Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism

Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past, eg Talk:AIDS_denialism/Archive_8#RfC_on_AIDS_denialism. Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed.

Using the term "Denialist" is inherently biased

It lumps scientists who have alternative hypotheses with Holocaust "deniers".

Could a less-pejorative term be used? Perhaps "AIDS Alternative Hyphothesism", or something similarly neutral.

Sceptic is an accepted, neutral term used by the critics themselves. "Denial" means refusing to believe in truth, hence this term is implicitly biased and partial to one side of the debate. Geira (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the title of this article makes it a joke. There is no neutrality at all in the title. These people seem to have a theory that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted sexually, but that doesn't mean they are deniers or whatever. I don't see how such a POV article has gone unchallenged for so long.JettaMann (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "denier" already sets up battle lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle lines? No, the battle is over, although some people are denying that. Hence the term. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The debate is not over unless both parties agree to end it. To claim you have won the argument is a partizan view, not appropriate for Wikipedia.Geira (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked to see the word denialism used on this article; I'm currently at a conference where the issue has come up. Mainstream science -- where the money is -- says one thing; there is not one coherent alternative viewpoint, but a lot of people pointing out issues with the mainstream view. Further, most agree that AIDS exists, but the question is why; what is it. Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please point out the scientists that have this alternative hypothesis and their foundation. From what little i've seen of this so far, those who deny the connection between HIV and AIDS have no science behind them and are not reliable evaluations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in previously)

Well, there's Peter_Duesberg. I'm really rather shocked at how non-neutral the terminology in this article is. Psychobunny2412 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are others listed on [[1]], among them a Nobel Prize winner and several university professors. Are you claiming that those are not scientists? Geira (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.28.39 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is the single most biased page I have ever read on Wikipedia. AIDS "denialists"?? Could you get more one-sided? I agree with one of the above posts- "AIDS: Alternative Hypotheses" is much more neutral. Articles should not be written like all of science agrees with the mainstream opinion, and that opinion is infallible. There have been countless times throughout history when the commonly-held opinion was proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.163.33 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Claiming the eart is flat does not a debate make. It is "one-sided" since there is no "other side!" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because something is held as truth by most of the scientific community, does not make it 100% true. Truth is not democratic. Of course there are things that are trivial to be proved as being true, that can be tested by any person without specialist equipment and knowledge. But the things that are very hard to prove, like HIV causing AIDS, or reality being better described by Newton's theory of gravity or by Einstein's theory of relativity, even if backed up by the entire scientific community, should not be considered fault proof. We should take truth as the authority and not authority as truth. In the movie Einstein and Eddington (2008) Einstein was considered by the scientific community to be a Isaac Newton denier, then anyone claiming his theory was flawed was considered an Einstein denier, then when Quantum Mechanics was proven right Einstein was again called a denier since he disagreed with it's findings. So I think that word is wrongly employed as it implies the wrong thing, and I urge the use of more appropriate words such as AIDS: Alternative Views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.28.39 (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is most definitely another side to this debate, and they never, repeat never, call themselves "denialists." They are AIDS dissidents. "Denialist" is very one-sided. It is obvious to me that the Wiki AIDS community is heavily biased and this heading is proof. The main denial here is the active denial of the existence of any debate. Everyone here is ignorant of the claims made by dissidents, and proudly so. There are hundreds of scientists and medical doctors who dispute the HIV hypothesis for AIDS. Two of them are Nobel Laureates (yes in pertinent realms) and Peter Duesberg is consistently nominated for a Nobel prize for his cancer research (since the AIDS grants dried up when he stepped out of line with the HIV-as-cause theorists). AIDS dissidents are portrayed as crazy, and these discussion pages always devolve into slandering and debates on the issue instead of anything useful to the page, but when anyone brings up the dissident viewpoint, many "hey this isn't for deciding the issue"s are posted.

Beri-beri was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's thiamin deficiency. Scurvy was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's vitamin C deficiency. Pellagra was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's niacin deficiency. SMON was thought to be a new, contagious virus. It isn't - it was caused by pharmaceutical drugs. Influenza was thought to be a bacteria, but they found out it's a virus. Childbed Fever was thought to be non-contagious. It wasn't - it was contagious, and doctors using unsanitary practices spread it.

Everyone is acting like nature is a democracy. It is not. We have been wrong before and are probably wrong now and will be wrong in the future. To act like we have it all figured out is the most amazing, idiotic hubris. The important thing is to keep debate open, listen to dissenting views, and dispute or synthesize with them using facts and studies. Period. It is precisely the circle-the-wagons approach that the AIDS orthodoxy takes to AIDS dissidents that fans the flames. All the ad hominems, all the silence, all the denial of study grants to people who dare propose studies that step out of line from the AIDS orthodoxy which is unscientific. Any Wiki community that steps in as an enforcer of the "democracy" of science, rather than an unbiased dealer of facts, is not worth anything except a laugh in the future. I'll get off my soapbox when people get off their soapboxes about flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.

