Talk:HIV/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 13 October 2003 to 11 August 2005

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Cure for HIV on the horizon?

ppl, perhaps there is hope... a team of japanese researches figured out a way to prevent HIV from entering human cells by blocking the receptors that the virus uses to enter.

Asahi news article

Ok, first of all, an *HIV* vaccine (article refers to an AIDS vaccine -- AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus) is NOT akin to what they are talking about here. Although the article is woefully unsourced, the drug they are talking about is probably what they call a Fusion inhibitor. It basically keeps the virus particles on an HIV viron from interacting with the CCR5 receptor on the outside of a macrophage cell. Normally a HIV viron would be able to shut down the cells functioning by attaching to the CCR5 and thus gain an easy target to penetrate and infect.

This drug class, while becoming more popular and good for those extremely drug resistant who are being treated with anti-retroviral meds, is not going to do anything but supress the virus a bit in it's current state in an already infected person. Once infected, you always have HIV. Fact. HIV has far to many ways to attack the body (cell-to-cell mediation, inducing an autoimmune response, etc). There is also no big trials mentioned. I'd like to know what stage theirs is in, but 40 people is NOT a big test group. It takes a much bigger one to test a drug, and even then, 'AIDS miricle drugs' don't have a great history (google for AIDSVAX).

Sorry, but this isn't the answer we're looking for. :/ JoeSmack (talk) 12:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

HIV deniers, check in here!

Despite the hype, and based on years of personal research, I am now of the strong belief that the HIV 'virus' does not in fact exist! The blood test to check for HIV is the only one that doesn't actually look for the actual virus!! Medicos say the virus is too small to see, but can't we see atoms?? AZT, the most common AIDS drug is a toxic chemotherapy shelved in the 60s due to it's toxicity, yet this is given to help the patient's immune system? As if! Maintaining the world's 'belief' of this ghost disease is for the the purpose of keeping this 2 billion dollar income running, and to keep disadvantaged people disadvantaged by killing their societies with these drugs. Try giving 'AIDS sufferers' nutritious food, clean water and cut the drugs. The only 'epidemic' will be one of health!

D.

D. you are most welcome to put your health where your mouth is and receive an injection of my HIV positive blood (or, because you may wish to plead the risk of other dangers present in the blood of an adult, the blood from a HIV+ newborn - tip: there are thousands of such babies you could source from in Africa). HIV is one of the trickiest viruses we've ever encountered. As such, there is much uncertainty and confusion among those studying it. On the positive side (excuse the pun) there have been enormous advances in our overall understanding of both viruses and the human immune system. Now, perhaps you are one of the 1%-3% (exact percentage unkown) who are immune to this "non-existent" virus? Your opinion is very strong - what's the risk then? My offer is genuine - I'm sure you'll attract a lot of media attention for your anti-HIV cause should you decide to take it up.

occamster

Other discussion

I'm going to change "HIV can infect anyone. Babies, women, senior citizens, teenagers, and people of any ethnicity can contract HIV." to "Though the risk for infection is indeed greater for individuals partaking in such behaviors, HIV can infect anyone. Babies, women, senior citizens, teenagers, and people of any ethnicity can contract HIV." Is this OK? GWC W57.05 W2.8.8 UT 17.15 EDT

i clarified it a bit. a marijuana smoker for instance is NOT at risk nearly as much as a heroin user. similarily, a female homosexual is NOT at risk nearly as much as a male homosexual - or heterosexual for that matter either. there is a famous comedian who used to joke that 'if g-d gave gay men HIV because he hated their immorally sexual activity, then he really loved lesbians, because they get HIV far less than even straight people.' - i wish i remembered his name... JoeSmack (talk) 04:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The structure of the virus needs to be described here: shape, genome, enzymes, structure proteins. Life cycle is also missing. See the excellent article in Everything2. History of its discovery would also be interesting. AxelBoldt 10:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The statement Certain types of infections must be present for a person to be diagnosed as having AIDS. is simply not true. You can have CDC-defined AIDS simply by have a CD4 T-Cell count of 200 or less plus an HIV infection.

