Talk:HIV denial

From RationalWiki

its on my list...hopefully in during next 36 hrs--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 14:17, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Awesome. I think I started in the wrong direction (Reagan ignoring AIDS), the 2nd paragraph is what is really meant, right? human^{be in} 14:27, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

My edit that added "combinations of factors"...I seem to recall that part of the controversy was that not all people who came into contact with HIV would go on to have AIDS or have a version that was less severe. Now, (in retrospect) we know there are several strains of HIV floating around (Not literally, thank the gods) but you know...ANYway the "co-factors" seemed to center around sexual contact frequency, How many different men did one have sex with and like that.

I also saw a show, (produced by the BBC, I think, that seemed to say that HIV was the viral equivalent of Bubonic Plague (the Black Death), which was bacterial. This show also went on to say that men who were descendants of those who survived the plague might do better if exposed to HIV.

~~ CЯacke® 15:07, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

That was because a certain gene happened to provide protection against both diseases, that doesn't mean both are bacterial, it probably means both diseases share a vital protein.

MiddleMan 12:07, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

The black death has never been definitively characterized. It has always been presumed that it was Plague, but it may have been influenza or another viral disease. There is a cellular protein in some caucasians that seems to protect them from the worst effects of HIV.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 12:41, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Basically, the HIV denial movement, led by folks such as Peter Duesberg and a few African leaders, says that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and demotes it to either a co-factor or a non-issue. Usually drug use or other moral depravity is named. Duesberg, an otherwise decent scientist, comes from that side. However, there is a mov't also that believes HIV is an engineered virus let lose on the world by The Usual Suspects.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 16:58, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

---

This seems more like an article on HIV/AIDS then on HIV Denial. Thunderkatz^Ho! 11:38, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Good point...I'm getting there, I promise...this is just the background on why they are fucked up.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 11:46, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Contents 1 Still working... 2 Assistance 3 Help! 4 Reagan 5 AIDS as divine punishment

[edit] Still working...

...and your patience is appreciated. I plan on finishing up about 2200 GMT. I've got a lot of stuff ready for it. 162.82.215.199 14:02, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry to be picky again, but shouldn't your summary be more about denialism that HIV/AIDS itself? Also, should this be under pseudoscinece? Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:28, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Good point again...hard to work on this and on work at the same time. I need to dig up the citations for Koch's postulates (time-consuming), and keep working on the summary, and maybe more...i'd be happy to have help as my espresso is wearing off.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:31, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

We also need to develop a section on African HIV denial.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:35, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Footnote on "History" header? Shouldn't it be after part of the "history" section? Just nit-picking, I know you're not done yet. human^{be in} 18:26, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, i incorporated it later, but it's a well-used ref. Have to figure out where to put it.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 18:28, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

You could always do something like "This section largely based on ^[1]" ? human^{be in} 18:52, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Has anyone else noticed how much work we're getting done without HoG around? Anyway, I could really use help with the Africa section. A good starting point will be the external link in the article.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 18:33, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I was just thinking that... human^{be in} 18:52, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Assistance

I need an outside eye here. If someone could help me with the Africa stuff (if not, I'll get to it), also does anyone think we need more on Denialism, more examples, etc? More info to discredit the actual people involved? (although id rather let the facts speak for themselves). I'd like this to be good, so please be brutal.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 18:58, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, you guys just don't like me and want my wife to hate me, don't you?--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 20:11, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Quit whining ;) I offered to copyedit, at least, when you're ready. I will also make brutal notes here if I think of any. I want to wait until you're kinda done to reduce edit conflicts, though. Although I will at least work section by section. Did you fix the repetition of the phrase "flooding hospitals" yet? human^{be in} 20:13, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

No i didnt no i didnt.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 20:14, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Help!

HIV denialists are attacking the blog!User:PalMD

Fingers in ears: "La, la,la, la,la, la,la, la,la, la,la, ... Not listening!" SJG^sjg 10:55, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

(sobbing) User:PalMD

[edit] Reagan

St. R. deserves his own section, methinks. "Despite lack of support from the Reagan administration" hardly does justice to the years of delay in attention to the disease due its mostly afflicting society's less popular members. And he was teh freakin' president guy. Didn't he even later regret/apologize for moving so slowly on it? human^{be in} 18:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] AIDS as divine punishment

Top of this article says it "does not address the various ideas that AIDS is punishment from God". Do we have an article about this? I couldn't even see it mentioned in the AIDS article. If there isn't already an article on it, there should definitely be one, as this idea was a pretty big deal in the '80s, & is still clung to by a few repugnant crazies like Fred Phelps. weaseLOId~ 08:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

If AIDS is a punishment from God, the lesbians are the chosen people. Francine 08:20, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. . . . weaseLOId~ 08:22, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I had a science (I want to say chemistry, but I'm not totally sure) teacher at my public junior high school who used to spout stuff like this. I can remember thinking how silly and inappropriate it was, but I didn't have the guts to challenge it. This would have been circa 1987-88. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 08:17, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow. That sucks. How could a scientist possibly believe that crap? (Rhetorical question - I know some do). weaseLOId~ 08:20, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't remember us creating one specifically on that subject. I'm not sure what we'd say - except that some strange people believe it. One might argue that it doesn't really lend itself to debunking as nobody (as far as I am aware) claims to hold some pseudo-scientific belief which justifies it. One the other hand perhaps our more religiously-minded members would wish to point out that it would be a rather strange way for a hypothetically just God to behave. In any event I'll add a comment in Divine retribution- but that doesn't mean that you couldn't create an article Weaseloid.--Bob^{bing up} 09:40, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

My mistake - it's there already, but not linked.--Bob^{bing up} 09:43, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I've added some content to the AIDS article about this (as well as a couple of other sinister beliefs about AIDS) but not in as much detail as I woukld like, since strangely I couldn't find much out about idea of AIDS as divine retribution, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet. I had thought there would be quite a lot of coverage about it. weaseLOId~ 12:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)