The term "denialist" in entirely pejorative. In the south and the north of the US, many white folks called African-Americans... well we all know the N word. It's insulting. But southerners claimed it was simply an innocent descriptor. You guys think it was? But African-Americans requested that, out of respect, that word not be used by general society. True, some African-Americans eventually "reclaimed" the word, but only to take the pain and oppression out of the word. The point is, "denialist" is pure propaganda. No one denies the existence of AIDS. But dissidents do dispute the cause of AIDS. It's that simple. No one calls themselves a "denialist" - that word is meant to deride and invalidate, not to describe. It is used exclusively by those who disagree with AIDS dissidents, and was in fact invented by them. It brings to mind holocaust deniers, and is effective propaganda. Worst, it is an entirely incorrect descriptor. "AIDS denialists" do not deny AIDS! Haytham2 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that scientists are sometimes wrong doesn't make them deniers. It doesn't even make them bad scientists. Science progresses when scientists take new data into account to formulate new theories. If a scientist sticks to his old, disproven theory, he denies the new evidence that points the way to a more accurate theory. When someone initially theorized that AIDS was caused by poppers, for example, it was certainly a tenable theory. But the actual facts now show that that theory was mistaken; the predicted correlations were not found when actual data was examined. Someone who prefers his theory to actual data has become a bad scientist and has certainly earned the title of "denier". - Nunh-huh 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dissident is mentioned in the second sentence. The reliability-weighted preponderance of sources use denialism, so we follow that. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly in the real world even scientists are human, and I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions, as a good illustration of how scientific paradigms shift from one to another. I wish the scientific method was followed exclusively, but the human politics of science doesn't let it play out like that. Cliques get and hold power, to the exclusion of genuine science. Speak with any research scientist for awhile. They'll surprise you.

I am interested to see which studies deny the correlation between poppers and AIDS, because published studies have not only established correlation but also causation between poppers and AIDS-defining diseases. You are mistaken. There are many published studies that dispute the HIV hypothesis's validity, and I recommend you scroll down from:

http://healtoronto.com/nih/

to peruse the links to those studies. I'm sure you would agree that Current Medical Research and Opinion Journal, Bio/Technology (now called Nature Biotechnology), and Emergency Medicine are all professional, reliable sources for published REAL science, not "pseudoscience." They are peer-reviewed, which generally means "not remotely pseudoscience."

In other words: these are collections of actual data, cemented by scientific reason. So who is denying these papers, if not the AIDS orthodoxy? I know of no AIDS dissident who doesn't refer to actual scientific data. Indeed, all the prominent dissidents I'm aware of are scientists who rely on papers. Look up the Padian study (Padian N, Shiboski S, Vittinghoff E, Glass S. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: Results from a ten year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-357, 1997) then try to explain how AIDS is an STD. The issue is NOT decided. Although many scientists have decided HIV is the cause, not all of them have. And the minority have peer-reviewed papers to back it up just as the majority does. And although Wiki treats science like a democracy, which it is not, Wiki certainly shouldn't be painting dissidents as psycho idiots by calling them "denialists." Sorry to spoil your tea party, but there is a debate still. It's just that it keeps getting shut down by the AIDS orthodoxy, which is distinctly unscientific behavior. And Wiki apparently? So widespread ignorant misuse of a word rubberstamps it? Haytham2 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging out references that you'll just ignore; have a look at [2], have a look at Kennedy, Edward, U.S. Senate, Chair Committee on Labor and Human Resources. "REPORT of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources." Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Amendments of 1988. Section 4015. 1988, or better yet do a medline search. If you stop getting your information from denialist sources, you can predicate your opinions on science rather than on books about the philosophy of science. And as pointed out, Wikipedia merely reflects labels given by others. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Any assumption that the term "denialist" equals "psycho idiots" seems yo be your own. The term does in fact describe what AIDS denialists do, which is deny the well supported thesis that HIV causes AIDS. As has already been said, if you wish to see the use of this word change Wikipedia is not the place to do so. We report culture, we do not make it. Natalie (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, NO ONE denies AIDS. No one. If you are especially attached to a propagandic term specifically invented to evoke holocaust deniers (which everyone here seems to be) then simply be accurate: HIV denial. There are some who deny HIV's existence, not surprising given the quality of science that supposedly proves that, and the rest call HIV a harmless passenger virus. But AIDS dissidents all deny that HIV causes AIDS. So "HIV denialist" would be accurate. I realize that using that term would rob you all of your invalidating power by painting someone who denies the reality of people dying from suppressed immunity, for whatever reasons. But the fact remains that both "psycho" and "idiot" are both very apt in describing how posters here feel about dissidents. In one discussion thread I read that dissidents should be roasted over a pit for all eternity. (I think the Christine Maggiore article). It's that kind of pure-orthodox there-is-no-debate "We just report culture" bias that made me think commenting here would be fruitless, as it has proved to be. At least I have the respect for discussion to not immediately change the article, as the AIDS orthodox mob has done consistently. There are articles about communism that do not simply deride communism as an idiotic position, because this is an educational tool, an encyclopedia. You would think an encyclopedia would not use values-heavy "F-off, debate over" terminology like "denialist" since there is no article about common usage "pinkos" (a word unironically broadcast daily on right-wing radio and TV) but rather what they prefer to be called "communists" or "socialists." No matter how many people communist governments have killed, their position in political science is treated as valid. Because that debate is not over either, although many people would like it to be. To eradicate the "communism" article in favor of one entitled "pinkos" is what happened when dissident went down the memory hole, to be replaced by "denialist."

