Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

That "trio" was the Perth Group

The phrase in the article:

a trio of HIV/AIDS denialists alleged in the journal Nature Biotechnology ...

should be replaced with

The Perth Group alleged in the journal Nature Biotechnology ...

Please see the reference associated at the end of the phrase. It's not necessary to repeat they are "denialists" or introduce them, it was said above in the article.

Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I will make the change for you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In examining the source I see no mention of "The Perth Group". The article lists three authors and does not cite affilliation with the Perth group nor are the three authors identified as "The Perth Group" in the article itself. The journal did not accept for publication an article from "The Perth Group" it published an article from three authors. The content of the sentence needs to be supported by the source. In contrast there are sometimes articles published in journals by individuals described as representatives of organizations and policy papers from organizations, this was not such a case. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If all three of the individuals concerned are indeed Perth Group members, I'm not sure why this should matter. An alternative might be to simply name them individually. "Trio" sounds silly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please you could see Here, it's the paper in their web, or Here about Perth group members. Thanks. Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The paper does not make any mention of "The Perth Group". The journal does not make any mention of "The Perth Group". The website is not a reliable source (WP:RS, WP:MEDRS). This group is not identified as an affiliation or research group by the journal. If trio does not appeal to your editorial sense it can be changed to three. However to represent that the journal accepted an article for publication from a group or organization or in any way attributed the article to a group or organization is false. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, "trio" does not appeal to my editorial sense - for the same reason I wouldn't refer to two people as a "duo". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I tend to agree I think trio may have been used to indicate association. If another source mentions that the article was a response by the Perth group it would be acceptable to identify them that way otherwise "three authors" or simply "an article" is the description supported by the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying we should eliminate "the perth group" in all the article?? that could have certain sense but then, instead, you should put "Eleni Papadopulos et al" or "Eleni Papadopulos" in all places. Besides, The Perth Group article in Wikipedia should be removed too and to remain only the Eleni_Papadopulos-Eleopulos article. All this mess because you don't "rely" that the Perth Group and their web are surely Eleni et al. Perfect, but then you could have another concern too, to eliminate from wikipedia the Duck test! (WP:DUCK) Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, silly. We should identify the authorship and credit "Perth Group" only when the source identifies it as such. This really is not difficult. If two other people and I are all members of AAA and we write a paper, that does not mean that the paper should be attributed to AAA. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid rude words like "silly", thank you. As far as I know, "The Perth group", its members have never used that name to sign their articles, they have always used their individual names, always leading Eleni Papadopulos. So then, I repeat, all mentions and even The Perth Group wikipedia article would be incorrect? Is it necessary to be so strict? In that case, again, perfect, but the "trio of denialist" expression must be then replaced with "Eleni Papadopulos et al" or similar too. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read what was written. You attribute papers to individuals, their 'group' (even if it is a group of people who don't know anything about HIV) or university, or favourite hockey team are not mentioned. Their 'group' or their university, or their favourite hockey team may be notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

While it makes sense to define (by name and/or reference) the group on first use, wouldn't the term "Perth Group" being used extensively in relevant and verifiable sources (Kalichman, Stolley, Hausman, et al.) make it an appropriate term? -- Scray (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, for me this matter is splitting hairs. What I do see clear is the expresion "trio" was inappropiate, either the Perth Group or Eleni et al. is the appropiate. Fortunately "trio" was replaced in the article, so I'm satisfied, except FreeKnowledgeCreator wrote "denialist Perth group", when above in the article already appears "The Perth Group, a group of denialists based in Perth", so to repeat "denialist" was unnecessary. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see an objection to "trio" it is fairly meaningless. An article should be attributed to it's author(s). I think attributing it to Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. is the best way to go. It follows WP policy and by indicating the author who is described as a member of "The Perth Group" earlier in the article provides the appropriate association for a reader.

"The Perth Group" belongs in this article, I never suggested removing it nor did I suggest removing the WP article on them. The reference for them earlier should be improved, perhaps with one of those mentioned by Scray as the content about them is not in the reference cited. Perhaps Scray's references or some in the Perth group article identify the group and it's members. As it is the current reference is an article by Papadopulos-Eleopulos which does not name "The Perth Group" nor identify the author as affiliated with them. Content must be supported by sources - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It happens that the first mention to the Perth Group in the article, in my opinion, it's incorrect too, because in the article it's written:

Also that same year, The Perth Group, a group of denialists based in Perth, Western Australia led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, published in the non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses their first article questioning aspects of HIV/AIDS research,[24]

and in this case, yes, it is true that first article was only Eleni Papadopulos. So I suggest the next redaction:

Also that same year, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, leader of The Perth Group, a group of denialists based in Perth, Western Australia, published in the non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses an article questioning aspects of HIV/AIDS research,[24] Peter the Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.95.135 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What is needed for this sentence is a reference that identifies the Perth Group and Papadopulos-Eleopulos as a member or leader. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

http://theperthgroup.com/aboutpg.html

What more do you need? Is not a "reliable source" its own web?

Besides, in the first phrase (the current article's phrase) it's the same semantic but in reverse order (The Perth Group, a group of denialists ... led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos). Have you seen the reference, have you seen it's only Eleni Papadopulos? so the second phrase it's the appropiate

Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources...." - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:DUCK "If it looks like The Perth Group, swims like The Perth Group, and quacks like The Perth Group, then that web is probably The Perth Group"

And if they are not The Perth Group, why is there a The Perth Group article in Wikipedia with that web as an external link?

Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

More evidence that "the duck is a duck". Here is the old Perth Group's site, hosted in another dissident web. Below you can see a link called "NEW PERTH GROUP WEBSITE" to their current web.

Note that I am not asking for The Perth Group web being a reliable source of anything else but themselves!

Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There are several issues at play here. First, The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. It does not apply here, and in any case is an essay. Second, in academic literature an author can have publications under the auspices of a research group or association, and also have published works not associated with the group or association. Therefore, we need a source identifying association with the "Perth Group" for each individual paper. Third, even if this association can be established it may or may not be WP:UNDUE to mention "Perth group" every time. This may not be editorially favorable if it gives the publications a false air of legitimacy to the layperson reader. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Perth Group web is indeed the web used by the Perth Group ... Yes or no?

If you said yes, then if in their web it can be read here:

The Perth Group ... The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou.

and if, on the other hand I see the authors of this article are Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner & John M. Papadimitriou

Then can I deduce they are indeed The Perth Group, and say the author of that article was indeed The Perth Group?

Yes or No?

Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that identifying the "trio" as the Perth Group is reasonable. I don't see the name that is used for this group of people as having any relevance to their credibility or lack of it - that seems a baseless concern. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No. To credit an article to a group the group needs to be linked to the article explicitly, either in the article itself or in a reliable source. This has already been explained to you repeatedly above. VQuakr (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why you even consider this an important issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to say that, besides, the article is of course in their web, the full article, here. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: was the question addressed to me or to the group in general? VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: For me it's important to the article to be coherent and clear to the reader. The current situation of phrases in the article is:

(1) The Perth Group, a group of denialists based in Perth, Western Australia led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, published in the non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses their first article questioning aspects of HIV/AIDS research,[24]

Wrong, in this case you can see the reference and it wasn't The Perth Group, it was only its leader Eleni Papadopulos. I suggested the aproppriate phrase above.

(2) That same year, Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. alleged in the journal Nature Biotechnology (then edited by fellow denialist Harvey Bialy) that the Western blot test for HIV was not standardized, non-reproducible, and of unknown specificity due to a claimed lack of a "gold standard".[28]

My question is, why can't we put here The Perth Group but we can in (1) and (3) ?

(3) In 1997, The Perth Group questioned the existence of HIV, and speculated that the production of antibodies recognizing HIV proteins can be caused by allogenic stimuli and autoimmune disorders.[33][34]

Again, why can we put here "The Perth Group" and not in (2)?

It seems totally inappropiate and confusing to the reader to use both "The Perth Group" and "Eleni Papadopulos et al" in the article, one term in some places, the other term in other places, when they are essentially the same group of persons. And if it finally results we can never say "The Perth Group" in the HIV/AIDS denialism article, what is the purpose of The Perth Group article?

So I see logical to use always The Perth Group, except the first article (phrase (1) above), in which I suggested to say "Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, leader of The Perth Group ..."

Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, the question was addressed to you. I'm simply not clear why you consider it significant whether or not the term "the Perth Group" is used here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: a publication should only be attributed to a research group if credited as such in the article itself or another source. In general, I consider misattribution and WP:V to be "significant." Not sure why you are addressing this to just me and not the several other editors who have participated in this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear in what sense you would consider it "misattribution" to say this was a Perth Group paper. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Where is the reference in this article that names and identifies the members of "The Perth Group"?
2. As has been said repeatedly the attribution of an article is as stated in the reference. The journals do not state the articles came from this "group", nor identify any affiliation with said "group".
3. The website of "The Perth Group" is not a reliable source for any information. See WP:SELFSOURCE item 1. The identification of these individuals as "The Perth Group" and the notability and significance of such identification needs to be sourced by something other than a website. That a group of people has a website which self identifies with an organizational name is not notable or significant, is there any recognition, certification, regulation, registration etc by reliable sources? This is information about living persons in the context of a medically relevant article subject to discretionary sanctions the standards for sourcing content are substantive.
4. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Discussion of the deletion or editing of another Wikipedia article belongs on the talk page of that article and is irrelevant here.
5. WP:DUCK in no way applies to sources. It refers to the assessment of editing activity.
6. The identification of people as "essentially the same group of persons" by an editor is orignial research, per WP:OR such identification and association needs a reliable source for each instance.
7. As has been said, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE identifying people or publications with "The Perth Group" is giving undue weight to a fringe group. The association with the "group" by the group's website is self serving.

I think a careful and thoughtful reading of WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability would provide clarificaton of much of what has been brought up here lately.

