Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 9

1221:(the journal of the International AIDS Society) could be used in addition. There's no shortage of references equating AIDS denialism with pseudoscience; all you have to do is look. I note that at the "clarification" page you reference, you are taken to task for making manifestly ridiculous changes with regard to the pseudoscience classification, and for long-winded politicking. Note also that the "policy" you cite (which despite "clarification" is murky at best) is meant to govern disruptive editing rather than content. Were you to do your own googling before initiating discussions, you could avoid such disruptive editing. If you're not sure whether AIDS denialism is pseudoscience, and you're not sure whether phrenology is pseudoscience, and you can't find the required evidence by the simple act of googling, I'd suggest that the article would be better off without your input. - 1702:

Specialist data presented through CSICOP is liable to offer specific perspectives of expertise, but do not seem to me reliable expressions about the scientific community and its perspective. I am not alone in this opinion, and have seen similar expressions about them in Knowledge. That said, i don't think it is really relevant except as a side-comment of worth for General Pseudoscience (for which it would not qualify because it is specialist and an advocate) or for Scientific Consensus (which CSICOP doesn't represent either, to my knowledge). If you have evidence to the contrary about how much scientists love and speak through CSICOP, please do point it out, thanks. We seem to have arrived at a consensus regarding the status of this page, though of course i cannot be sure.

1596:

was looking for something general (like the New York Times article or a Britannica article) to demonstrate that AIDS denials are pseudoscience (to me they are *based* on pseudoscience and so this is illogical but Wiki standards include this for adjectival purposes), or some science board like the National Academy of Sciences which might speak for the greater proportion of scientists such that we can reasonably conclude that the scientific community is agreed that AIDS denials are pseudoscience. Putting words into my mouth about the qualifications of individuals isn't accurate or helpful to evaluating the category's application.(wasn't logged in when writing this)

35: 2214:

is (lumping together so many different opinion, people or critical comments despite lot of them does not even touch HIV-AIDS link at all) so nothing will ever change here. I'm watching this AIDS "denialist" pseudo-scientific lynching here (it's obviously a smoke and mirror "talk" here, no result will ever change the "denialist" spambots) for a year now and I have learned that not a single cent should be given for WP unless you people,

1361:- after he asked for sources and was given half a dozen or more (some of which he rejected as he said he couldn't access Google Books, others he rejected because he didn't think a philosopher of science was qualified to say if something was pseudo-science, etc) he jumped from discussing authors to wanting an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science' reference. Then he moved to 520:, not one of these would be more or less valid or true because a professor or a scientist believed it, as opposed to Joe the plumber or a rock band guitarist. Of course, the truth of any of these is not the concern of Knowledge; instead, Knowledge articles are based on reliable sources, which demonstrably support both the name and the content of this article. 1161:, and I think the sourcing in the article is more than sufficient. I thought we had reached agreement in our very recent discussion on the category talk page; is there a reason to re-open this issue here without reference to that discussion? I will add that a) Brittanica is a tertiary source and generally not one we should be relying upon here (see 1184:, pseudoscience is "assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not." Many AIDS denialists make "assertions about claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not.". So yes, it fits the category. Please stop with your pointy disruption. It isn't big or clever. 681:

that AIDS was not a threat to heterosexuals. The Sunday Times coverage was heavily criticized as slanted, misleading, and potentially dangerous; the scientific journal Nature took the unusual step of printing a 1993 editorial calling the paper's coverage of HIV/AIDS "seriously mistaken, and probably disastrous."