Similarly, the "denialist sources" above merely point to articles originally published in peer-reviewed professional, scientific journals. That is not a "denialist" source. Such invalidation sounds like McCarthyism in its inherent mindlessness. Similarly, Kuhn's book is not about philosophy but about the actual practice of science, in reality, not as idealized by those trusting souls who don't practice it. I am already familiar with both sides of this issue, yet I can't say the same for others posting here. Instead of commenting on anything I have posted, you spew the same papers that are always spewed by "AIDS apologists." Perhaps those who believe that HIV is proven to cause AIDS should be called "AIDS apologists?" Dissidents wouldn't get on that train because it shuts off dialog, which is crucial in REAL science. Invite the crazies to say their peace. The more that is said, the more you can see what the issues are, what studies say. The term "denialist" is partisan, similar to the N word, or calling the AIDS orthodoxy "AIDS apologists." I know I'm pissing in the wind here with such single-minded folk, but the occasional lament that there are no "denialists" to comment on these matters I took as an invitation. My bad? Haytham2 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the vast majority of economists and political scientists referred to communists as "pinkos" then, yes, that is what the Wikipedia article would be called. That is not the case, and thus the article is Communism. Your rant doesn't change the fact that the most common term used for this opinion or theory or whatever you want to call it is "AIDS denialism", and the policy and consensus on this encyclopedia is to use the most common term. If you want to have an effect, you need to either show that there is a more common term used or take your criticism to the sources themselves. Wikipedia is not the place to fight this battle. Natalie (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"but the occasional lament that there are no "denialists" to comment on these matters I took as an invitation. " If you read the entire discussion, you will see that you are not the only person making this argument, unless you are one of the editors above no longer signed in. Unfortunately you have not actually addressed the issue and appear to either not understand or not care about the policies of this website. Natalie (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the only Wiki poster (that I know of) to ever identify myself as an AIDS reappraiser (another respectful, accurate term besides dissenter), the lack of which I have seen lamented in Wiki discussions. I have trouble with "common usage" being evoked where obvious "lack of faith" exists where this term "AIDS denialists" is concerned. Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently?) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked, racist theories defended on the [the N word] article, because that was the scientific consensus of the day, and all would shrug and go on upholding the status quo of the day. Consensus One, Truth Zero. Do you get my point? Intentional demonization of one side of a debate is antiscientific, to say the least, and certainly not consistent with any kind of respect for knowledge. "AIDS denialist" is in use in AIDS orthodoxy, a term specifically invented by that faction to libelously evoke holocaust deniers, rather than be a descriptor, where it fails miserably since literally no one "denies" AIDS (another intentional muddying of the waters by HIV theory proponents). I am new to Wiki and apologize for my slowness in getting that Wiki is not reflective of truth but rather of consensus, which has a long history of making tragic and fatal mistakes, and requires much less rigor, hence anyone can sign on here and take part. I assumed an encyclopedia would strive for truth rather than consensus. That was my mistake. This is why I suspected that this would be a waste of time for me, since I noticed an alarming lack of rigor in some Wiki articles I've seen. I will leave you to your consensus, as I see libel is all part of any groupthink/consensus ideology, and apparently none of us will profit from my posts calling anyone out on this. MastCell has messaged me specifically to tell me not to engage in "general" discussion, despite the fact that my sole criticism in every post I've made is the "lack of faith" in the term "AIDS denialist", which is singularly discouraging. Wiki is a wonderful experiment, gaining credibility every year, and I wish it the best when I return someday! <smiley face> Haytham2 (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion, see WP:TALK. Wikipedia reflects common usage, and you'll have to change the common usage before you can change wikipedia. See WP:ADVOCACY. Also, see WP:No Legal Threats - do not use terms like libel. Verbal chat 10:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently?) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked, racist theories defended on the [the N word] article, because that was the scientific consensus of the day, and all would shrug and go on upholding the status quo of the day." Yes, actually, we would. If Wikipedia had existed in 1750 its coverage of race would have reflected the racism of the day. Why is that so hard to believe? If you ever get the chance, pick up an encyclopedia from 200+ years ago and check out their article on, say, the Congo. (By the way, we do already have the article Nigger.)
• "Consensus One, Truth Zero." You are closer than you probably think. WP:Verifiability, not truth. We are not concerned with The Truth™ because we can't be - that isn't anything a group of mostly anonymous people on the internet can objectively determine. All Wikipedia is capable of doing is relaying the "truth" of various other groups.

You and some of the other people who have raised this issue in the last few days seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not a place to advocate for a political position or a fringe theory. Dozens of new accounts show up everyday thinking that WP will make them famous, spread their neologism or catch phrase, legitimize their fringe political theory or legitimize their pseudoscience. All of these people are wrong, yourself included. If you are ever able to accept that, I for one invite you to return. Natalie (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