The pleading of a failure to understand the repeated explanation of attribution. The attempts to insert content from a self serving website. The attempts to identify Duesberg and The Perth Group as members of the scientific community. This begins to walk like a... - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, especially that "The website of 'The Perth Group' is not a reliable source for any information" as I think I have sufficiently shown the people behind that web are indeed Eleni Papadopulos and her colleagues, that is, the people who sign the scientific articles mentioned as certain references in the HIV/AIDS denialism article (except the first reference, see above). Once admitted that and read this, it seems obvious the term "Eleni Papadopulos et al" should be substituted by The Perth Group

I repeat here, for example, this link I gave below from an official HIV/AIDS web, which gives The Perth Group web as a reference (see its references below) of "The Perth Group (led by Eleni Papadopulos)". It is said too that "The Perth Group appears to have only two active members: a medical physicist called Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and an emergency physician called Valendar Turner", that is, at least Eleni Papadopulos and Val Turner are behind The Perth Group web. Of course, there are dissident webs with similar assertions.

I don't know if FreeKnowledgeCreator maintains his/her position, in that case there are two confronted and apparently irreconcilable collective positions. I don't know how Wikipedia funcions from here: is there any kind of democracy? or a person with certain level decide (I don't know if Wikipedia has a well defined hierarchy for cases like this), or simply wins the person who puts here more WPs?

Peter the Roman--2.136.95.135 (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Verfiability, neutral point of view and no original research are the three core content polices on Wikipedia, please take some time to read and understand them. Additional policies, guidelines and essays are available to help you learn how Wikipedia works. Policies and their interpretation of are developed through consensus. The verifiability policy is quite clear on the issue of self published sources and considerable consensus has already been reached.

The policy states that self published sources should not be used as support for self serving material. Regardless of "who is behind" "The Perth Group" website, claims that attribute publications to the group are self serving. The notability of the group (again self serving) must be supported by another source. The link you provided does not identify any members of "The Perth Group" except Papadopulos (note the use of "appears" when discussing membership of the group, clearly not supporting the reliability of sources on the subject). It also goes on to state a judge found "The Perth Group" was, "not qualified to express opinions about the existence of HIV, or whether it had been shown to cause AIDS" this is a clear statement of the lack of recognition for the group. The evidence you have provided for "the people behind that web" is subject to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. This policy is taken very seriously and a self published website falls short of the requirements for material about living people. I think mention of "The Perth Group" belongs in this article but it must be done very carefully to comply with the BLP policy.

A Wikipedia editor stating, "I have sufficiently shown the people behind that web are indeed Eleni Papadopulos and her colleagues, that is, the people who sign the scientific articles mentioned" is original research. The membership of "The Perth Group" must be supported by high quality reliable sources. The attribution of publications must come from reliable sources. There is no accountability for the claims made on "that web", no editorial oversight, no recognition by reliable sources that "that web" is a reliable source, it has a clear conflict of interest and expresses views widely held to be extremist and promotional. It is wholly unacceptable as a source. If you wish to dispute this feel free to take the issue to the reliable sources notice board.

The neutral point of view policy makes clear that undue weight should be avoided. Anything beyond the statement that,

"'The Perth Group' is a group of HIV/AIDS denialists in Australia led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos."

constitutes undue weight (my opinion, open to discussion and subject to consensus). This is supported by the quote from a judge above, and the overwhelming mainstream of the scientific community and recognized authorities in the HIV/AIDS field (see the Durban Declaration). Pending discussion and consensus here,

I propose reducing mention of "The Perth Group" to that statement alone, once with publications attributed to the authors.

Discussion should be based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources.

The verifiability policy also states self published sources should not be used to support claims that involve third parties. Journals that publish articles are third parties. It also states self published sources should not be used when there is a reasonable doubt as to it's authenticity. I have more than reasonable doubts and you have not provided any reliable sources that identify the group's website as a reliable source of valid information, as above if you contend otherwise take it to the RS Notice Board. I commend Peter for apropriately bringing his concerns to this talk page and expressing them in a generally civil and thought out manner. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, my position remains the same, and I think my expositon was clear, so I'm not going to explain it more. I'm not going to take any action neither, I think I've done my work. I would be glad, of course, if more people are in agreement with me, and expressing or taking any action. Peter the Roman,--2.136.95.135 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite I am a little tired, perhaps I will go to the RS Notice Board in the near future. Not asking http://theperthgroup.com as a realiable source of everything is written there, of course, I think my exposition was clear in that sense, but it's obvious to me (and obvious means that, of course, none WP is broken) that, since the authors of the web have been identified and are certainly Eleni Papadopulos and her colleagues, at least if they identified themselves in the web as The Perth Group, and besides there is a Wikipedia article named The Perth Group (which is about the same web and the same people) that besides is already used in the HIV/AIDS denialism article, the "The Perth Group" term must substitute all "Eleni Papadopulos et al" (or "trio" or whatever) terms in the HIV/AIDS denialism article. Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

By all means please do go to the RS notice board. Remember the source you gave had a statement about membership of "The Perth Group" that clearly indicated it was not obvious to them who were active group members. Attribution of papers must come from the source of publication or reliable sources, a self published source attributing publication to a group (not identified by the publisher or a reliable source) is self serving and does not meet WP:V. The following is WP:OR;

"The Perth Group ... The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou.

and if, on the other hand I see the authors of this article are Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner & John M. Papadimitriou

Then can I deduce they are indeed The Perth Group, and say the author of that article was indeed The Perth Group?"

It is not up to a WP editor to deduce and then say who the author of an article is. WP relies on reliable sources for deducing and saying who is the author of a paper. If the source for a fact identifies Papadopulos or others by name that is how WP identifies them, your contention, "the "The Perth Group" term must substitute all "Eleni Papadopulos et al"" must be based on the source for the instance: not your deduction, that these individuals have identified themselves as "The Perth Group" on a website; nor another WP article (see 2 times it has been pointed out to you WP is not a source for WP, other articles are irrelevant). I disagree with your contention that the three named individuals have been associated with the website to such a degree that it is within WP:BLP to use the website as a source on these persons.

Consider the following: Can any claim about WP editors on WP be tied to you? You are a WP editor that can be established, so does "this web" of which you are an editor thus serve as a source for information on you? If three people join a fan club for a sport are works they do together considered the works of that club? What if they form another club, to which club do you now attribute their joint works? What if they are employees of a single company, what work is attributed to the company and what to the club, not to mention individual efforts. What if one of the members of the club leaves the club but the club website isn't updated to show that? See the clear issues raised? WP uses reliable sources to make these deductions and statements. The AVERT source you provided a link for went so far as to say there appear to be only 2 active members, that contradicts your contention rather clearly. There is a need for high quality reliable sources when talking about living people on WP "that web" is not such a source.- - MrBill3 (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ok, perhaps to consider "The Perth Group" instead of "Eleni Papadopulos et al" does not follow all WP rules (excuse me for using before WP as "Wikipedia policy" instead of simply Wikipedia), but fortunately I found WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE. I certainly think we are in that situation (what I said above as an "obvious" situation). I suppose MrBill3 and others will not agree. Then I would like to know what happens if there are two irreconciliable confronted collective positions, as it could be this case (FreeKnowledgeCreator expressed in favour of using "The Perth Group" instead of "Eleni Papadopulos et al", and again I would be glad anyone in agreement with me expressing it).

And if it were necessary to expose my position in another place inside WP, I'll probably do it. Please, tell me where, thank you.

Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As this discussion concerns information about living persons you can take the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you contend that the website for "The Perth Group" is a reliable source as has been suggested go to the reliable sources noticeboard. It is suggested that an editor bringing an issue to these notice boards familiarize themselves with the relevant polices and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS. As the issues of appropriate weight and original research are involved you may go to the neutral point of view noticeboard or no original research noticeboard. Again familiarity with appropriate policies is suggested: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

More evidence, this article, we can read:

In the appeal, the HIV “dissidents” led the way, with Valendar Turner and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth group taking the stand ... giving The Perth Group web link. Is it sufficient yet? Peter the Roman,--2.136.95.135 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The instance that source refers to is already attributed to "members of the Perth Group" in the article. The source is mediocre. As discussed already each instance requires a source. If an article is to be attributed to anyone there must be a reliable source attributing that article. The link you provided does not attribute anything to "The Perth Group" that is not already so attributed in the article already. See WP:OR for an explanation that evidence leading to WP editors deducing an attribution is not appropriate. Your failure to provide policy based support and repeated attempt to promote inappropriate attribution of articles leads me to consider your comments here as disruptive per WP:Avoiding talk-page disruption. I am willing to discuss proposed edits based on policy and relevant sources, however should you continue unsupported insistence I will take this matter to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I have refrained so far as you have continued discussion without editing. I will give this matter some time to cool off and allow for input from other editors. Best.- - MrBill3 (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm giving data and more data that support "The Perth Group" and "Eleni Papadopulos et al." are the same people. More ... this time from dissident webs (but I gave data above from official sources too): here it's directly stated: "Eleni Papadopulos et al. a.k.a.(also known as) The Perth Group" and here it's directly put the membership from The Perth Group web.

I don't clearly see what evidence you exactly need. If The White House web asserts the same do you finally acknowledge? Besides I repeat there is already a Wikipedia article, The Perth Group , already used in the HIV/AIDS denialism article, so to remain both "The Perth Group" and "Eleni Papadopulos et al." in the HIV/AIDS denialism article is misleading. So all these data and reasoning should lead to accept "Eleni Papadopulos et al." to be substituted by "The Perth Group". Perhaps each datum or reasoning, separately, does not comply all WP policies, but I've provided many, and again I found WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE.

Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MrBill Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I finally wrote a section in the Reliable sources Noticeboard, asking for the Perth Group membership being a reliable source. Note that my objective is more ambitious, the recognizing that the people responsible of The Perth Group web are certainly Eleni Papadopulos and her colleagues, because if that admitted then, in my view, it's obvious that denomination and membership (they are simply talking of themselves) and it's obvious too what I propose in section "To add references from the Perth Group's web" (see below). Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added "of the Perth Group" to the sentence about the article in Nature Biotechnology as there is a reference that identifies the the article that way and have added the reference. If other editors consider this undue weight feel free to revert however per the discussion above an RS has provided the connection sought by Peter. MrBill3 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevant event that could be included in the "History" section

Beginning with David Rasnick's February 2003 response to a paper entitled The Politics of AIDS in South Africa, and continuing until April 2005, The British Medical Journal hosted an internet debate concerning the nature and causes of AIDS.

Defending the HIV/AIDS official theory were Brian T Foley, Christopher J Noble, Nicholas Bennett, Peter J Flegg and others. The dissidents or "denialists" were mainly David Rasnick and the Perth Group

The debate can be read from the BMJ web here(click on "Read Responses"), or more comfortable from a dissident web here (click for example in " Date, in ascending order" and you can access to all the responses in one page)

Peter the Roman --2.136.95.135 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It probably can't be included here unless an outside source noted the debate as being significant in some way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A series of online responses to a published article is not a "hosted debate". If any of the responses were published or as mentioned if an RS describes the responses as significant they might warrant inclusion. Comments by recognized authorities in the field are possibly citable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

To add references from the Perth Group's web

If it is accepted The Perth Group web are indeed the Perth Group people (please see "That trio was the Perth Group" section), and not any kind of "impostors", it seems obvious that all the references in the Wikipedia HIV/AIDS denialism article to Perth Group articles should be accompanied by references to their own web, mainly because there we can find the full articles for anyone who desires to read them.

For example:

The Perth Group questioned the existence of HIV, and speculated that the production of antibodies recognizing HIV proteins can be caused by allogenic stimuli and autoimmune disorders.[33][34]

Those references [33] and [34] are only the Summaries. Nonetheless, in the Perth Group's web we have the full articles [33] and [34]

Of course, I suppose they can put the full articles in their web because they are the authors, and they have complied to the legality. It's in fact more evidence that web is indeed their web.

If you need more evidence we have this HIV/AIDS official page that talks about the dissidents, and below we can see their webs as references (not only the Perth Group, Duesberg too)

And of course, the same I said for the Perth Group would apply for Duesberg, if there is a Duesberg's full article avaliable in his web, and not currently in a reference in the Wikipedia HIV/AIDS denialism article.

I offer myself to do this work, and add all those references, once we have resolved the "That trio was the Perth Group" discussion

Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate way to add these links would be by placing them at the end of the existing reference as a convenience link. For example:

Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Stewart G, Causer D (1997). "HIV antibodies: further questions and a plea for clarification". Curr Med Res Opin 13 (10): 627–34. doi:10.1185/03007999709113336. PMID 9327197. Convenience copy.

See above the website is in no way a reliable source per WP:SELFSOURCE item 1.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have linked the titles to the above mentioned articles and the others by members of the Perth Group to the copies of the articles on the Perth Group website. I have also done some work on formatting the references and removing articles used as references from the further reading and external links sections. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

NON neutrality

The phrase 'loosely connected' in the opening sentence is not neutral, or referenced. What does it actually mean? It's just biased, rhetorical, and persuasive, against those who are organized against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. At best, it's not clear or concise and could be interpreted in many different ways. 218.161.67.186 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase in the lede is supported by the text of the article in HIV/AIDS denialists' claims and scientific evidence. The phrase is used by secondary sources, for example the text linked in the section below. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless the phrase, I agree with 218.161.67.186. on non-neturality.

This article also talks about some trend analysis which is hardly verifiable, "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now targeted at less scientifically sophisticated audiences and spread mainly through the Internet."

(Again, the whole page to me is really POV, Non-V and OR all in one.)

Just take a look at the preceding line "The scientific consensus is that the evidence showing HIV to be the cause of AIDS is conclusive[4][5] and rejects AIDS-denialist claims as pseudoscience based on conspiracy theories,[6] faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data.[4][5][7]"

I mean, if the so-called mainstream scientists (or scientists backed by consensus..) are so mighty, then why insist on writing arguments at the level of social labeling, consensus and all? Also, some so-called AIDS-denialists just turn their back on the word "AIDS" because of how vague the term is, they don't even have a stand on the argument "HIV is the cause of AIDS", they just tell you that such sentence is hard to interpret or meaningless. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "loosely connected" is awkward here and there is no way to figure out exactly what it means. The only connection I can see here is that these people don't believe in the mainstream consensus. Usually when a group of people are connected by ideas or ideology only it's called a "movement." 216.175.108.129 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this edit: HIV/AIDS denialism is a dissident movement which questions the mainstream view that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[1] Carnival Honey (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that this sentence is awkward: "With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now targeted at less scientifically sophisticated audiences and spread mainly through the Internet." How can anyone determine how sophisticated or unsophisticated an audience is? Does this article make a claim that internet readers are unsophisticated? Do only unsophisticated people use the internet? Or do you mean that peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish the views of dissident scientists, so that their main or only venue for speech is the internet? This sentence should be deleted or clarified. Carnival Honey (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is referenced to a Plos One article that says pretty much that. No problem here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mbeki is NOT a denialist

Man. I just don't understand how so many frame Mbeki as a denialist, as he obviously is not! Please, if you make such a claim, at least cite one source where he explicitly denies the connection between HIV and AIDS. Turns out it's absolutely nonexistent! He's really at most a dissident than a "denialist". Only because Harvard and New York Times, those seemingly "reputable" media make claims, even on highly dubious grounds, then you have to rever it as authentic? That's quite ridiculous. Sentences like "culminating in Mbeki's embrace of denialisim" is lamentably downright shocking in a Wikipedia article. Anon J (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you're only trying to be helpful, but please don't make edits like this. The material you added was uncited - anything that you want to add to the article needs a reliable source. See WP:VERIFY. In addition, the material was written in a way that violates WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Virusmyth as a source

The article states that, "As of August 2011, the denialist website virusmyth.com continues to claim that Root-Bernstein and Sonnabend doubt the role of HIV in AIDS." That statement has two sources. The first is indeed virusmyth, but the virusmyth site does not say what the article implies it does: it simply describes what Root-Bernstein's views were at the start of his career as an AIDS dissident. Given that Root-Bernstein changed his mind later, what the virusmyth site says about him is indeed potentially misleading, but it's not directly inaccurate since it doesn't state anything about what Root-Bernstein's present views are. The second source is used in a strange fashion: while the source is indicated as being virusmyth, it redirects to a different website altogether: http://www.aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.htm. I suggest that the reference to virusmyth claiming that Sonnabend still doubts the role of HIV in AIDS should be removed. It simply isn't backed up by the source given. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Up or down for the HIV/AIDS Theory/Theories - The scientific basis

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How the virus of HIV/AIDS stands to Leukemia... Also as entire data-set... The dubious histories of the HIV/AIDS Self-Help Kits from the 90s and what the contents of them are... The nature of the CD4 counts, as other factors may influence, "famine, illnesses, radiation..." The neuro-values of the patients' as well as determining any psychiatric factors, as much as the demand on one point from one Self-Help Kit (newspaper source)... The nature of the viruses and how they classify in terms of classical analysis, the bio-analysis vis-a-vis gene-analysis, also "petridish analysis"... The nature of the viruses more: what bacteria produce it? (Note on groups of viruses and bacteria, all produced by exactly bacteria...) Good? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC) What exactly are you proposing? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC) It procedes from the article that the HIV/AIDS Denialists are without a kind of basis. As inquiry continues, the scientific reasoning for the public, valid for both sides of the HIV/AIDS disputes, should be from the above list... I can't find any other basis for disagreement and for that matter, the public will then clearly know what this revolves around. Agree? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Are you proposing an edit or do you have a source to bring? The talk page is for improving articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC) I am proposing an edit, one that yields scientific points to both articles, HIV/AIDS and HIV/AIDS Denialism. In a democratic society, it's my view that the public has a right to balanced information and in this case, the above list, 6 pts., provides a critical light onto the HIV/AIDS as theory, one that may prove decisive! Can I be given some more time to come up with the references, please? Also, by the same listing, I ask the Wikipedia-community to work alongside so that criticism can prove successful or not (however, the countermoves toward Leukemia look strong, others cite Tuberculosis...). The symptoms list to HIV/AIDS is also massive. So, more time..., please? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Please look at WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. We don't do fair and balanced, we go with the scientific consensus. The encyclopedia is always evolving, so there is no rush. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Checked! (However, it can be stated that to WP:UNDUE for HIV/AIDS Denialism article there are the voodoo claims against HIV/AIDS in trying to present itself as HIV/AIDS Denialism in saying that HIV/AIDS proponents "are doing voodoo in the hidden" or whatever obscure "tiny minority" view!) Out from 62.16.242.213 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I'd like to respond constructively to your posts, but I'm completely unable to comprehend them. Maybe it would help to propose a specific content change along with specific supporting sources. MastCell Talk 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? A Stephen Allen film.

added an external link to a 2 hour documentary full of citations to respected journals and various papers.

would be nice to work it into the article as there is a huge lack of neutrality in this article. definitely seems to be written with a foregone conclusion that denial-ism is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTxvmKHYajQ i found it very hard to watch the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.200.140 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A "documentary" produced by conspiracy theorists to promote fringe theories does not come anywhere near to meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. The article as it currently is represents the overwhelming scientific consensus, and any inclusion of this movie would be undue weight. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And Wikipedia editors don't actually determine what is "right" and "wrong", we just follow the aforementioned reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I vouch for this. The discussion by the links hold many fine, educated points from members of the BMJ. Can we add a Yes/No popularity button for this topic? 62.16.242.213 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't operate by votes, and please read WP:ELNO. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this have to be addressed? Is this a sufficient enough scientific evidence that HIV is a hoax? Look at the source and the person making it: Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: Dr. Kary Mullis "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.98.146 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

An outdated and ignorant claim, versus almost the entirety of modern biology and medicine? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Brand new updated link with all reference included. This is proof: http://www.duesberg.com/presentations/$bnAIDSQuiz.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.83.57 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Jarkeld (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.83.57 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Add an AIDS Denialists who have died section?

