstalk) 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.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talkstalk) 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)

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

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)