1887:

supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on. (18)

2213:

Nonsense. It's represented by the vast majority of the AIDS-industry, their dependents and other parasitic economical interests. Some of you, influential (and most likely few with vested interests) Wiki people here keep discrediting ANY link or source that shows how ridiculous this whole "denial-ism"

1388:

Hi Doug. Please don't speak for me, i don't agree with your characterization. I was looking for something more like Encyclopedia Britannica or maybe the New York Times. I wasn't passing judgement on who was qualified to say anything, just trying to abide the Arbcom assessment procedure for evaluating

680:

One line in the article is, " The Sunday Times, where Hodgkinson served as scientific editor, ran a series of articles arguing that the AIDS epidemic in Africa was a myth. These articles stressed Duesberg's claims and argued that antiviral therapy was ineffective, that HIV testing was unreliable, and

1612:

I do not question Robert Gallo's qualifications. I am questioning the wisdom of implying that all Aids deniers are quacks. Wiki's Blp policy certainly tells us to avoid using language that could be construed as an attack does it not ? I think it would be fine to quote Gallo and or others like him. I

1579:

First of all, they are not POV-pushers, unless the POV in question is that the distinction between science and pseudoscience be upheld, which is in line with the very point of this discussion. Second, the source I named was not CSICOP, but the the woman who wrote an article in their publication, who

967:

any scientific authority on that subject, certainly no more than that of the dozens of Nobel laureates and tens of thousands of AIDS researchers who would undoubtedly agree that HIV obviously causes AIDS just like the Earth revolves around the Sun. I dunno how much of this sort of context we need to

1886:

LM: I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn't take the peak...or it didn't work...because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the

1685:

Which is precisely why I responded in the way that I did. If you do not oppose a particular person that I indeed named, then what difference does targeting the entire organization make? There is no Straw Man. I responded to exactly what you said, and what you said about that particular organization

1026:

If the main criterion for mention as a denialist were extensive experience with HIV/AIDS research, then we wouldn't see any names here at all! Mullis' position is noteworthy only because of who Mullis is. And Mullis is notable because of his Nobel Prize. If he is mentioned at all, we are obliged to

429:

On Ignaz Semmelweis, without getting into the debate about the relative degrees to which he was ostracised due to his personal behaviour on the one hand and his medical discovery on the other, we would do well to remember that if current opinion on Ignaz Semmelweis were overwhelmingly negative, the

2240:

Okay, Szlevi, your request that things get moderated is granted, but it's your comments that are the problem here. This talk page is specifically a place to discuss constructively how to improve the article, not a place for people to rant against the system. Please tone it down, and stay on-topic.

2046:

and I don't know if there is any value in at least mentioning it in this article since it seems to be getting a fair bit of coverage on various blogs and forums, including Richard Dawkins' site. I've found nothing reliable discussing it, though, so it may not be possible to add anything in an NPOV

2039:

was recently created, then deleted for various reasons, and ultimately redirected here following a suggestion by me. Not wanting to have my suggestion backfire, I wondered if people interested in this topic wanted to add that page to their watchlists to make sure it doesn't get abused in any way.

1595:

Straw man. I said: "I don't generally think that CSICOP publications are a sufficiently reliable source for Knowledge (because they are POV-pushers)." sometimes they have contributing writers who are very interesting contributors to the evidence surrounding issues. I didn't specify any person, but

943:

When Isaac Newton lived science was not advanced at all, so it makes quite a difference if someone supported such superstition in Newton's times or if someone does it nowadays. My problem is the way Mullis is presented here. By saying that a Nobel-prize winner and inventor of PCR supports the AIDS

545:

You had me at "Joe the plumber". In all seriousness, there are reams of discussion along these lines in the archives, and nothing has changed: this is the name used by a large volume of reliable sources, so it's the name used by Knowledge. If you feel that's an unfair rhetorical normative etc etc,

114:

No one is denying that acquired immune deficiency syndrome does not exist. They only question the role that the suspected particle known as "HIV" has any role in the syndrome. I suggest the title to this article be change to "HIV denialism" instead. Even that would be a bit offensive in my opinion

1141:

on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and the AIDS Denialism category, requires a citation from a reliable general source like the Encyclopedia Britannica describing the subject as pseudoscience, or a reliable academic source such as an Academy of Science which

1519:

Thanks for making that more clear. It is only logical that both should either have or not have the tag. If the New York Times article establishes the general criteria (being equivalent to a Britannica article for purposes of generally reflecting an assessment of this as pseudoscience), then both

894:

I don't have a PDF reader on the computer I'm currently using, so I must ask: Is any of the information in this article that is derived from his work subject to question? I don't see what astrology or alien abduction have to do with medicine. The fact that Isaac newton believed in alchemy is an

688:

We have printed several articles written by professors in Africa saying that the AIDS academic has been greatly exagerated, as has other publications. More importantly, the the WHO has admitted that it greatly overestimated the number of AIDS cases in Africa. In light of this new information,

319:

The title is the common name and incredibly well sourced. It is also being used as a descriptor, and usually the only people who mention the holocaust when talking about AIDS/HIV or Climate Change are those that are using it as a straw man argument to try to undermine the logical and scientific

288:

who the medical/biological profesion deliberately hounded out of his hospital and his country. The consensus of the medical profession can be and has been obviously stupid and their response to those who disagree has been shown to be unbelievably vicious, even sadistically cruel. This article

1701:

The difference is that an expression from it is liable to incorporate no balanced consensus as regards the scientific community as a whole, necessarily, whereas something from the NY Times or the Encyclopedia Britannica is more likely to reflect a general opinion as to category of information.

913:

Neptun88, do you have a suggestion for changing the sentence on Mullis? Since there is just one mention of him in this article (as a notable AIDS denialist), I don't see the need for much additional information about him here, particularly since the controversies are addressed at his biography

2103:

Eh. The "report" is a low-profile gimmick being pushed by AIDS denialists. A handful of Internet forums that bother with such things have comments on it. This is an encyclopedia, and this is waaay below our notability horizon. I'm fine with a redirect, but I don't see anything more to discuss

2080:

The report does indeed make demonstrably false statements, e.g. claiming Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa is funded by drug companies and doesn't reveal it's major donors. The donors (none of them drug companies, since TAC accepts no pharmaceutical funding) are named in the TAC

2062:

Thank you I added the page, i also do not find any reliable discussing it. The article is getting coverage on blogs i think bc the author is full time promoting it and trying to provoke conteroversy about it by attacking scientists. The article is low low quality, my opinion, it is probably

1897:

I have been HIV+ for more than 21 years now, and its increasingly clear that mainstream science has NOTHING to offer. In fact I consider your above comment not only an insult to people like me, but also to science in general. i for one am living proof that HIV is not the cause of AID's.

1807:

Luc Montagnier states that his team never 'purified' HIV. (1997, Interview with Djamel Tahi Montagnier responds that "after a Roman effort" he could only find four nonspecific surrogate markers.) Janine Roberts in her book alleges that Gallo falsified documents to claim HIV isolation.

483:. And calls them all aids denialists. Should the views of eminent scientists questioning current scientific consensus be compared with those famous person from a pop band in an encyclopedic article? I don't beleive so. Again this article clearly suffers from non-objective 1142:

considers the subject to be pseudoscience, so as to sustain the category's placement. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and its corresponding category. Thank you.

1338:

Thank you kindly for your references. I don't generally think that CSICOP publications are a sufficiently reliable source for Knowledge (because they are POV-pushers), but i do like to make reference to them in my own researches, and your other suggestions are very

1365:

and without mentioning the earlier discussion started a new one, this time wanting an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science' reference and citing ArbCom as requiring it. Ironically, the article didn't even have a pseudoscience tag at the time. It does now.

352:. When one reliable source attacks another reliable source as has happened here, an objective wikipedia article doesn't take sides. The real denialism here is that this article and its treatment of the title isn't POV, which it almost certainly is. It's 1580:

also wrote a book on the subject, and the other people who, in turn, she named for the same reason. Robert Gallo isn't qualified as a source that A.D. is pseudoscience? Really? How so? If this is "POV-pushing", then who did you have in mind as a source?

1009:

I don't know if it is blasphemy to say this but Mendel is nothing more than a "guitarist" to me ;=) And Mullis has not done any research or scientific work on HIV or AIDS, as MastCell said above, so IMHO the Nobel prize does not make his position more

2339:

That's actually a very seperate issue from the one this article covers. This article covers people who think that HIV does not exist or that it doesn't cause AIDS. The claims about the Catholic stance on condoms necessarily accepts the link, however.