I am just getting started on Wiki, so if I am making formating or protocol errors, my apologies. I know several websites maintain a list of AIDS denialists that have gone on to die of AIDS. AIDS Truth, is one such example. It might add some additional context and implications to the article (though I see South Africa and Christine Maggorie are already present). Does anyone have any thoughts about adding such a section? --Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a thought. I think the section you are proposing is morbid and pointless. It would be equivalent to adding a section called "Believers in the HIV theory who died of AIDS" to the HIV/AIDS article. Since that article doesn't list people who accepted the HIV theory who died of AIDS, why should this article list the people who didn't believe in the HIV theory who died of AIDS? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a very good reason that it does not exist on the HIV/AIDS page, and that is because the disease progression of AIDS is far from a "theory". "Belief". as you put it, is all that AIDS deniers can stand upon, as they have no scientific evidence in which to base their belief. The fact that some of them continue to deny until they find themselves dead goes a long way to showing their level of detachment from reality. Seth Kalichman, goes into far more detail about these psychological aspects in his book, and this section could show the final result of such thinking. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not the least interest in discussing the merits of the HIV theory of AIDS. That wasn't the point of my comment. Rather, all I was pointing out is that there is no more purpose to having a "list of people who didn't believe that HIV causes AIDS who died of AIDS" here than there is to having a "list of people who did believe that HIV causes AIDS who died of AIDS" in another article. Whether HIV causes AIDS or not has no bearing on the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, well I will wait and see if I get anymore feedback from others about the possibility of adding this type of content somewhere in this article. It would appear that you have a personal attachment to this issue, which might make it difficult for you to remain objective. Consequently, there is already a list up for HIV related deaths Here. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

What does Kalichman discuss in his book? I think a better/more important addition could be about the psychological aspects of denial and detachment from reality, this could mention one or two examples. I have to agree FKC has a point about morbidity. This might also verge on original research, is there any reliable source has composed and published such a list? Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, Your comment got the gears in my brain turning a bit. Perhaps doing a short section on the psychological aspects of AIDS Denialism might not be a bad undertaking, Especially since my expertise is psyche/sociology, and when you are a hammer you naturally see everything around you as a nail. Though there would also be substantial overlap with the more generalized psychological notion of denial, which is extremely well documented in the peer reviewed literature. Prof. Kalichman does go into significant detail specific to AIDS denialism in his book "Denying AIDS". The only thing that I am hesitant about is making an article for a pseudoscientific topic too long. As another alternative, we could always just add a link to the psyche article on Denial for economy and succinctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is you linked to is about Freudian psychology, and thus has no relevance to AIDS or HIV. I have removed the link. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel as though denial, as a psychological defense mechanism, is not relevant to the discussion here ? The behavior exhibited by people who embrace AIDS Denialism is so glaring it could be used as a textbook case study on the construct. Prof. Kalichman expresses some more detail on specifics here. I am not understanding your justification for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF first you want to argue that it's not a pseudoscientific view, now you purport that the psychological term denial is not relevant to an article on DENIALISM? Clearly there is a reliable source which considers the HIV/AIDS denial community and view appropriately analyzed in terms of psychological denial. A reliable source was presented before the content was added, your removal was inappropriate and and your conduct on this talk page is tendentious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To wit, "his claim that HIV is harmless reinforces the normal process of denial most people undergo when faced with traumatizing information" (Nattrass, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z). - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am equally baffled by this move, and this user has apparently also removed the "see also" links from the Denial (Psychology) article pertaining to Climate change denial,Holocaust denial, and (naturally) AIDS denialism. These are all about as clear cut and unambiguous of examples for psychological denial as one can find. They are all well sourced, and are a topic of discussion in just about every undergraduate, introduction to psychology or cognitive behavior class you will walk into in North America. Unless I see some very convincing arguments from this user, I will revert these changes back. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article about the specific psychological phenomenon that Freudians call "denial", which is not necessarily the same thing that people are ordinarily referring to when they use the word "denial", is inappropriate to an article about HIV/AIDS denialism simply because there is no connection between the two. The "denialism" part of "HIV/AIDS denialism" is not meant to refer specifically to the phenomenon Freudians call "denial", and it's original research to try to link the two. Does Kalichman actually use Freudian psychology to try to analyse AIDS denialism? If not, then you're trying to create a connection that does not exist. MrBill3 would do well not to make bogus accusations of vandalism simply because I made an edit somewhere that he disagreed with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As for my conduct on this talk page being "tendentious", what is that supposed to mean? Disagreeing with MrBill3? As I understand it, talk pages exist precisely so that editors can discuss their disagreements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Free, if you will direct your attention to citation that I posted in my first response on the matter, in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction they do indeed make that distinction. Also, suffice to say that the field of psychology has expanded upon Freud's original concept significantly in the interim time period leading up to today. More on topic, the peer reviewed academic journal "AIDS and Behavior" routinely publishes sociological and psychological material related to denial, paranoid personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and a host of others as they relate to the AIDS Pandemic and it's cast of characters. People like Mullis and Duesberg are actually a fascinating topic from a psychological perspective, as are AIDS Denialists in general, as they show the propensity of the human mind to overcome reason.

My objections to your removal of the link stand, but I am willing to allow the judgements of my peers to give me direction on this matter Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The link you posted on the talk page (I'm referring to this) leads not to Kalichman's book, but to an article about HIV/AIDS denialism by someone else. Unsurprisingly, that article does not mention Freudian psychology, or show that the "denialism" in "HIV/AIDS denialism" has anything at all to do with what Freudians call denial. So you and other editors, by insisting on adding a link to Denial here, are guilty of trying to create a connection between unrelated subjects. Your comment that "suffice to say that the field of psychology has expanded upon Freud's original concept significantly in the interim time period leading up to today" is a blathering irrelevance, since the article you linked to is primarily about Freudian ideas, which of course have no relevance to the topic of this article. By the way, Freudian psychology is itself often considered a pseudo-science, so it's unusual, to put it mildly, that you or anyone else would try to use it to help show why HIV/AIDS denialism is pseudo-scientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Free, I must apologize, I have too many windows open and I sent you the wrong cite. Appropriate one is Here. . You can only read the first few pages on a free account (though I do have a print copy of the book leftover from my own graduate career), but it will give you all the information you need about the foundations of AIDS denial as a "coping mechanism", and gee, I wonder where on Earth did that concept come from? Denial is actually incredibly common in people that face a serious medical diagnosis, but most people go through a series of stages leading to eventual acceptance. Obviously, with denialists, their pathological behavior makes that difficult. You can throw around lofty accusations all you want, but I studied psyche for 7 years in an academic setting, and I am quite confident that scholarship backs up my contention. Again, I will wait for others to weigh in here, as you have not convinced me. Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I glanced at the book. It obviously does not draw the connection you claim it does. HIV/AIDS denialism has nothing to do with Freudian psychology, and since the link you added is to an article about Freudian psychology, it is clearly inappropriate. It seems that you and other editors want to play the stupid and childish game of labeling points of view you disagree with (the idea that HIV is not the cause of AIDS being only one of them) pathological. I submit that if you really do have convincing arguments against those points of view, trying to suggest that they are forms of mental pathology should not be necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be overly obsessed with labels far more than I am. As an example, other than my freshman year of college, I do not think I have ever heard anybody in academia use the term "Freudian" when referencing denial. Why? Because after that point everyone who has paid attention knows precisely where the basis of the construct comes from. That is not to say people have not modified the concept and applied it to their own research. That happens all the time, and is in the true spirit of applied learning, but that in no way invalidates the work that came before it by any stretch. Take the term "denialism" which this article rests upon, which is a modern convention, and reflects the sociopolitical conception of denial.

As a side note, you are far from the first person I have ran across who is upset with modern psychology and it's predisposition towards finding a term in the DSM and slapping it onto a person and calling it day. I am not a fan of that approach either, which is why I am not sitting in the library right now reading copious amounts of material and pondering my dissertation. However, psychologists, just like most social scientists, are very apt at noticing trends for human behavior, and in the case of denial, the shoe fits snugly on the feet of AIDS "Dissidents".--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol

Did he deny the link between HIV and AIDS, or, did he just deny having AIDS? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

After doing a little digging, I have yet to find a reliable source that suggests that he denied the link, only that he denied he was infected. While his actions in Poland certainly lead me to believe he was a Sociopath, I see no evidence of AIDS denialism, at least, none in the manner that matches our definition here. If someone has evidence to the contrary I would certainly like to see it. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

To be very precise and verbatim, he denied "being infected" (with HIV), as he was circumcised, while knowing that he had tested positive for AIDS years back. He thus repeatedly denied the possibility of him infecting dozens of girls he slept with with HIV. Logical, isn't it?

See the details and context below.

First, while I am dwelling on this here. Since this and related articles are oftentimes reverted or even deleted for the reasons of political correctness (see dead link‍] proof), I need to provide more scientific background and seek wide consensus first.

My point is that apart from "AIDS is not HIV", many Black people claim(ed) that they are immune to HIV since they are circumcised. Simon Mol who knew he had AIDS (he was tested and told about it), was one of them, as evidenced by his own quote there, which belief may have contributed to his HIV transmission.

To prove existence and universality of this false belief, I want to add a subsection about it, with a quote about its occurence among Subsaharan Blacks in particular, referencing e.g. this article: Circumcision Denialism Unfounded and Unscientific and maybe related ones which reference it: Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current evidence and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa. or this one, sample quote: “Are heterosexual men, living with HIV in South Africa, clear that although they can get circumcised, their benefits in this regard are close to none – if any?"

My point is that he and other people learning that "circumcision massively reduces HIV risks" (Mol actually directly referenced a BBC article about it) engange in denialism, wishful thinking, that in claiming and believing they could never catch HIV (Mol used the word "(not) infected" to ally the fears of his partners).