section break

I'm back! And why? All because of WikiProject Alternative Views! A good idea! If it was around in Aristarchus' day, there certainly would be more progress toward the idea that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa. I find the policy of simply defending whatever the dominant paradigm is to be both intellectually lazy, and a bit too wishy-washy relativist for my personal liking, but then some might say I am overly devoted to the scientific method, rather than guy-on-TV-said-so-ism. Sometimes common sense must come into play, instead of whatever our scientist-priests tell us, don't you think? I could go on and on about how all the reactionary defenders of AIDS orthodoxy here on Wiki would have just as insultingly attacked anyone like Aristarchus, who dared question the scientific consensus of his day, and kept science on the wrong paradigm for 1700 years, but that would be petty. In fact, the sole reason I came to Wiki was to cast legitimate doubt on the intentionally insulting and invalidating term "denialist." The discussions on Wiki are so willfully and proudly ignorant of AIDS dissidents and their work, that some people even drew laughable divisions between "denialists" and deissidents, as if there was any difference. All I wanted is to get rid of this insipid and inaccurate term "denialist" so that some semblance of a respectful discussion might exist. I didn't even change anything in a single article. Posting on the discussion page was enough for people to start saying I was on a soapbox, but my intent was merely to point out that rethinking AIDS is a legitimate scientific position, held by legitimate scientists, on a legitimate scientific basis, not pseudoscience, not sociopolitics, but on a scientific basis. So it is a science-versus-science debate, not science vs. pseudoscience, as the AIDS industry likes to portray it as. Every word of mine was to point out that the term denialist is NOT the right word to use, since it is both innacurate and intentionally invalidating and obfuscating. It's not using Wiki like an "AIDS-denialist blog" to point all this out. In fact, it's an important first step in WikiProject Alternative Views, to cover these views "without bias." Using the term "denialist" is HEAVILY biased. It is also wildly "misrepresenting" rethinkers. Am I correct in assuming nothing has changed here? This new movement is far more PR than anything else? Tell me now so I don't waste anyone's time.

And yes I know there is an entry on the N-word, but it accurately speaks of how it is a pejorative term, which is more than I can say about the word "denialist" bandied about here. And my point was that a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting. As far as me coming here to "get famous"? Are you serious? With a pseudonym? (Haytham is not my real name, by the way). Did any moderators come and post on your page how you are supposed to "stick to the subject?" I somehow doubt this. By using the term "denialist", Wiki is misrepresenting the rethinkers/reappraisers/dissidents - who NEVER use that term to describe themselves - EVER. I think replacing the insulting term "denialist" to something *neutral* would be a step in the right direction, the goal of the project to strive towards more "neutrality." Haytham2 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your argument, your saying that there is a "science-versus-science" dispute doesn't make it so. Also unfortunately, you seem to want Wikipedia to distort information by portraying denialist objections to scientific fact as scientifically based. We don't distort the 'sides" of an argument on WIkipedia to be "neutral"; instead we make sure that the depictions of each view reflect the relative levels of support for them. Please see WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the place to crusade for Aristarchus or for denialism; it's the place to accurately depict the current understanding of a subject. - Nunh-huh 10:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of my argument is sketchy if you believe that I ever claimed that my mere say-so makes anything so. It is not how I characterize something, but the FACT that scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed professional scientific journals, are what dispute the HIV hypothesis. How else would you characterize that, beside science versus science? But you seem oblivious to this as well, and no one has responded to my above post about these studies either because (wild guess here) you know next to nothing about what dissidents believe, since you only consume biased media, which would stand to reason with your staunch defense of the biased insult "denialist." The WikiProject Alternative View seeks to redress this absurd oversight of Wiki philosophy by at least treating alternative views in a neutral manner. Calling dissidents "denialists" is not neutral. The game has changed. It has been recognized that Wiki can be very reactionary propaganda because of certain of its standards, HENCE the WikiProject that AIDS "Denialism" is now under. I am well aware of WP:NPOV. Please consult Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views for a clearer understanding. I also suggest studying the claims of both the AIDS industry and actual AIDS dissidents if you truly strive towards an understanding of the controversy. Haytham2 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of your argument is just fine, thank you, it's your argument that's sketchy. Present your reputable supporting sources, if you care to; without them your "argument" is pointless. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please start paying attention. I have already presented my supporting sources. Scroll up, please. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already paid too much attention. Crusade on, and see how far this style of discourse gets you. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am already well aware of the mentality and bias of this community since a poster in an AIDS Wiki talk page has already publicly wished for dissenters ("denialists" (s)he called them) to be roasted on a spit for all eternity. This comment went entirely without comment or warning from any moderator.

It is inaccurate and probably intentionally dismissive of you to call a good faith effort to eliminate bias as per Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views a "Crusade." and pardon me for expecting more from this community. But since you refuse to pay attention to a discussion you are actively taking part in, I will waste the bandwidth you request me to by reposting from above a study you should consult: (Padian N, Shiboski S, Vittinghoff E, Glass S. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: Results from a ten year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-357, 1997) Please stay on topic. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham, I understood your point that "a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting." - I already responded to it upthread. To repeat: You are exactly correct. A 200 year old encyclopedia would (and does, they are still extant) reflect the racial attitudes of the time in which they were written. I don't understand why you think this is surprising or some kind of dynamite argument for your cause. Note, also, that I did not say you were trying to get famous. That sentence contains the word "or", meaning that not all of the clauses apply to you. And incidentally, I am not using a pseudonym.