1664:

Thanks for bringing to light the notion that "tagging the article" and "adding a Category to an article" are two different things. I'll have to look into how those two differ and avoid that confusion in the future.(wasn't logged in when writing this)

1720:, way back when Aids research was in its incipient stages, is called for. I do not have the time to write such an article but I will provide anyone who wishes to write such an article with reliable sources pursuant to such a task. The involvement of 614:

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphopenia is a different disease with some overlapping manifestations. It does not have "all the symptoms of AIDS"; some manifestations of AIDS are related, or possibly related, to direct effects of the virus itself - for example,

1165:), and b) there is no requirement for an "Academy of Science" to designate something a pseudoscience before so labeling it. Academies of Science generally concern themselves with, well, science, and rarely if ever bother labeling things as 1830:

You can't expect us to take one line of an interview with no context and turn the direction of a statement completely around. Even if you provided a link to the entire interview, the paper has been cited thousands of times, so it's up to

1288:. My own preference is that the categorization be restricted to what claims to be scientific but which in fact isn't, but if you look at that Arbcom and the clarification also referenced above you'll see it applies to much more than that. 994:

Calling Mullis a "biochemist" is akin to calling Nate Mendel (also mentioned) a mere "guitarist". Mullis is notable for his Nobel Prize and for his contribution to the development of PCR. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to revert this.

1853:

Please xpain why the book Fear of the Invisible is not reliable? It contains documents such as Popovic' work and Gando's EM pictures as well as their comments clearly stating that the culture samples contain NOTHING but cell debris.

962:

support AIDS denialist claims. Of course, he supports quite a few other... er... non-mainstream ideas as well - he's a bit of a professional contrarian, and he has not done any research or scientific work on HIV or AIDS. He doesn't

1984:

Please don't be rude. The assertion that this article states that HIV==AIDS is incorrect, and no clinicians or experts think this either. The whole post is based on a flawed premise, and is full of faulty reasoning. It also fails

740:

All numbers for AIDS in Africa (and elsewhere) are estimates. Different estimates, using different methods, come to different conclusions. No estimate places the number of AIDS cases at zero, which is what AIDS denialists argue.

979:

So if his Nobel prize is irrelevant to his (non-existent) scientific authority on AIDS why mention it at all? I don't object to list Mullis as a supporter, I only object to list him as a Nobel-prize-winning supporter. That's my

374:

that there is such an attack. Currently this article takes the view that AIDS denalists claims are unproven, and that the link between AIDS/HIV is proven, and this is supported by the RS. The other important guidelines here are

1044:

of the sources I mentioned exactly made the same point that I did (p.28). That might be added in one sentence though it shouldn't become a personal payoff either. I would have felt more comfortable with just not mentioning

873:

The article presents him as a Nobel prize winner and inventor of PCR, but does not mention with one word his peculiar views on astrology and alien abduction though his scientific authority is often questioned because of

805:

Concur with the above analysis of SJPA. Could you be more specific, ideally in the form of a link, regarding the WHO report? It may or may not be germane, but I might like to read it for my own edification regardless. -

1546:

Considering the massive revenues that Aids Research is receiving at the expense of other equally deadly diseases, I think that the sociological aspects factor in heavily. I therefor submit that perhaps a tag entitled

426:: Knowledge cannot and should not speculate about which current scientific "paradigms" are correct, partially correct, or wrong. Knowledge can and should report verifiable, current thought from reliable sources. 115:

since "delialism" seems to suggest that the researchers in question have closed their minds to the possibility that some agent has a role in AIDS. Heck, "denialism" isn’t even a real word, more like a slur term.

619:

and HIV-associated nephropathy. These would not occur with ICL. I am aware that some AIDS denialist websites make claims about ICL. They are as logical as claiming that, because not all hepatitis is caused by

1686:

being a POV-pusher is false. Do you honestly believe that the Times doesn't ever push a POV? Or that conversely, CSI cannot document, as a question of fact, what the consensus of the scientific community is?