Is it RS enough and does it warrant a subsection so that my edits are not reverted again? Please advise. Zezen (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One could deny that one could catch HIV/AIDS while still affirming that HIV causes AIDS. Unless you have evidence that Mol specifically denied that HIV leads to AIDS, it is original research to include Mol. The sources you provide contain no indication of anyone claiming that circumcision means AIDS is somehow not caused by HIV, but that some people are under the mistaken assumption that circumcision is a cure for already contracted HIV-caused AIDS. Completely different matter.

To be clear: this article is about those who claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV. It is not about those who understand that AIDS is caused by HIV but mistakenly believe it can be cured through circumcision, or whose who understand that AIDS is caused by HIV but mistakenly believe that circumcision renders them completely immune. You need a source that specifically claims that Mol denied the link between HIV and AIDS, not sources where Mol claims to have no been infected. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point about what this article is about NOW.

What I am trying us to agree on is that we create a subsection (better) or if really needed a separate article about mistaken claims, popular among Black Africans, that if you circumcise then you do not catch AIDS/HIV or that if you do so after getting infected it sto;; magically cures you. As I wrote, they are RS proven (see the sample sources above)

Please comment on my query if such sources are RS enough for a separate section.

Zezen (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just found that Simon Mol also believed his sperm to be sacred.

References

Would that be a proof for his magical thinking (aka denialism) good enough? Zezen (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does not appear to say that Mol believed that HIV does not cause AIDS. This article is specifically about people who deny that HIV leads to AIDS. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Zezen, Much of what you are brining up is already covered in Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS, which is where I think some material about Sol could be worked in. I also agree with Ian that the evidence you present does not appear to support inclusion here.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I search for "circumcision" there but they do not cover this type of AIDS denialism.

-> Shall we create it here then? As you see from these RS, it exists, and influences many people's decisions.

Zezen (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that circumcision prevents HIV infection is not a form of HIV/AIDS denialism. How many times do you have to be told that? HIV/AIDS denialism is only the claim that HIV does not lead to AIDS. HIV/AIDS denialism does not include any claims that HIV infection can be avoided by some means.

The mistaken belief that circumcision prevents HIV infection is a misconception about how HIV spreads, even if that misconception has yet to be added to that article. It is not the denial that AIDS is caused by HIV. Do you see the difference? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to be a problem with this editor. However, circumcision is not mentioned in Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS which may be because according to our article on Circumcision and HIV the World Health Organisation "and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention but should be carried out by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent". Now this may be, as the tag says, outdated, but if " many Black people claim(ed) that they are immune to HIV since they are circumcised." there seems to be ample reason for this belief, correct or not. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. While I think it is possible that adding of some of the material presented here could have a rightful place in the misconceptions article (the belief is, after all, incorrect, and therefore represents a misconception) it clearly has no basis for inclusion here. I would encourage Zezen to bring this up on the misconceptions article talk page. . --Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your judicious advice. I will try to introduce such section by reaching consensus on misconceptions article talk page. instead of editing this one then. (I will be a tad busy over the next couple of days, so will not be able to contribute for a while.)

Zezen (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See Also

Is there a particular reason for removing "denialism" from this list? I realize it is now hyperlinked in the lede, but since our current list is relatively brief, I see no cause for it's removal below as it might be a logical progression for a reader finishing the article. Supaflyrobby (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Yobol (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HIV/AIDS denialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623094834/http://www.aidstruth.org:80/nattrass.pdf to http://www.aidstruth.org/nattrass.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of the lead currently reads, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." The words, "contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence" are unnecessary. The lead already made it absolutely clear that AIDS denialism is wrong before that addition, so the added clause is absolutely pointless. There never was a good reason for that addition, and I believe it should now be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the clause makes it clear why it is a form of "denialism" as opposed to some other belief. It is succinct, and makes a clear definition in the very first sentence. I see no reason to remove it. Yobol (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's just adding words that equate to "AIDS denialism is wrong" to an article that already said "AIDS denialism is wrong." If it makes clear that AIDS denialism is "denialism", then so did the information already in the lead. So, it is unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear from the jump that the denialists are factually wrong. The mere fact that the name of the article uses the term "denialism" in it's title (which is a psychological/sociological concept) does not eliminate our responsibility to add plain language clarity to our lead. Similarly, I see no justification for removal, but I will wait for others to chime in. Supaflyrobby (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What is necessary is that the lead not insult the intelligence of its readers by containing needless repetition, which is what your pointless addition amounts to. The lead was already perfectly "plain language" clear. Anyone who reads the lead, even without the addition, will see that AIDS denialism is wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol and Supaflyrobiy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol and Supaflyrobby as well. I think it's important to make it clear from the opening why it is a form of "denialism."Dustinlull (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead is the "opening" of the article and already made it clear that AIDS denialism is wrong. It's strange to see so many people supporting the current version of the lead without giving any real reasons. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to establish this belief as incorrect. That is missing without the additional phrase. It is fine for it to be explained in more detail later in the lede and again in the body of the article. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that the first sentence needs to establish that AIDS denialism is wrong, and the page you linked to does not support your position in any way, rather the reverse. It states, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". In other words, the first sentence should simply explain what "AIDS denialism" is, not make any comment about its correctness or lack of it.

Besides that, even if you were right and the first sentence did need to say that AIDS denialism is wrong, there would still be no justification for the repetition in the lead. It would be easy to rewrite the lead so that it explains that AIDS denialism is wrong in the first sentence, without saying again that AIDS denialism is wrong later in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"In other words, the first sentence should simply explain what "AIDS denialism" is, not make any comment about its correctness or lack of it." I hear what you're saying, but with a "denialism" topic, the "incorrectness" is part of the subject's definition. The fact that HIV denialism contradicts scientific consensus is precisely what makes it "denialism" as opposed to "skepticism" or some other position.Dustinlull (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, I think this is what we are all saying 'It's strange to see so many people supporting the current version of the lead without giving any real reasons' We've pretty much all given the same reason. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to establish the incorrectness of AIDS denialism in the first sentence, then all you need to do is to say, "AIDS denialism is the erroneous belief that..." The clause about AIDS denialism being contradicted by conclusive scientific evidence is not necessary and needlessly repeats other material in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The core basis and defining attribute of HIV/AIDS denialism is that it is a belief, which is contradicted by scientific principals. For this reason this article is part of a category which groups it with other articles of this nature. The reason it is in this category needs to be explicitly mentioned in the lead. In the past attempts have been made, by the subjects cited in this article (some of whom have a great deal of public influence) to convince others that the subject of this article is supported by medical science. These claims are false, they have been proved false. The proof of this is by necessity part (I would say the large part) of the article's content. The text in the lead is simply providing a summary of the article's full body, exactly as if should do. Other articles on pseudo-science are also written in this manner (compare homeopathy). There's no need to remove anything from the lead that clarifies the medical position on this medical related subject. The words "non-scientific" or "contradicted by medical science" or any phrasing of that nature will stay in the Lead. This article is not comparable to creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Transmission by sex

Hello. There is something on the first part of this article that could be changed. The HIV/AIDS dissent also claims that HIV is not sexually transmited. Now, in this article, it says "insofar as [HIV denialists] acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of sexual behavior (...)". This is misleading. Very misleading. I think it's important to mention that nowhere in this article does it mention the scientific conclusion about the transmission by sex of HIV. Now, denialists are in no good place to say that this microorganism doesn't exist; I have never put my eyes in a microscope in my life, so I can't speak about what the medical researchers have isolated, replicated, etcetera. But that theory, the "transmission by sex" theory, sounds fake. It just does. Whoever wrote this article has gone out of their way to not include this theory, because it's the weakest one in the whole HIV propaganda, and the one in which dissenters could be right. Now: what should it read? I think the best is to erase the sexual behavior part and leave the rest. Why? Because the rest of the things, that is, drugs, malnutrition, and so forth, actually can ruin someone's body. But how can "sexual behavior" do this? I mean, does sex between two people who are free of STD 's can provoke AIDS, in the denialists opinion? This doesn't make sense. There could also be a section showing arguments against the "transmission by sex" theory: it's important in the dissent community, and in the HIV Wikipedia article it says "HIV is a sexually transmitted infection", so I don't see why it doesn't have it's counterpart in the HIV/AIDS denialism article. 190.173.207.99 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Wikipedia summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (in the case of medical articles, secondary or tertiary sources from medical professionals in the relevant field. Wikipedia does not use original research, especially original research based on what a user doesn't know or understand.

Some denialists assume that AIDS is a consequence of anal sex, rather than HIV being a real microorganism that causes AIDS.

The HIV microorganism has been proven to exist, HIV has been proven to cause AIDS, and AIDS has been proven to only be caused by HIV. To deny that or even entertain the notion that it's a "weak link" requires pretending that medical science isn't a thing, period. It's not propaganda, it's scientific fact, and we will not create artificial validity for reality-denying pseudoscience for the benefit of lunatic charlatans. If you want sources, there's plenty in the HIV and HIV/AIDS articles.

The denialists who believe that AIDS is caused by anal sex tend to reject science and believe that health is linked to morality. They might try to pretend that their ideas are science, but they simply are not. Nevertheless, they are a type of AIDS denialist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course... I wasn't implying that HIV doesn't exist, I was only saying that denialists aren't in a place to prove if it does or does not exist. But now that you mention transmission by *anal* sex, it's a good starting point to wonder if that microorganism isn't actually present in feces. That would mean that vaginal intercourse doesn't propagate the virus. The "weak link" notion that I'm entretaining is that one. Keep in mind that the very same Wikipedia article talks about sub-types of HIV, and that could indicate different origins.

Again, I acknowledge that I haven't really any proof of it. And since Wikipedia has a rule against original research, all the material I can provide against the "transmission by sex" theory wouldn't be admissible because it comes from my own research (looking at web pages, reading books, talking to people). But I still wonder why, in the whole article, there is no mention of any denialist challenging that theory, like a Peter Duesberg of the "not-transmited-by-vaginal-sex" camp. 190.173.207.99 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel.