If you want to argue this point about the term "denialist" I have two suggestions. Respond to points that people are actually making, for starters. And base your arguments on actual evidence rather than 3500 bytes of logical fallacies. Natalie (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Haytham's account of WikiProject Alternative Views an accurate summary of its raison d'être? If so this wikiproject sounds very worrying indeed. Needless to say, I still think, as does the preponderance of WP:RS, that the title of this article, and use of the term "AIDS denialist," is appropriate and meets NPOV, etc. Verbal chat 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Natalie, I apologize for saying you accused me of seeking fame here on Wiki with a pseudonym, I should have said "intentionally implied" instead, which any reasonable reader would infer from what you wrote. And I am interested in knowing which logical fallacies you claim I employ here. The logical fact remains is that humans are not robots, and humans are inherently biased, as are human endeavors. I think it is an impressive attempt to rise above this and to try and portray both sides of a controversies in an unbiased way, as much as possible. The fact is that this article, indeed all AIDS dissidence articles on Wiki, are heavily biased through one main tactic: the employment of the pejorative term "denialist" used to describe the politically weaker side of this scientific debate. Yes, it is true that the preponderance of AIDS industry professionals use a biased and insulting term to describe those they consider their enemies. If I disagreed with someone, and refused to debate the issue, as so many AIDS apologists do, should I simply not call them by the names they go by, "Frank" for example, and instead call them "puppy-fucker"? That would be insulting, inaccurate and obfuscating. The fact that Frank does not fuck puppies would be ignored if Frank was unpopular enough, and his protests in favor of respectful dialog would go unheeded. The fact that everyone here seems to support using an intentionally obfuscating and inaccurate term like "denialists" speaks more to the wish to propagandize in one certain way, rather than call everyone what they want to be called, as well as should *accurately* be called. - My point about how typically reactionary Wiki can be, vis a vis the N-word, is to point up that Wiki is not a moral soapbox, yet some of the posters on AIDS dissident entries have called for the importance of defending against the evil menace of "denialist" thought. Which is also absurdly biased. I don't think this is unbiased - it is unacceptable as per the guidelines of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views Verbal, click on that link for more information - its aims are stated clearly. Thank you. :)

The fact remains that the AIDS industry supporters here are entirely ignorant of the claims made by dissidents is absurdly biased. I am well versed in what the AIDS industry claims. As well I should be, being a part of such a debate.Haytham2 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that us "AIDS industry supporters" are necessarily ignorant of denialist claims. For instance, I'm familiar with both Nancy Padian's work and with the twisted misrepresentations and out-and-out lies propagated about it by AIDS denialists. I don't think you really understand the concept of bias, at least as it applies here. One idea is supported by thousands of scientific papers as well as every reputable scientist and medical body in the world. The other is the province of a shrinking handful of discredited zealots. It would be biased to pretend that there is a real scientific debate here. It would be biased to pretend that these two ideas are on anything like an equal footing. Any truly unbiased presentation will make clear the relative weights assigned these two views by experts in the field.

The fact that AIDS denialists consider this article "biased" is, to my mind, a reasonable confirmation that we're fulfilling the project's goals. I'd be much more concerned if an AIDS-denialist agenda account was happy with this article's presentation of the concept. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The goals of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views are simply not being met in these entries dealing with AIDS dissidence, which is specifically why this WikiProject has under its heading all these entries. The fact that you think (or at least it sounds like it to me) that you believe this article, indeed any article, is "unbiased" betrays your lack of understanding of the concept of bias. There is no way to include all information on any given topic. Some facts are included, some are left out. Included data is arranged in certain ways. Certain words are chosen over others. These are all steps that erode the perfect neutrality that is ideally sought. So no, there is no such thing as an unbiased report or article, period. Any other belief can only be described as self-serving delusion. If you are familiar with Padian's ten-year study on seroconversion, then you are well-aware of the results of the study. However Padian chooses to misrepresent her own work, and however she futilely tries to explain away the fact that not one HIV- person became HIV+ while regularly having unprotected sex with their HIV+ partner over the entire 10 years, is propagandic work I am not interested in, since the facts speak loudly for themselves. After all, if she stated the obvious about her own study, her research funds would dry up. Perhaps you are one of those trusting people that believe that research science is an industry magically free from politics? Maybe you also believe that the judicial branch is a politics-free zone? There are certainly those happy souls who cling to those reassuring beliefs. But a "shrinking" group of "zealots"? That is yet another blatant lie. In fact, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis has a roster of signatories, and that list has been growing constantly for years. People take their names off from time to time, because the social and political pressures against publicly dissenting against the AIDS industry is enormous. In fact, as any reasonable person would realize, those that bravely sign onto that organization are in the minority, the tip of the iceberg, most people (such as myself) couldn't hope to retain any professional credibility in the face of overwhelming ignorance on the subject and the scientific McCarthyism it engenders. In fact, there are 2,641 dissenters listed on their official website. Note (before this portion of this post is erased) how many of them are MDs and PhDs, or otherwise professionals who might have some level of authority: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm I wouldn't have mentioned or posted any of this, but I am merely responding to your mistaken impression of the state of AIDS dissidence, and you did specifically askbeing to get people to respect Wiki's decision to enact the Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views, and realize that using a pejorative term to describe the lesser politically powerful side of this scientific debate is neither acting neither "fairly" nor "without bias." (those are the WikiProject's words in quotes, not mine). I suggest taking this WikiProject into serious and honest consideration, since Wiki has decided not only to enact it but to bring all the entries dealing with AIDS dissidence under its heading. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is neutral. If these are the aims of this project then it should be investigated and shuut down if its goals are to destroy NPOV. However, it could be that Haytham2 is misrepresenting the project, and there is a lack of support for his biased views here by members of the project. Verbal chat 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I urge you to to click on the project's link and read it for yourself. This article is not neutral specifically because it refers to the minority side of the debate, using solely an inaccurate, pejorative term. That is neither fair nor unbiased. Please acquaint yourself with the project. Its aims are admirable, to bring respect to the minority side as well, which is the best way scientific truth can be striven for. Science has such an embarrassing history of completely false ideas that the orthodox clung to, at times for purely political reasons, that I think it is still a valid way to portray scientific issues openly and as un-propagandically as possible. I also agree with its aims to note the relative strength of support of each side. Don't take my word for it: click Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham, I "intentionally implied" nothing, and I respectfully suggest that you check your bad faith at the door. I meant exactly what I said - reread it if you are unclear on what that was. Among your logical fallacies, you continue to conflate scientific consensus with racism, for what I assume is an attempt at guilt by association. You also appear to believe that, since scientific research has not been 100% correct historically, your particular view is de facto true. Your frequent use of the term "AIDS industry supporters" to refer to everyone who disagrees with you here is poisoning the well.