1627:

This isn't a BLP, and calling aspects AIDS denialism psedoscience is accurate and supported, thus the category is supported. There is no calling all deniers "quacks" by adding this category to this page.

2321:

The role of religion in AIDS conspiracies and controversies should be noted. The claim that the Catholic stand against condoms is responsible for AIDS deaths in Africa is becoming increasingly popular.

1650:

My apologies. I thought that tagging the article was what was being proposed here. Categories are a different matter altogether. Once again my apologies. Perhaps I should go back to sleep now. LOL....

1027:

mention why he is included. The last paragraph in the notable denialists sections covers the lack of research experience among supposed denialist experts. Would a sentence here be appropriate?

653:

Well, yes, the risk you take when you leave silly comments here - like "idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia has all the symptoms of AIDS" - is that someone who knows better will call you on it. -

940:

My proposal would be to omit the mention of his other achievements regardless how great they are. It should say simply something like the "chemist Kary Mullis supports their claims". No more.

1894:

To claim the above statement by Motangnier is invalid is simply ignoring facts. Montagnier made similar statements as early as 1991. He was the one who formulated the 'co-factor' hypothesis.

1097:, which tells us to avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Of course, all the denialist sites fit that description... 822:

I would have to agree in that I don't see what the WHO estimates have to do with AIDS denialism. If the WHO revises its estimates of malaria morbidity, does that support the idea that

1613:

just fail to see the wisdom of painting them all Aids deniers and potential Aids deniers with the same brush. Most scientist believe that HIV causes aids and therefor so do I.

1835:

to rewrite history, and not one person, even if he helped write it in the first place. As for the book, it's not reliable at all, so there's no point even responding on that.

2228:

Enough is enough, Verbal. It's a TALK PAGE, criticism of this article, the way you guys blocking everything here belongs here - I'm requesting moderation against your abuse.

1315:, to refuting the claims of denialist Peter Duesberg (Pages 287-297), Jon Cohen, who investigated Duesberg's claims and concluded that none of them stood up to scrutiny in 1244:. So far it seems that what is put forward has no following within the scientific community to speak of, though there were mentions of articles being allowed published in 1970:

Your critique is the one that fails, Verbal. The unsigned contributor is trying to improve the article, therefore your "not a forum" accusations are (IMO) out of place.

1499:, which until I just fixed it had the pseudosience category twice, which I agree was too much (by one). All apropriate pages in that category should probably be tagged. 1303:

But if you need a specific source, Professor Nicoli Nattras, the director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, and the author of 2007's

344:'s and the article, its title, and its usage in other articles needs to be re-cast with such a possibility in mind. This is important to bring all this material within 1568: 1285: 1241: 1237: 1134: 563:

Yes. Even if one believes, counterfactually, that "they all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the earth was round", they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -

2081:

document that "Gallo's Egg" links to (!) and more detail on the specific amounts donated are available in the TAC's financial reports, which are on TAC's website.

118:

For more eye opening research in to the seriously compromised "AIDS" science, please read this interview of with Dr Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth Group:

1716:

As I mentioned before the Socio-political aspects of this articles subject matter are striking. Perhaps an article that includes the early predictions made by the

918:

article indicates, Mullis was not the sole inventor of the technique. He did play a major role in developing PCR and commercializing it, though, hence his Nobel.

2169:

The second half of the introduction is very clearly biased against AIDS denialists or dissidents or whatever they're called... someone should fix that passage.

826:

is a harmless passenger? Or does it just point out the difficulties of modeling an epidemic which affects areas without a robust public-health infrastructure?

356:

for a wikipedia editor to categorically claim that some articles in reliable sources have straw man arguments. That's not for wikipedia editors to decide. --

164:

I. for one, heartily agree. The title smacks of spin-doctoring in the same way that female circumcision (sp?) is now called "Female genital mutilation."

1938:

This talk page is not a forum, and it is known that HIV does not equal AIDS, therefore your critique fails. You haven't shown V or RS for any of this.