The statement HIV causes disease by infecting the CD4+ T cells. is too limited since HIV infects macrophages and causes damage that way too. Kstailey 21:22, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The statement When the cell divides and the DNA is copied, the virus is copied too. is dubious since I question that a HIV infected cell could perform mitosis at all since it would have to manufacture protiens to do it and in the process would start to make more HIV virons and bring about its destruction. Kstailey 21:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is proved today, that Robert Gallo got the strain of HIV, he claimes to have discovered fom Luc Montaigner in order to assure Montaigner's results. Gallo then published the results, clainin he had discovered the virus. Read Discovering the Cause of AIDS by Stanley B. Prusiner and see also Stanley B. Prusiner. 145.254.193.184 15:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An article is needed on the History of HIV, and its zoonosis, not just on its history of discovery, and the theory of the polio vaccine. Duncharris 12:48, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

There's a story at Wired saying that two researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are developing a virus which attacks HIV and mutes its ability to become AIDS. -- Jim Regan 01:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I suggest this is not included in Wikipedia until it has been reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Even the best "news" reports contain inaccuracies, many of which end up not being corrected. I suggest we search Pubmed in a few months (Arkin A, Schaffer D) to see if this has been published in Science (journal), Nature (journal) or somewhere else. JFW | T@lk 07:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I added a new website to the external links, CME on HIV. It's an educational website for healthcare providers. -- Eridanis 9 June 2004 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure why the link was reverted. Perhaps you should provide even more context; it might be a useful resource. On the other hand, some Wikipedians have grown weary over anonymous editors sticking links in articles. I hope it will stay this time... JFW | T@lk 15:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did you look at the site? If you want to access anything contained within it, you must register; in order to register, you must be up to snuff. A quote from their website:

"Only healthcare providers treating HIV/AIDS patients can subscribe and become members of CMEonHIV.com."

This link was added along with a slew of others, all to the same company's website(s). I'm getting tired of people defending the value of external links which have little or no use to Wikipedia's readership. This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for healthcare providers or educators to subscribe to or peddle services. The link might be helpful to those professionals specifically seeking "CME" on the subject, but that's not what Wikipedia is here to present. Am I the only one who sees this? -- Hadal 02:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, you are exactly, 100% right. →Raul654 02:44, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, but who do you think are the readers of Wikipedia? If you look at the bio of JFW, you will notice that he's a doctor. Has a doctor, he found this link useful. As you said, I added a bunch of other websites to specific section of Wikipedia : ADHD, organ transplantation, spasticity and insulin resistance. All websites were clearly targeting these specific medical fields. I think that you're sharing my point of view about the fact that ADHD, diabetes of type 2 and spasticity, for example, are subjects that most doctors will be glad to read about and not the general public. It's not like if I added a car website "for car dealers only" on a general wikipedia car page, don't you think? Regarding the fact that all websites were coming from the same company, yes it is right. To create online presentations and travel around the world to record them, you must have the funds to do it. But they are all free to healthcare providers and the speakers presented on their homepages are some of the most respected in their medical fields. And "CME" stands for Continuing Medical Education; each doctor must get credits for learning sessions each year to keep its practice license, it's mandatory. - Eridanis

Eridanis, you've managed to misread my intentions. I stated that adding links is not everybody's idea of productive contributions, and many wikipedians are weary of endless dumping of links on pages. You have managed to justify adding HIV-CME, but this way it looks too much like linkspam, especially from a newcomer. You would do readers a bigger pleasure to abstract useful information from these websites and update the articles you've mentioned. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Jfdwolff. - Eridanis

Microbicides

Can someone add to the AIDS catagory microbicides? They are usually intervaginal substances (gels, cremes, sprays) that disable the HIV virus. It is an interesting new avenue towards fighting aids.

--ShaunMacPherson 23:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Immunity

I have recently heard that some people are immune to HIV (it's been confirmed through lab tests) because of a genetic mutation known as Delta 32 on a certain gene. Apparently, this also causes immunity to the Bubonic Plague! I know it sounds kind of insane, but its true, and I'm probably not the only person who knows about it. It sounds like a bit of interesting info to put on the page.

I'm trying to find out if this is just a newspaper report[1] or if this has reached the professional literature yet. CCR is a gene known to be involved in the pathogenesis of AIDS, and apparently 10% carry the delta-32 mutation. Oh, I just saw that Kahn & Walker discuss it in their 1998 review in the NEJM - it is actually a deletion of 32 base pairs from the gene. This should definitely be in the article. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, in Hole's Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Chapter 4, p. 87, it states, "About 1% of the individuals in Caucasian populations have a mutation that makes HIV infection impossible. The gene that is mutant normally encodes a protein to which the virus must bind on the immune system cells to enter them. Without this protein, the virus cannot bind to and enter human cells. Asian and African populations do not seem to have this mutation." Now if only if we could use gene therapy to stamp out HIV... Jordan Yang 18:46, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article needs a lot of work, but I don't have the energy right now. A couple of points:

there needs to be a section on the ways to transmit HIV
why is "Aids reappraisal" and "criminal HIV infection" in the History section?
the pathogenesis and life cycle sections should be combined

AxelBoldt 04:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lify Cycle

Hello all. I've just found this article and I've made a couple of changes: added a bit to the Life Cycle section. I'll try to do more e.g. shape, history, CCR5-delta32 etc as I have time.