I went ahead and made the proposed changes. I gave a source for one of the things I added, which is an actual study conducted by scientists. 190.173.207.99 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

To discuss this, we need have a source discussing this topic in the context of what denialists claim. As constructed, the source itself does not seem to mention what denialists claim. Yobol (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. This was a study conducted scientifically, and it's basis for dissent in the HIV mainstream theories. It's good enought to be in this article. I'm editing it back.

The problem seems to be that since the people who reached this conclussion are scientists, they are not denialists, because denialists are known to talk out of their butt. But do we have to create yet another article dedicated to scientifically-checked dissent theories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.207.99 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what in the text you added that's HIV denialism, could you elaborate? You seem to be under the impression that the current scientific consensus is that HIV infects at every or almost every sexual encounter, and that the low numbers quoted in the study means dissent? Sjö (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote from the Wikipedia HIV article: "In most cases, HIV is a sexually transmitted infection". Quote from the source I gave: "infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low". I cant' make it more clear. Both claims are made about HIV positive individuals. PS I'm editing the article again. 190.173.247.237 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Again, as far as I can see there is nothing in your edit that could be taken as HIV/AIDS denialism. "Low infectivity" does not mean ""no infectivity". The source you added seems to be pretty much in line with the mainstream opinion, i.e. that the risk of being infected by sexual contact isn't very high. HIV/AIDS says that "for high-income countries are 0.04% per act for female-to-male transmission, and 0.08% per act for male-to-female transmission." The source does not say that HIV isn't transmitted sexually. If there is anything else there that could be understood as HIV denialism, please explain what it is. You will have to find another source to support your text. Sjö (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, the two statements you made there are not in contradiction with one another. Like, completely, 100% not contradictory. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the IP is confusing:

• the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection, divided by the total number of sexual encounters, and
• the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection, divided by the total number of HIV infections.

The first is closer to 0, and the second is closer to 1. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I'm a little confused now. I'm not puting indentation now, but I'm responding to all former comments. What I took the study to mean, is that people with HIV don't always transmit it. That's why Someguy1221's assertion that "the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection, divided by the total number of HIV infections" is close to 1, is not true; it's actually closer to 0 if the infectivity is low. Look, this talk is really making my brain explode so I'm going to put an end to it. I'll just add this: government agencies from many countries in the world have been trating HIV like a pandemy, with health campaings in TV and schools and such. But now you people are telling me that no one ever said that HIV has a high risk of being transmited via sex... I don't want to make a straw man fallacy, but that's what I gather from this thread. So HIV denialism comes down to claims about HIV not existing or being harmless, but what actually is important to people , to everyday, lay people, is if it's transmited by sex. But now I want to edit this article, but the edit is not admissible because the orthodoxy doesn't say that there is a high risk? 190.173.139.65 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Ezequiel

Two things are true at the same time: A) Most sexual acts between an HIV(+) and an HIV(-) individual do not result in transmission; B) Most people who have HIV were infected through having sex with an HIV(+) individual. It may seem counter-intuitive, but basically, some people are having a LOT of unprotected sex, so even a small per-event risk adds up, and the infection continues to spread. Scientists do not consider this a contradiction, and people who try to pin down the exact per-event risk are not considered denialists. Consider another type of danger: Drunk driving deaths. About 20 million Americans a year drive drunk, but only about 10,000 Americans a year are killed by drunk drivers. Wow, must not be a big deal then, right? Such a tiny risk. Well, drunk drivers are a very small percentage of the drivers on the road at any given time, yet account for a third of all deaths. The NTSB estimates that the chance an underaged male kills someone while driving goes up 1.5 million percent when he's drunk. Is this sort of making any sense now? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"it's actually closer to 0 if the infectivity is low" - You obviously do not listen to what people say, or to what you yourself say. Infectivity is about the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection, divided by the total number of sexual encounters, and not the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection, divided by the total number of HIV infections.

What science says is: most of those people who got it, got it from sex. And not: Most people who have sex (with HIV infected people) get HIV. Those numbers are different, because the denominators are different. It is pretty much already there when you actually read what people write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Someguy1221: Yes, thank you. I'm a little less confused he he he.

Hob Gadling: I did read what the other user said, calm down with the ad-hominem arguments. I read it, and that's why I concluded that the propaganda from government agencies is ever so exaggerated, I mean, using the word "pandemy" when "Most sexual acts between an HIV(+) and an HIV(-) individual do not result in transmission", to use the clarifying words from Someguy1221. 190.173.139.65 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Pointing out the part where you made your mistake is not ad hominem. Please read argumentum ad hominem to find out why not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, you showed that you were in the third lowest level of the pyramid instead of the second. I read all the information that was given to me but got confused with the math, and you accused me of not reading at all. You responded to tone. 190.173.139.65 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

I do not understand anything you are trying to say here, from the sudden introduction of "pyramids" to "responded to tone". But it doesn't matter. What matters is this:

Another article you should read is HIV/AIDS in Africa. Yes, it is a pandemic. No, that is not an exaggeration. Yes, "government agencies" employ statisticians who understand the problem far better than you do. No, your conclusion is not worth anything until you start to understand the basics, which has not happened yet. This is actually quite simple math. But you haven't made the first step in learning anything: namely to acknowledge that you haven't learned it yet. You may be "less confused" but you ended up of the wrong side of the true/false border. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You say that I don't read the information, but you have overlooked the Hierarchy of Disagreement that's posted in the very same article you linked to. By the way, once again you are responding to tone. You can no longer accuse me of not reading, so you are criticizing me for not having a degree in Statistics or something. If you are so knowledgeable about this topic, why do you have to harass? Why can't you prove your points without offending people? You are only making the AIDS orthodoxy seem more fraudulent. I skimmed over the article about AIDS in Africa and the statements "Chief among [High-risk behavioral patterns] are the traditionally liberal attitudes espoused by many communities inhabiting the subcontinent toward multiple sexual partners" and "In sub-Saharan Africa, people with HIV-related diseases occupy more than half of all hospital beds" are contradicted by "Most sexual acts between an HIV(+) and an HIV(-) individual do not result in transmission", unless there are 6 hospital beds in the wholoe African continent. 190.173.231.137 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Ezequiel

To put some numbers on this, here is a paper that studied a "network" of gay men in the American midwest. They found that the average man in this group had eight sexual partners in the last year, and had unprotected sex eighty times. The chance of giver-to-receiver transmission of HIV during unprotected sex is estimated at around 1.5%, basically the highest of sexual acts. The marginal risk of transmission must be studied in the context of the number of exposures. If there are men with HIV having that much unprotected sex, and considering the latent phase of HIV infection typically lasts 3–20 years, the number of men you expect an infected person to infect can be quite high, even if he stops once he becomes symptomatic. If there is an educator out there saying that you will get HIV if you have unprotected sex even one time, they are being hyperbolic, ignorant, or outright deceitful, but that's not what actual scientists and doctors are saying. At least not the ones studying HIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just bullshit. I never attacked "the characteristics or authority of the writer". I don't even know what characteristics or authority you have. It's just that it is very obvious from your reasoning which parts you understood and which parts you did not.

The point is that sentences like "Most sexual acts between an HIV(+) and an HIV(-) individual do not result in transmission" do not contradict the fact that it is a pandemic. To understand this, you do not need a "degree in Statistics", but an understanding of elementary school math. To wit:

If you multiply a small number with a very big number, you can get a big number in spite of the smallness of the small number.

The small number is:

the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection, divided by the total number of sexual encounters. Also called infectivity. This number is small because "Most sexual acts between an HIV(+) and an HIV(-) individual do not result in transmission"

The very big number is:

the total number of sexual encounters.

If you multiply both, you get:

the number of sexual encounters resulting in HIV infection. This number is big, therefore it is a pandemic. You say it must be small, because the infectivity is small, but that is wrong. The total number of sexual encounters is big enough to make the product of both numbers big.

Got it now? Or is it still too difficult? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know people are sleeping with each other so much. Those numbers might be fabricated, though. In the case of Africa, it's the way of leading the interviewed person with questions, like "what drove you to have sex with 10 people last month?", then asserting that Africans have that much sex. In the case of Mid West America, where more educated people might laugh at the interviewers if they ask stupid questions, it's different. The "network" could be comprised of one man who has had 8 sexual partners, thus making a grand total of 9 people in the network. To think that in Mid West America there's a lot of people who each one has 8 sexual partners is misleading. So, for all we know, it could be just 9 gay people and 1 HIV infection. Even though the abstract speaks of "255 unique network members", they could still be having sex with each other, and even if HIV had a 100% infection rate, there would still be 255 infected people. Far from a pandemic.

Or maybe I'm just disconnected from gay and African people and I'm living my life in chastity. Anyway, we started discussing HIV instead of article improvement, so I'm sure the Powers That Be will close this tread.

P.S: Hob Gadling, I know you didn't commit "Ad hominem", that's why I changed to "Responding to tone" and I think that you know you are guilty of it. But I have to thank you for illustrating the poing with different fonts, it actually helped. 190.173.231.137 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Ezequiel

I did not read beyond the second sentence "Those numbers might be fabricated, though". I know your type. You want to believe what you believe. When you find a fragment of a sentence you can use to bolster your belief, you trumpet it around. When it turns out the evidence is against you, you call the evidence "fake". This "discussion" is over, Donald. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, 15 April 2018: "You obviously do not listen to what people say (...) It is pretty much already there when you actually read what people write." Hob Gadling, 20 April 2018: "I did not read beyond the second sentence". Talk about hypocrisy. Once again, you are not making the HIV orthodoxy look too good by being so conceited. 190.173.231.137 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Check out this little gem I found in the Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS article: "The myth that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS is prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa.". Come on. No one is this stupid. I really do not believe that anyone in sub-Saharan Africa thinks that sex with a virgin cures anything. I bet that they are putting words in African people's mouths. Then it goes on saying that NSPCA "recorded beliefs [in Johannesburg] amongst youths that sex with animals is a means to avoid AIDS or cure it if infected". If this were the Talk page of this article, I would ask these entries to be removed because I really think they are phony; not because there wasn't an interviewer in Africa gathering data, but because the data itself is absurd to the umpteenth degree, and it sounds like hearsay, or like the African people were taking the piss on the interviewers. 190.173.231.137 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

You are a case study in confirmation bias. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you know what? I'm biased, because I start from the fact that "a great deal is known about the pathogenesis of HIV disease, even though important details remain to be elucidated" (from Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS) . IMPORTANT details. I strongly believe that HIV comes with feces. There is people who penetrate the ass of their partner and make their organ go inside their rectum, and there is also people who lick the anus of their partner.