As far as Alternative Views WikiProject is concerned, they have no power to set policy or override long consensus. The guidelines posted on their page outline the purpose of the project, not Wikipedia policy. That said, I believe you have misjudged their purpose. I think if you invite them to join the conversation here, you will find that they have a different view of our policies that you do. Natalie (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: as much as one valiantly strives towards neutrality, one is in fact supporting the AIDS industry by using the term "denialist". That is not even debatable, but fact, as unseemly as it sounds. Thank you for mentioning poisoning the well, Natalie. I didn't want to be the first to mention it. That is precisely what is happening by Wiki choosing to use the term "denialist" at all. And to correct you: I never said that BECAUSE so many orthodox scientific views were wrong, therefore my particular view is correct - I never stated nor implied any such causation. I was merely pointing out the proven, lethal habitual failings of science taken as dogma, in order to remind you that not all scientific orthodoxies are correct, in order keep the reader's mind open, since what I have seen here mostly is a remarkable ignorance on AIDS dissident's viewpoints. All my posts have been in direct response to other posts, after all. Haytham2 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the term "denialist" has such negative connotations, but it remains the most accurate word for what is described in this article. If those who dislike the term "denialist" can come up with an alternative, then obviously it should be considered, but so far no viable alternative has been suggested. The word "dissenter" does not quite work, IMO, because a dissenter is usually someone who belonged to a certain organisation and then broke away from it. -- 41.208.48.176 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on "dissenter"; I disagree that "denialist" can be changed simply by those who dislike it providing an alternative. On Wikipedia, we use the term used in reliable sources. Recent reliable sources use "denialist". Other terms occasionally used are also mentioned in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyatham2, I'd really hope you'd realize that it's a waste of your time to keep on beating this extremely dead horse. I'll try to follow through in a very simple, logical train of thought: The neutral point of view is the honest reporting of the significant views that have been presented by reliable sources. Supportors of fringe science cannot be reliable authors or publishers on fringe topics. These points are held by most of the editors who maintain this page, and arbitration hearings on similar matters on other pages have fallen in favor of the idea that pushing the fringe point of view (as defined on Wikipedia) is disruptive. This means that most active editors as well as the higher ups support the idea that the mainstream scientific POV is the only significant POV on most fringe topics. And that means that the terms used to describe AIDS denialists (or whatever you call them) will be the terms used in mainstream scientific publications. Now, you seem to come off more as a crusader for the AIDS denialist community than someone actually concerned with NPOV. If you are concerned with NPOV, here is a very simple reason, given the preceding, that you are wasting your breath: The prevailing consensus amongst editors, administrators, and arbitrators on Wikipedia is that the fringe point of view is insignificant. You will not achieve a change on this page because the consensus is that on a fundamental level fringe publications are not reliable, and so fringe views can never be significant. And if you are a crusader, this should convince you that you're preaching to the same evil conspirators that want you to keep quiet out in the real world, so wherever the salvation for AIDS denialism lies, it's definitely not on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, Thank you but I am already aware of all you have posted (scroll up). So what of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views? Is it mere public relations? It is precisely my interest in NPOV which first got me involved here, but I am also interested in this WikiProject, which alters things slightly. I shouldn't have to quote from its page, since I link to it so often, correct? Please review its scope, goals and motivations and ask yourself honestly if calling dissidents "denialists" is in any way "fair" or "unbiased." True, I have admitted candidly that I am an AIDS dissident, while many people have either candidly owned up to believing the AIDS orthodoxy, and some might even honestly believe they have no bias. I am simply honest on that point (I wish more people were candid/self-aware as to their bias) and I am not particularly concerned with how I "come off" since my aim is to provide constructive input here, in good faith. I have a major problem with the pejorative "denialist" for reasons I have repeatedly expressed, and no one has answered these concerns in light of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views, a WikiProject which I feel validate these concerns. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The existence of a wikiproject validates nothing, and you are misrepresenting the view of the project its members (apart from one). Verbal chat 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In its own words, Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views is involved in "describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors." as it says under its Motivation. The "AIDS Denialism" is a perfect example of a significant alternative view, and in fact now has this WikiProject's heading over it. Calling dissidents "denialists" is an intentional misrepresentation, just as is calling someone named Frank "Jessica" or some other inaccurate pejorative. Do you see my point? I also know about this subject, and care to improve it. I have the respect to take my concerns up herre in the discussion page and have never changed any article whatsoever, even in the smallest detail. I am not misrepresenting the project, and am curious as to how you even got this idea, Verbal. Please explain. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham, if you believe the members of the WikiProject would support your position, I again suggest that you invite them to join this conversation. Natalie (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to enter this discussion, except to note that "no one denies AIDS" (as stated by Haytham2 above) is wrong. Stefan Lanka (to take one example) did exactly that, and quite likely would accept being called an "AIDS Denialist." Born Gay (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Haytham is right, "AIDS denialist" is a misleading term, as no one denies AIDS, only that HIV causes AIDS. And the term denialist is wrong. The fact is that HIV still has not been isolated, and that HIV tests do not prove the existence of HIV in the blood, only of antibodies to HIV, which are often cross-contaminated with other cultures. In fact, in spite of scientists' claims to the contrary, no HIV has ever been found. So what scientists are denying is the existence of HIV, not of AIDS. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The term 'denialist' may be wrong. However, that is the term that is used to describe this group. Whether such usage is right or wrong is not a judgment that should be made by Wikipedia. Rather, our purpose is to report what reliable sources have written on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed in a RFC