1311:(Volume 31, No. 5; Pages 31-37), and names others with the same view, such as Robert Gallo, who devoted ten pages of his book 1991 on discovering HIV, 387:. I disagree with your reading of OR as it doesn't apply to talk pages, and we can use RS that make those suggestions to support the view put forward. 1683:"sometimes they have contributing writers who are very interesting contributors to the evidence surrounding issues. I didn't specify any person..." 1217:

qualifies as a reliable general source. Of course, the July 2007 article "Combining prevention, treatment and care: lessons from South Africa" in

1879:

Here is an excerpt of the interview with Luc Montagnier (LM), conducted in 1997 at the Pasteur Institute by Djamel Tahi for Continuum Magazine:

1924: 1815: 2295:, you're welcome to do so, but this is not the place to attack other editors, impugn their motivations, or debate the "AIDS industry". 2176: 2088: 1115: 131: 1808:(www.fearoftheinsivible.com) This asserts that HIV=AIDs is unproven, yet references to Gallos original documents are frequently made. 1138: 462: 101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 575: 1093:

Well, I guess the issues there would be a) copyright (or not), b) whether they add encyclopedic goodness to the article, and c)

851:, but no SJPA on Google or Google Scholar. Could you tell us more about the SJPA? It does seem like an interesting publication. 1362: 812: 531:

does not allow general debate about an article's subject. Violations of this policy may be deleted as disruptive. Thank you.

1358: 689:

perhaps there should be an addendum stating that the strongly worded criticism of the Sunday Times has been contradicted.

1776:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1236:

Thanks, Nunh-huh, i like that source and think it may be enough. The issue is of course whether what we are considering is

2217: 2121: 2026:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1717: 1032: 1000: 923: 856: 746: 536: 439: 434:. Truth versus verifiability is such a central concept on Knowledge that it surprises me how often it must be repeated. 264: 154: 259:. Personal like or dislike of a term is not valid argument: the article must reflect what is used in reliable sources. 1181: 1729: 1655: 1618: 1556: 42: 1496: 1213:

on the subject that shows up in the top four hits when you google for "AIDS denialism pseudoscience"? I think the

1158: 895:

interesting historical fact, but it does not in any way affect the validity of his work in physics or calculus.

1928: 1819: 1418: 527:. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, please provide them. Otherwise, please note that 2092: 1413:

Once again, this is an article that does not now have the pseudoscience category on it, but probably should.

1119: 1077:

We could include video's like "the other side of aids" under external links/denialist. Any ideas on that? —

135: 2180: 1028: 996: 919: 852: 742: 532: 435: 260: 150: 21: 2063:

libellous. When it is not in reliable sources i don't think it should be a reference or get quoted on WP.

1876:

These documents originate from Gallo's own lab and have been drawn up by Gallo's colleagues and employees.

1414: 624:, the virus is harmless or nonexistent. I don't know that we need to further this sort of ignorance here. 2345: 2204: 2069: 1911: 1867: 1840: 1725: 1691: 1651: 1614: 1585: 1552: 1328: 1274: 900: 694: 616: 169: 187: 1577:" CSICOP publications are a sufficiently reliable source for Knowledge (because they are POV-pushers)" 690: 165: 2172: 2084: 2052: 1920: 1811: 1466: 1371: 644: 583: 495: 423: 361: 310: 203: 127: 301:

instead of descriptive in their writing and their application of the term on other articles such as

290: 2296: 2252: 1975: 1789: 776: 597: 578:. This is verifiable disease with all the symptons of AIDS, but patients are negative for HIV. -- 2229: 2126: 1707: 1670: 1601: 1525: 1452: 1394: 1344: 1293: 1253: 1147: 1050: 1015: 985: 949: 884: 807: 635:

Commentary smacks of the sort of know-it-all (no disrespect intended) sort silliness outlined in

505: 2096: 2056: 124:

In this interview, she details why every single EM photo we have of supposed "HIV" is a fraud.