Why doesn't all sexual contact between a HIV+ and a HIV- result in infection? Because not all of them involve contact with the anus and rectum. Why is the cause of HIV transmission mostly sexual? Because the chances of getting feces inside your system are 99% sexual acts (yes, I know this statistic doesn't have a study backing it up, but seriously, why would anyone put feces in their toung of penis? Why?). Why did the HIV outbrake happen in the 80's? Because sexual permisiveness was a thing of that decade (an actual title of a book from 1983 is "Raising a child conservatively in a sexually permissive world", by Sol Gordon and Judith Gordon). Why is HIV still closely related to gay people? Because anal sex.

Now, are there studies that have discarded fecal matter as the vehicle of HIV? Has any of the scientists that have studied HIV proposed this? Looking for the word "feces" in the Wikipedia article of HIV doesn't have results, nor does looking for it in "Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS". The ball is in your court. Show me proof that fecal matter has no role in the pathogenesis of AIDS; honest, rational proof, and not accusations of not understanding the subject and of engaging in pseudo science. 190.173.211.141 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

It's been five days and nobody could offer proof to dispute what I said. That's because there isn't any. Either fecal matter is the cause of AIDS, or it's the vehicle of HIV. At any rate, it can make you sick if it gets inside your system. That is fact. Checking Wikipedia for anal sex, it says "Unprotected receptive anal sex (with an HIV positive partner) is the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission", but it's probably the other way around: the giver will get HIV because they come in contact with fecal matter.

There is also the article about anilingus. It says "Anilingus has potential health risks arising from the oral contact with human feces" and lists a cohort of diseases, but finally it claims that "HIV/AIDS is not believed to be easily transmitted through anilingus". At least Wikipedia acknowledges that this practice can make you sick. However, this webpage and the scientific community are still attributing AIDS to HIV instead of the most obvious cause. They don't want to believe that a sexual practice can cause AIDS, even when it's logical that said sexual practice can make you get in contact with an infectious substance. The source of the anilingus article says "No documented cases of HIV transmission have ever been connected to rimming". It's a lie. It's not documented because people don't want to document it. Scientists and medical doctors are cowards; they don't want to look like dictators if they dare to disencourage a sexual practice. That's why the source begins their column with "Our bodies contain a rainbow of pleasure potential. Even seemingly unlikely body parts can be intense pleasure centers when fully aroused", and this is of course talking about anilingus. Seriously? A "rainbow of potential" for sticking your tounge into somebody's anus? HIV is political. It's an euphemism.

I know this isn't the purpose of the Talk page, so if someone is going to close this thread, I'm happy that at least one person will read. 190.173.211.137 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

I read your first sentence: "It's been five days and nobody could offer proof to dispute what I said." Wrong. Nobody is listening to you because you already proved you cannot be taken seriously. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"... It's a lie. It's not documented because people don't want to document it. Scientists and medical doctors are cowards.". Pretty hilarous.... --Skyfall (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

HIV is said to be transmited by all kinds of sexual acts. Why is anilingus off the hook? Such a dangerous virus, "in most cases a sexually transmitted infection ", but putting your tounge in an anus is risk-free for it? Why? Why does that column qualifies it as a "rainbow of potential"? So many health campaigns, such a pandemic, but licking an anus won't give you the virus that causes AIDS? Do you understand why some people don't trust medical orthodoxy? 190.173.211.137 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

So? My question is still unanswered. Why doesn't anilingus transmit HIV? 190.173.173.61 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

190.173.173.61 You've been reverted a number of times over the last few days by several editors over the entry you want to add regarding the denial for transmission by sex. The reason for this is that the source you are using does not support the statement you are trying to make, in two different ways. (1) If you Wikipedia to say that denialists deny that HIV is transmitted by heterosexual health, then you need a reliable source saying that denialists say that. What I think you have tried to do is present a source that might have been used by a denialist to make that argument, but that's a different thing. (2) The source you have presented does not suggest that heterosexual sex doesn't transmit HIV. What is says, very clearly, is that transmission rates are increased in heterosexual partners if one of the partners has a pre-existing STD - which, given that a pre-existing STD is likely to be associated with sores, rashes or other breaks in the skin, is unsurprising. This source demonstrates clearly that heterosexual sex IS an undeniable vector for HIV, and that it is riskier if one partner has an STD. You aren't going to get your entry accepted with this source.Girth Summit (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Silence

Unrelated to improvements to the article; please review WP:TPG.

It seems that your science has no answer this time. I remember a health campaign, featuring a doctor with his license number printed on-screen, saying that "HIV is transmited by all kinds of sex: oral, vaginal and anal". But all of a sudden it turns out that putting your toung in an anus doesn't transmit the virus! THe HIV othodoxy needs to make up it's mind. Whenever it's confronted with questions, it starts diminishing the subject. I asked for confirmation about HIV being transmited by sex, but actually it's almost never transmited, and it's only considered a pandemy if people have sex all the time with each other. Researching my hypothesis that fecal matter is the real cause of AIDS, I came across that column that depicts anilingus as a rainbow of potential. Either HIV is a real virus or it isn't. We are in a middle ground. You can talk about statistics and C4 cells all you want, but not having a sound conclusion is not very scientific, or at least it doesn't follow basic Aristotelian logic. Yesterday I saw an episode of Law and Order SVU, in which two homosexual men are murdered; they had a new kind of HIV that allegedly developed into AIDS in 6 months. A member of CDC testified in the murderer's trial and said that HIV was fighting against our effort to eliminate it, hence it's mutation. Do I have to stress how ridiculous it sounds? Do I have to say that it's pop science? P.S: That SVU episode also showed that the two gay men, who had AIDS, abused crystal meth when they went dancing, and they went dacing a lot. Talk about "drugs being the real cause of AIDS"... 190.173.195.94 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Sources

Does this article reference a study that proves the causal link between HIV and aides ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Several. More can be found at HIV/AIDS, the focus of which is on the actual science instead of the denialism. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the article or verified the references. MrBill3 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on HIV/AIDS denialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atu/1996/ATU4004.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616194132/http://tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf to http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.healtoronto.com/10reasons.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/081306_ias_sat_journalism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604155409/http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html to http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/sonnabend
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256&ct=1&SESSID=3d4baa1a64e57d8ff33e9d41eb2335a1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=%2Fbreaking_news%2Fbreaking_news__national%2F&articleid=280903
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=%2Fhealth%2F2006%2F12%2F11%2Fwsa10.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Flat earthers can't be convinced

because it takes too much $$$ to send them to space. On the other hand, for these people, why don't they just inject themselves with HIV? Just a drop of blood from a HIV person it cost no $$$. Money is tight (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This really doesn't concern article improvement, which is what talk pages are for. Also, conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theorize, and they'd just argue that the HIV patient's blood contains /something besides HIV/ which they attribute AIDS to (like drugs or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

People have known that the Earth is round since Ancient Greece. It's something that anybody can check by looking at the horizon and noticing that it's not straight, but curved. HIV denialism, on the other hand, is right on some account. Some people believe the HIV theory to be right just because propaganda says so, and also out of fear. So it's logical to doubt. The flat Earth conspiracy is just crazy. Now, what does it have to do with article improvement? I guess the Original Poster meant that the conspiray theories divulged by HIV denialists are garbage just like the flat Earth conspiracy. But they are not in the same level. So they deserve to be mentioned in this article. 190.173.227.182 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Wikipedia summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, giving different views the weight given by sources.

In the case of medical topics, Wikipedia focuses on secondary or tertiary sources from medical professionals in the relevant field. Those sources reject HIV denialism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction

I've deleted the "contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence" bit. It's been pointed out before that such sentence is completely out of place. Why can't you just enunciate what HIV denialism is? Why do you have to contradict it after every three lines? In the article, that is exactly what happens. Instead of having a section for refutation, there is a refutation after every claim, or it points out that somebody died. It's the proverbial last laugh. I think that the lead (I think that's what the text before the summary is called, correct me if I'm wrong) should only talk about HIV denialism. 190.173.193.119 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

This is not a scientific dispute. Studies have established causality and underlying mechanisms and effective therapies based on that science. Intense formal scientific review has been applied. Denialism is an unscientific WP:FRINGE position. The fact that the position is wholly counter to evidence is a salient feature of denialism. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:FRINGE makes completely clear that the context between a fringe theory and the mainstream that pseudoscientific beliefs must be clearly described as such. The suggestion that all refutation must be within a single section of this article is just wrong. VQuakr (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that this needs to be included in the opening sentence - the first thing that anyone needs to know about this subject is that it flies in the face of the medical and scientific consensus. Once you know that, you may or may not want to read on to find out more about the various conspiracy theories, but the fact that it totally fringe needs to be immediately clear.Girth Summit (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies":

Neutral point of view. If you don't add the "contradited by evidence" part, you are not affecting neutrality. In fact, neutrality means that you state what denialism is and just that.

No original research. All the denialism info comes from secondary sources already; you are not uploading original content in the lead if you keep from mentioning "contradicted by evidence"

Verifiability: The same as before.