See Talk:AIDS_denialism/Archive_8#RfC_on_AIDS_denialism --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an "HIV Believer" but this may get the prize for wikipedia's most polemical, biased article. I came here looking for a sober description of the "other side" of the argument, and found a hatchet job. Of course words like "denier" and "denialist" are biased. This article is typical of the modern epidemic of confusing science with activism. As a reader, I'm simply extremely disappointed. The whole thing needs a rewrite from scratch, by editors who can approach it encyclopaedically, rather than as a chance to attack their perceived ideological enemies.82.71.30.178 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to take up your complaints with the writers of the sources for the article, rather than with Wikipedia's editors. The neutral point of view requires the article to reflect reliable sources, and not to describe a subject as the subject itself would prefer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership of Perth Group

The following information in this article, "AIDS Denialism", has no source and is factually incorrect: 'Organizations of AIDS denialists include the "Perth Group", composed of two Australian hospital workers.'

The Perth Group states at its website, http://www.theperthgroup.com/aboutpg.html, that it originally had three members and that its membership has varied over the years. There is no statement anywhere that it has two members or ever had. Since the incorrect information in the article has no source, I will remove it. I have no problem with other aspects of the article, but it cannot retain this mistaken and unsourced claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.117.135 (talk)

So when will the article title be changed?

I had a look at the "important notice" at the top of this page which says that "The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past". Consensus is irrelevant where truth is concerned, and that a point has already been discussed several times - gosh! that should rule out any further discussion, shouldn't it! And I don't need to read through the archives again to see whether my concern has been addressed, because my concern is that the article's title still hasn't been changed. (That's leaving aside the content of the piece.) The term "Denialism" has no place in the context of scientific debate. It is a politically loaded term. The question of the use of the phrase "AIDS denialism" has nothing to do with the scientific debate on whether or not HIV causes AIDS. It has to do with the way in which one party (right or wrong) is using this loaded term to "persuade by rhetoric". Please change this title a.s.a.p. Muzieka (talk) Muzieka (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no actual scientific debate on the causation of AIDS by HIV infection, HIV denialism is a pseudoscientific sociopolitical movement. There are ample high-quality reliable sources that discuss it as such, using the term denialism for its specific description of a mode of thinking (that contrives and cherry-picks supporting evidence whilst rejecting vast amounts of contradictory evidence) that is found in other pseudoscientific sociopolitical movements. Since the reliable academic literature supports the use of the descriptor "denialism", it is the NPOV term to use, giving proper weight to the term. — Scientizzle 12:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

scientizzle, 1. there IS scientific debate of causition of aids by hiv - and those who refuse hiv as causition of aids are called "aids-denialists" within this debate caused by the existance of the debate, discussion, discurse or whatever you need to call it! the question is "why?" and by what evidence or (scientific) rights are those persons in question called in the manner that makes the problem?

2. it is sure that not medicine or biology or immunology has made the "proof" that the persons in question are denialists as this is not what biology, medicine or immunology is trying (or able) to find out; those who "found" the persons in question to be denialists are psychologists or sociologists or else what; and then we need to know why psychologists (and else) are allowed to talk about aids and hiv when (biology-, medicine- and/or immunolgy-degreed) scientists are not (after they found to be "denialists"). and why psychology is of any proper value here AT ALL! so if science "found out" that "those poeple" are "denialists" they should read heisenberg and popper.

3. scientists calling themselves or others "denialistic" are just not talking (just) about science, but about believe or oppinion since no one can claim to know ultimate truth, hence it is no act of denial to think a subject in question is different from what we know. controversity of knowledges is what makes sciences work! claiming people who investigate different ways to be denialists is to claim science itself denialistic and scientists how do investigate different ways of understanding to be deviant.

4. it is scepticism towards methods (and ethics) of (this very parts of) science as inappropriate or wrong (or without profound evidence or, or, or...) concerning the question of "what is aids? where does it come from? how does all work together?". it is nothing but the very scientific claim of "we still dont know the last truth" which is all the reason why humans are doing science. and that we dont know the last truth about things is true even in the age of wikipedia and will be true in the ages where there is no wikipedia anymore.

5. people investigating aids without hiv-hypothesis are still investigating aids and hiv (for the afford of not taking hiv as evidence, they are still thinking the problem of hiv and it became even a political problem to them!), but with different methodologies; what actually is supposed to be called science: to investigate an object of question with different methodologies. btw: psychology is not an instance to judge about those methods.