Cheers

Bennett

Bennett, you are most welcome. Enjoy. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have just added more detail to this section, but not enough to make it too complicated for the average reader. I tried to use simple language. --Grcampbell 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New development - 3-DCR HIV

[2] It seems a new strain known as 3-DCR HIV have been detected.

the section on Common Misconceptions, "AIDS and HIV are the same thing" is very poorly written. if no one has a problem with me changing it, i'd like to distinguish the difference between the two highlighting that you can get AIDS without having HIV. the current discription throws in some stuff about HIV longterm non-progressors and "many HIV-positive individuals may never develop AIDS" due to advancement in treatments. not only do these two things not belong under this Common Misconception, but no treatments have ever been proven to successfully stave off AIDS forever. HIV longterm non-progressors as far as people can tell have to do with Hep G, but we really know very little. JoeSmack (talk) 03:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Question about HIV...

How does HIV actually destroy the T-cell that it has infected?

Remember how viruses work: They are merely little bits of genetic material that "hijack" the host cell's mechanisms and cause the host cell to start cranking out many, many new copies of the virus. Eventually, the host cell bursts, releasing all the new virions (virus particles) to go infect new hosts. It's simply this rupturing of the host cell's membrane that kills it, and it's pretty-much the same story with any virus, from good old cold viruses (rhinoviruses) to HIV.

Atlant 11:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually read a couple of pubmed articles that said HIV infected cells don't make up the majority of the t-cells that die. Instead HIV somehow sends a signal to the CD4, CD8, etc. to begin apoptosis (cell suicide). -- 128.62.118.63

Uh-oh, I don't know about that so that could also be true! Perhaps a better-informed person will be along to help out here...

Atlant 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added more detail on this aspect of HIV inducing apoptosis of bystander T cells, I only hope that SciGuy doesn't come along and delete it because it doesn't fit with his belief system. --Grcampbell 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Atlant 18:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Does HIV cause AIDS?

The facts are that in the United States and Europe antibodies to HIV must be detected for a diagnosis of AIDS. The same diseases without HIV antibodies are simply not called AIDS.

In places like Africa, where HIV antibody testing is not widely available, about half the diagnosed cases of AIDS have antibodies to HIV. Cleary HIV cannot be causing AIDS in the other half who do not have HIV antibodies. -- Fred2005

Please state your source for those contradictory statements. -- Ec5618 13:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

the sources are WHO and CDC and UNAIDS Fred2005 14:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. If AIDS is defined as the disease that causes HIV antibodies, how can AIDS not be caused by HIV? -- Ec5618 17:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that there are many scientists who disagree that HIV is the cause for AIDS, shouldn´t this be noted in the article?

Those scientists are in a miniscule-but-vocal minority. →Raul654 21:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's good that they are vocal, because the article is incomplete unless it can address any scientific criticisms from NPOV. It would be wonderful if a qualified person could address specific claims of immunologists and the more general ones of (eg) Christine Maggiore. Tribune 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead

I have just reverted a well-intentioned edit by Bhny, which may the first sentence state that, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the non-scientific view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." The "non-scientific" part was Bhny's edition. I understand the reason for the edit, but I'm afraid it's really no different from adding something like "Hitler was evil" to the first sentence of the article on Adolf Hitler. Aside from being inelegant writing, it's unnecessary. Anyone can see that Hitler was evil. Anyone can also see, from the existing material in the lead, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. I'd like to ask Bhny to refrain from adding unnecessary verbiage to solve a problem that does not exist: no one is going to think that AIDS denialism is scientific simply because the words "non-scientific" are not there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning at all. AIDS denialism unfortunately is a weird thing believed by too many people, and some of these people do think there is a scientific basis for their denial. The first paragraph has to make it clear that it is not scientific. (There is no reason to call denialists "drooling idiots" or to godwin this discussion before it begins) Bhny (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the first paragraph does not have to make it clear that it is not scientific. Realistically, no one is going to read only the first paragraph of the article and somehow come away with the impression that AIDS denialism is scientific. It is impossible to avoid noticing the other paragraphs, which make it crystal clear that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. Your addition is poor writing, and it is an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. And for what it's worth, I didn't call denialists "drooling idiots" - you simply misunderstand what I wrote. Rather, the "drooling idiots" part referred to people who would read only the first paragraph of the article and then imagine that AIDS denialism is scientific. You seem to think that such people actually exist. Sorry, I don't think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note, by the way, that no article about a theory that has been rejected by the scientific community is written the way you think that this article should be written. Thus, the first sentence of Creationism, is "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation", not "Creationism is the non-scientific belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation." Try looking at other articles and you will get a better impression of what is and what is not considered acceptable writing on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is, by it's very definition, unscientific, so I have no problems whatsoever with using the terminology to describe them. As to it being unnecessary because any rational person could not possibly identify it as anything else? You have more faith in humanity than I do. The fact that AIDS Denialism exists at all is testimony to how people can pathologically take a vacation from reality. You can also take a cursory examination around these very talk pages as exhibit B to this phenomenon.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I pointed out that the lead already states, emphatically and clearly, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. That's why the extra "non-scientific" language isn't needed. "Faith in humanity" has nothing to do with it. Nothing that you said above qualifies as a rational response to what I said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to bother worrying about it for the inclusion of one word, particularly when it appears you choose to be condescending to anyone who does not share your views. You can be sanctimonious to somebody else.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You made an irrelevant reply that didn't even touch on what I actually wrote. I am sorry if you find it "condescending" of me to point that out, but I do prefer to be honest. There would be better ways of replying than making whiny comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph should make it clear. There are many readers who only read the first paragraph and many websites/search engines that display only the first paragraph or sentence. Why should the first sentence not make it clear? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, but one needs to consider how to do such things properly. The lead needs to use appropriate language, and any statement has to have a proper source. I suppose you could use the first sentence of the Intelligent design article as a model. Yet the language used there is not quite a perfect model for this article. "HIV/AIDS denialism" is not a "theory" as such; it is, as the article calls it, a view. A theory can be called pseudoscientific, but I don't think it makes sense to call something as loosely defined as a view pseudoscientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the content. If a point is adequately made in the content it can be summarized without additional sourcing. I think a view that A does not cause B can be called pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience as the belief HIV does not cause AIDS is. The foundation of the belief is pseudoscience, the content of the belief is pseudoscience, it has been called and described as pseudoscience by reliable sources thus calling it a pseudoscientific belief is valid. It's not like the advocates of this belief don't all rely on pseudoscience, this isn't a religious belief or a philosophical opinion, this is a belief that the science that says A causes B is wrong and other (pseudo)science is right. Pretty clearly a pseudoscientific belief, view, proposition, notion, idea whatever noun employed. I agree that good writing should prevail whenever possible, propose something good! Concise and razor clear without sounding awkward or pointed with as much detail as necessary to explain and provide context with nothing extra. As you might have noticed that is not exactly my strength as an editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is by definition something that claims to be science but isn't. A "view" does not automatically equate to a scientific claim, and it doesn't have to be based on something that is claimed to be science; views can be based on anything. "Pseudoscience" is thus not, in my opinion, a useful label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This view claims to be scientific. The fact that "a view doesn't automatically equate" is irrelevant. This particular view is based on (what is claimed to be) science. This is a view on a scientific subject. Being a "view" does not exclude the possibility of being a pseduoscientific view. Doesn't the article make clear that this view is argued using pseudoscience and based on pseudoscience? Doesn't stating that in the lead make it a fair summary? What in the article would not be described as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? All the legal and political stuff refers back to the (in)validity of the science. If a majority of the conduct of the individuals discussed in an article is engaging in, and arguing using pseudoscience, how is it not useful to label the view they are arging for as pseudoscientific? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, a view doesn't claim anything. Only people who maintain views claim things. I'm not especially impressed by your arguments for the appropriateness of the "pseudoscientific" label. Other editors may well agree with you, of course, and I've no interest in trying to impose my personal preferences here. If a consensus develops in favor of using such language, then so be it, but let's wait and see. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A weak attempt at semantic distraction. A position doesn't make claims either but a position can be pseudoscientific. I view is scientific if it based on and argued from science and relates to a scientific concept. I view is religious if it is based on and argued from religion and relates to a religious topic. A view is pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience and argued from pseudoscience and relates to a scientific topic. The cause of a disease is a scientific topic, denialism is based on and argued from a pseudoscientific basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think mentioning pseudoscience in the lead is a fine idea. I agree with MrBill3. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

'Agreed --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, not supported by medical science, that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by medical experts[?], that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by medical evidence[?], that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This view is contradicted by medical evidence[?].

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This view is not supported by mainstream science[?].