I know that Wikipedia can't give undue weight to these kind of theories. However, you have a whole article to trash HIV denialism. And this statement "but the fact that it totally fringe needs to be immediately clear" is without doubt the most unscientific claim that one can make. It's really obvious that you don't want the truth to come out, but meh. I still think that the lead should just state what the topic is. 190.173.199.245 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

From WP:FRINGE: When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. If you have questions about the transmission or progression of HIV/AIDS, you could ask a question at WP:RD/S. This isn't the place to push your fringe theory. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This is really incredible. Someone reverted my edit because it was not "explained", when I had stated before that my reasons are here. This just confirms that you people see what you want to see and find every possible reason to keep dissent down. 190.173.199.245 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

And it was explained to you why the edit was inappropriate just above. If you remove that material again or continue to create artificial balance for the fringe position, a block or even page protection is not out of the question. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

From the artifial balance page: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers" yeah right... you are doing exactly that. You are taking sides. Just cut the pretence. Right in the second paragraph of the lead it says "The scientific consensus is that the evidence showing HIV to be the cause of AIDS is conclusive". There is already enough due weight. Erasing the sentence I proposed doesn't break the balance. 190.173.199.245 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Ezequiel

Medical science has taken a stance on the fact that HIV causes AIDS. If you have a problem with that, then go to a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked

I have blocked the range 190.173.192.0/18, to which all the IPs that have been disrupting this article belong, for two weeks. I'm putting the notice on the user talkpage of the latest incarnation, 190.173.150.216, and also here, where the individual using the IPs may be more likely to see it, since they don't have a stable talkpage. As Ian.thomson has pointed out here, if they had an account, which they have chosen to do without, they would have been alerted to discretionary sanctions for alternative medicine and pseudoscience weeks ago. Speaking personally, they would most likely have been topic banned by now, or indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. But with dynamic IPs we can only do what we can to contain disruption.

It may seem a big range to block, but the last edit from this range that did not concern HIV/AIDS denialism was on 9 March 2018, and the edits backwards from there, right down to a clutch of edits on 12 July 2017 (that may well be from a different individual), were all small and desultory. Counting from July 2017, it was only when the IPs dived into the topic of HIV/AIDS denialism that they started editing in earnest. Considering this situation, I don't think the risk of collateral damage is great. Feel free to let me know if disruption resumes after (or indeed during) the rangeblock. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for that, Bishonen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Would making this article permanent semi-protected help? Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Denialism Category

Mathglot, I just reverted your removal of the Denialism category, because it wasn't clear to me how WP:SUPERCAT applies here. The Denialism page actually sites AIDS Denialism as an example of Denialism in the lead, so it seems odd not to include it in that category; also, while Denialism is obviously related to some of the other categories applied to this page (e.g. Pseudoscience), it is not a subclass of pseudoscience. Can you explain your thinking on this? Girth Summit (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Category "HIV/AIDS denialism" is within category "Denialism", which makes it unnecessary to add the "Denialism" category to the article separately. Mathglot was thus quite correct to remove it; this is how categories are supposed to work, as per WP:SUPERCAT. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see that HIV/AIDS Denialism is a category, as well as the name of this page, and that is a subset of Denialism - apologies, SUPERCAT does apply. I should have looked closer at the categories before reverting.Girth Summit (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources and Montagnier

Good day to you all. I have two topics to discuss:

A) The first sentence in the lead reads "contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence". This has two sources. The excerpt of Source 1, down the page, says " …the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive". But the complete phrase of the source, which is a book, says "The comittee believes that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive". The bold letters are original from the source. Should the article reflect that this is a belief, held by a comittee? The second source no longer exists. I think it could be removed.

B) This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET0cgvo7UnM is a documentary. Luc Montagier himself appears in it. The interviewer asks "If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?" and Luc Montagnier replies "Yes". This is a good reliable source that could go in the article, as he's denying that HIV has no cure. Riveronthemountains (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC) River

A) Source 1: That is how scientists talk. Understatement is their style. When other scientists read such a sentence, they think "Ha! I will show you that what you think is wrong!" Nobody has shown it in the decades since 1988.

A) Source 2: The link still points to a page that can be used as a source for that sentence. The title is different, that's all.

B) If Montagnier wants Wikipedia to cite his opinion, he should publish it in a reliable source. (Hint: Youtube is not one of those.) If he does that, he will have to add the reasons why he thinks that, so it will also be an infinitely more helpful source than one where he says nothing but "yes". Of course, it is possible that he does not have any good reasons, in which case

a) the reliable source will reject his contribution and

b) we should disregard him.

As you can see, it would be a really bad idea to link to that youtube flick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A) Well, then I guess there is no problem in writing the reference in the same way as it's written in the source. Also, I changed the URL of Source 2, to the new webpage. Riveronthemountains (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC) River

B) Montagnier says a lot more than "yes" in that documentary, maybe if you watch it, you'll hear it for youself. Also, I thought that Luc Montagnier was the reliable source himself... so he is reliable when he says that HIV exists, but not when he says that it can be naturally cleared from the body? Riveronthemountains (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC) River

Context matters. A source for adding the information you want to add would need to simultaneously meet WP:MEDRS and WP:REDFLAG before we could even consider it. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Archives of more recently revised versions are present at that addressoldestnewest. There is an older live version. It should be easy to improve the link. It's just a question of version(s) to use. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I used [1] per your suggestion. If someone thinks one of the archives is better, feel free to swap. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Riveronthemountains is a sock, now blocked, and I expect some of you recognize their style. Some of their posts have already been reverted as vandalism; fell free to cross out the rest, if anybody cares enough. Bishonen | talk 04:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC).

Regarding recent talk page vandalism

So I don't forget (or so other admins can act on it): Special:Contributions/179.38.115.127, Special:Contributions/186.137.158.207, Special:Contributions/181.229.112.0/20, and Special:Contributions/190.173.128.0/18 all geolocate to the same place, and a spot that doesn't exactly have a lot of English speakers (much less users). All the edits on the ranges are the same user. If any 179.38 or 186.137 IPs continue to engage in vandalism, we'll just have a better net to form range blocks with. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Changes

Hatting IP-hopping denialist again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with user's GodOfNonTyranny latest edits. I think they should go back. They help mantaining a Neutral point of view. 190.173.161.2 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel That was a good revert to exclude the edits. The proposed changes quickfailed WP:RS (they removed sourced content) and WP:FRINGE (they afforded undue weight to pseudoscience). This actually means the proposed edits violated our neutral point of view policy, particularly the sections on "equal weight" and coverage of pseudoscience. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC) What you don't understand is that HIV/AIDS is pseudoscience. 190.173.138.153 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel Sorry, Ian, I'm removing the hat as I'd like to make a comment about these block-evading IPs and "Ezequiel". The reason we're seeing them here is that my one-month block of the range 190.173.192.0/18 just expired. In view of such persistence, I've blocked the range for three months. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC). Sorry again, Ian, we seem to have been getting our feet entangled over this; I see you had already blocked the range for one month. Well, now it's three months, hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Citations

JzG recently removed several citations with the edit summary, "Links to primary AIDS denialist papers are not suitable as references". I understand the reason for the edit, and I sympathize with it. However, I submit that it is effectively impossible to have an article about this topic without using such references. The alternative appears to be to leave certain content entirely uncited, which would be undesirable in any situation, and seems obviously unacceptable when we are attributing extremely controversial arguments and views to living people. For example, JzG's edit left the following text uncited (" Also that same year, the Perth Group, a group of denialists based in Perth, Western Australia led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, published in the non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses their first article questioning aspects of HIV/AIDS research, arguing that there was 'no compelling reason for preferring the viral hypothesis of AIDS to one based on the activity of oxidising agents' "). That really won't do, as it has potential WP:BLP implications. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: the first citation, this can't be removed without removing the paragraph (or replacing with another source). The second one is mostly based on the Nature page, so the questionable source is only actually there to backup the quote rather than giving any weight to the content and therefore there isn't a reason to hold it to normal WP:MEDRS standards in order to include it. PriceDL (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be preferable to cite secondary sources discussing these papers and the views expressed in them. This controversy has been written about including in quality books. We should be paraphrasing what the secondary reliable sources have said and using those as references. MrBill3 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ranges blocked

I've just blocked Special:Contributions/190.173.160.0/20 and Special:Contributions/181.229.96.0/19. If they were a user, I'd've blocked them indefinitely. If a single post of any sort shows up on this page after the block expires, point this section out at WP:AIV. Don't bother warning them, don't bother talking with them, WP:RBI needs to be applied consistently. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - I took the block you placed on 190.173.160.0/20 and extended it to 190.173.128.0/18 due to more abuse and from this sub-range just today. This should put a stop to the disruption from this range. I'm looking into the 181.229.96.0/19 range and making sure that nothing is slipping through either. Just pinging you an FYI regarding the block change I made. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to go with Special:Contributions/190.173.136.201/17 next time, I think. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Full protection for three days

With respect to using the term "drug" versus "medication". Please discuss. I have fully protected the article in question to give people the chance to have said discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Doc James. It might help to know that I have no further interest in this issue and will make no further reverts concerning it. Editors who are still interested can discuss it as much as they like. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay Freeknowledge, no worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, idk if you meant me James, but my last reversion was >24 hours and didn't meet criteria for 3RR/edit warring per WP:3RR. The last reversions were by different editors. Regardless, I'm glad to see the nonsense is ending. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Willner's death.

Hi, in the paragraph that explains Robert Willner's event, when he injected an HIV patient's blood in himself, why is it necessary to add as a last sentence that he died of a heart attack the following year?

Two reasons why this should be deleted:

1. His death is unrelated to the event. 2. None of the other paragraphs in the entire article mention the death of people after explaining anything about them.

Please delete that useless and misleading piece of information.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro.mc (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the point is that nothing can be presumed about whether he developed HIV infection, as he died before such infection would have become manifest. - Nunh-huh 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)