6. wikipedia should be a mirror of knowledge of things, not a bible. there are questions about aids and hiv coming from different spaces. asking questions is not denying; you can say there are stupid questions but then you need to proof that a question is stupid - and this is not done by calling arguments denialistic. i dont know about this whole aids-hiv-controversal and where the truth in it is; but we will hardly find out when we call sceptic scientists heretics - or denialists - and by the way this will not make those people shut up or stop. this "denialistic" or "heretic" attitude of science is called scepiticism and its more than a towthousands of years old and its father is called Pyrrhon of Elis. guess what: they called him heretic and some of his followers have been found to be denialists of the gods - like socrates for example (who got death-penalty for his "hereticism"). so watch your speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.178.240 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a nice block of poorly-informed "just asking questions" prattle...there is no longer any actual scientific debate on the causation of AIDS by HIV infection becuase there is a long-established scientific consensus on AIDS causation. This is readily confirmed by any PubMed search and the sources within this article. A handful of contrarians with meager evidence to support their assertions does not a scientific controversy make. Skepticism is an important component of science, but skepticism turnes into denialism (and therefore is unscientific) when data is promoted and discarded not based on its quality and relevance but to fit a given desired narrative. HIV denialism is a pseudoscientific sociopolitical movement and there are ample high-quality reliable sources that discuss it as such, using the term "denialism" for its specific description of a mode of thinking (that contrives and cherry-picks supporting evidence whilst rejecting vast amounts of contradictory evidence) that is found in other pseudoscientific sociopolitical movements. Since the reliable academic literature supports the use of the descriptor "denialism", it is the NPOV term to use, giving proper weight to the term. Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. — Scientizzle 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any reputable independent sources describing an active scientific debate about whether HIV causes AIDS. That's because there isn't one. Nor will you find any published research into alternative causes, nor will you find any open research projects, funding applications, or clinical trials based on alternative causation. On the other hand, you will find numerous reputable, independent sources describing the phenomenon of AIDS "denialism". I believe the term is chosen because the denialists do not engage in debate (where each side engages the arguments of the other). AIDS-denialist arguments have been repeatedly engaged and falsified by the scientific community. Each time, the goalposts have shifted - remember Koch's postulates? the hemophiliacs? the lack of effective treatments? Each of those AIDS-denialist arguments have been demolished by scientific evidence, but rather than engage that evidence, the denialists have simply stopped mentioning or acknowledging those areas entirely. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would add a few lines, but Scientizzle and MastCell have said all that's needed. I do so very much enjoy the reasoning: "There was once a thinker who was right, but other people thought he was wrong. Therefore, everyone who is ridiculed as being wrong is actually right." I suppose there's hope even for me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but by definiton anyone who thinks "they laughed at Galileo" is a compelling argument is more or less bound to end up at a page like this.[3] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim about Continuum

The article states: "For example, the magazine Continuum, which consistently denied the existence of HIV/AIDS, shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes. In every case, the AIDS denialist community attributed the deaths to unknown causes, secret drug use, or stress rather than HIV/AIDS."

Two citations are given. The first, aidstruth.org, does not make the claim Continuum "shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes". It lists some editors and some writers for the magazine who died of what aidstruth.org thinks was AIDS. The references it gives are iffy, such as a reference for Jody Wells (a 404), and a reference for Tony Tompsett (which links to Probart Encyclopaedia, which in turn cites no sources).

The second citation, the J Med Ethics, supports only a subset of the given claims. I have changed the statement accordingly. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added an additional source, which states, "Jody Wells, Huw Christie and Michael Baumgartner published London’s Continuum Magazine which served as an outlet for AIDS denialism, including pseudoscientific “studies”. Continuum ended after the editors all died following long bouts with AIDS." Incidentally, aidstruth.org refers to Continuum as "a long-running AIDS denialist newsletter from the UK that folded when all the editors" died of AIDS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I'm still skeptical of the claims of aidstruth.org, and I suspect the New Humanist article used that website as the source for its claim. For example, the editorial in the last issue of Continuum states that the news editor, Nigel Edwards, is still alive. Michael Baumgartner, who is described by the New Humanist article as one of the "publishers" of Continuum, and by virusmyth.com as a founder, is also alive. I simply don't see how the claim can be true. --NilsTycho (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

survey paper

This may be useful: http://www.springerlink.com/content/108174nr1788q73w/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.170.24 (talk)

Thanks for the link. That looks like a good source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the citation in proper format:

Chigwedere P, Essex M (2010). "AIDS denialism and public health practice". AIDS Behav. 14 (2): 237–47. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9654-7. PMID 20058063. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

It's definitely useful, but I haven't the time presently to incorporate it. — Scientizzle 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Watering down

Editor (Freakshownerd has been attempting to water down the definition of denialism at this and other pages (Phillip E. Johnson, Peter Duesberg, denialism), arguing that it is pejorative. We've been over this countless times now, and the outcome is always the same. The most reliable sources use denialism, and it's a view, not merely a mean-spirited "label". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon has already been warned by an admin for his violations of our BLP policies. If he has a specific complaint or a suggested edit (sources are certainly useful and he is reminded that the content should be IN the source) let's hear it. His history of distorting subect matter and maligning biographical subjects that he doesn't like is disturbing to the extreme. As far as the term "denialist" being denigrating it is already covered in the article and wasn't added by me. Maybe he should read the article before stalking and harassing me to engage in further vandalism of article content. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)