Etc...

Obviously any of these would need an appropriate source linked at the point where I've inserted the '?'.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the original phrase "non-scientific view" is bad for all sorts of reasons. Firstly lots of views are "non-scientific" (including the view that Hitler was evil, or even that Hitler was Chancellor of Germany). Science is only one way of determining truth. Secondly, a view may be scientific but also wrong. Many scientific theories have been disproved, and it's fair to say that some early versions of HIV-AIDS denialism were based on legitimate scientific models, or at least were genuinely consistent with scientific method. Balaenoptera musculus's suggestions ("not supported by medical science" etc) avoid both these problems. I do understand that some editors wish to get the disclaimer-terms in as early as possible, but I think that can be counter-productive. It makes readers feel they are been preached at, or hit over the head with an "official" POV. I'm all in favour of saying in the first paragraph that scientists overwhelmingly reject denialism, but it does not have to be pushed as far forward as possible in the very first sentence. We could even leave it to the second sentence! Paul B (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Paul B.

In other articles with the same problem, it's been useful to try to move the article text 'up' the hierarchy of disagreement, i.e. giving reasons why we think something is invalid rather than just saying that it's invalid. In Ken Ham we ended up with His claim (blah blah) is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records."

So something more specific than the "medical evidence" or "mainstream science" that I've used above would be even better. E.g. something like:

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by epidemiological evidence[?], that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Done: As no objections have been raised, I've made this change. Please revert and discuss here if I'm wrong.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is strongly worded enough, since epidemiology is only the tip of the iceberg as to what puts AIDS deniers at odds with the scientific mainstream. They are, after all, factually wrong, and we should portray them accordingly. The introductory sentence is what sets the tone for the article, so I would be more comfortable calling these folks precisely what they are, pseudoscientists, right from the get go (Per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS). Thoughts?Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have particular fields or sources of evidence in mind, then we could add them thusly: "contradicted by evidence from A, B and C".

I agree that the denialist view is factually wrong (of course), but I think that the tone is more encyclopaedic if we just present the evidence to the reader.

To me it seems higher up Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to present the evidence that the denialist view is wrong, rather than to label it as wrong.

BTW I find this essay provides a useful reference for this type of topic.

Best, Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Since we already have numerous sources within the article which prove the scientific reality of viral isolation, epidemiological association, transmission pathogenesis, etc.[3], why not just add, "despite conclusive medical and scientific evidence". This does not flat out label them as incorrect, per your concerns on Graham's hierarchy, but presents a more accurate assessment of the reality of the situation. Supaflyrobby (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, good plan, go for it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DoneSupaflyrobby (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't have done it. What you added to the lead (let me be frank) is illiterate, inept, confused writing. It now reads, "HIV/AIDS denialism' is the belief, desipte conclusive medical and scientific evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." I understand what it is supposed to mean. You are trying to say that HIV/AIDS denialism is contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence. That is not, however, what the words you have added actually state. Taken literally, they imply that "conclusive medical and scientific evidence" does not show that HIV/AIDS denialism is something other than the belief that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Think about it very, very, carefully, and you will realize that such a statement does not make sense. I do object in the strongest terms to incompetent edits like the one you just made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So fix it instead of devoting your energy to borderline personal attacks. VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have fixed it already, but unfortunately, in an editing environment like Wikipedia, where anyone can register an account, I cannot be sure that an edit removing or correcting inept writing will not be reverted. Talk page discussion thus seems to be needed. The discussion having happened, I will correct the error and use the language I suggested in my most recent edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, please review WP:Personal and WP:Civil. This is now the second time you have resorted to such measures instead of simply offering constructive commentary to work towards a better article. If you find an edit problematic, fine, that is what these talk pages are for, not as a means for you to assert your self-proclaimed superior intellect over the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've accepted the correction. I wasn't trying to assert anything about my intellect (I don't think it requires great intellect to insist on correct English). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

While I also prefer 'contradicted by', I too find FreeKnowledgeCreator's condescension unnecessarily rude.

FreeKnowledgeCreator: Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour. That means it's usually a good thing to avoid describing text or edits in terms more usually applied to persons (such as 'inept', 'illiterate' or 'incompetent') as you could very easily be understood to be deploying childish name calling against your fellow editors.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake call it HIV/AIDS skepticism. Nowadays the believers refer to 'HIV disease' and not AIDS anyway. The changing of definition for this whole 30+ year charade is proof enough that the dissident/skeptics might be correct on a basic level. MLW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.83.214 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you present a WP:RS, and one that conforms to MEDRS, this will go nowhere. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)