944:

denialists' claims, Mullis' scientific authority is put forward on behalf of the denialists. --

877: 2288: 1083: 717: 621: 509: 1724:

and other talk show hosts seems to have the makings of an interesting article within itself.

2341: 2272: 2233: 2200: 2144: 2130: 2064: 2002: 1947: 1906: 1862: 1836: 1687: 1637: 1581: 1508: 1484: 1436: 1324: 1270: 1248:

and in academy of science publications (possibly for refutation?). Thanks for your patience.

1193: 1087: 1041: 896: 875: 713: 709: 396: 376: 341: 329: 294: 285: 244: 191: 546:

very well, but Knowledge isn't the place to change the way the world views AIDS denialism.

2349: 2333: 2308: 2278: 2254: 2208: 2184: 2150: 2110: 2074: 2048: 2008: 1979: 1953: 1932: 1872: 1844: 1823: 1801: 1765: 1733: 1711: 1695: 1674: 1659: 1643: 1622: 1605: 1589: 1560: 1529: 1514: 1490: 1470: 1462: 1456: 1442: 1422: 1398: 1375: 1367: 1348: 1332: 1297: 1278: 1257: 1227: 1199: 1175: 1151: 1123: 1103: 1054: 1036: 1019: 1004: 989: 974: 953: 927: 904: 888: 860: 832: 817: 788: 750: 731: 698: 659: 648: 640: 636: 630: 609: 587: 579: 569: 552: 540: 499: 491: 487: 452: 443: 402: 380: 365: 357: 335: 314: 306: 277: 268: 250: 230: 217: 207: 199: 173: 158: 139: 2323: 1207: 1748:

Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion or argumentation about a topic

2243: 1986: 1971: 1548: 1162: 528: 524: 458: 384: 345: 302: 1313:

Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery

2329: 2260: 2106: 1990: 1902: 1858: 1784: 1761: 1747: 1721: 1703: 1666: 1597: 1521: 1448: 1390: 1340: 1289: 1249: 1223: 1171: 1143: 1099: 1046: 1011: 981: 970: 945: 880: 828: 655: 626: 593: 592:

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but it sounds like it might involve

565: 548: 226: 195: 2292: 2196: 2036: 1832: 1755: 1094: 1079: 772: 705: 480: 371: 353: 349: 213: 183: 1305:

Mortal Combat: AIDS Denialism and the Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa

2264: 2136: 1994: 1963: 1939: 1751: 1629: 1500: 1476: 1428: 1185: 915: 476: 467: 388: 321: 236: 50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2291:. If you'd like to propose or discuss improving the article, with reference to 1307:, calls it pseudoscience in her article in the September/October 2007 issue of 914:

article. I would suggest changing the "inventor" language for clarity. As the

484: 274: 1242:

alternative theoretics which have a following within the scientific community

235:

Per MastCell and the common name guideline, this article is correctly named.

1475:

I'll need to see more reliable sources before I'll add that to the article.

1169:. This seems to set an artificial, unrealistic, and non-commonsensical bar. 298: 281: 2287:

admin appeared. Szlevi, it looks like you need to review the guidelines at

1742:

New evidence demonstrating that HIV was NOT isolated by Gallo or Montagnuer

320:

arguments made. Even many deniers use the term to categorise their belief.

284:

tone of self-explanation. Take the example of another medical professional

188:

Objections to associating HIV dissenters with people who deny the Holocaust

2325: 2222:

will be pushed back or purged from these influential roles. Szlevi (talk)

517: 186:

slurs and smears. This page appears to exactly what people at this blog

51: 17: 256: 147: 2104:

content-wise, since there is a complete absence of reliable sources.

340:

The presentday medical community could well be attacking present day

771:

was wrong on this. The two just aren't in the same league as far as

1129:

Is AIDS Denialism Pseudoscience or Sociopolitics Disputing Science?

255:

I provide several examples of uses of the term in reliable sources

513: 2195:

POV to accurately represent the position of the vast majority of

1238:

generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community

29: 1495:

Self-ref is actually referring to the categorisation of the

430:

Knowledge article on Semmelweis would have to reflect that,

110:

The title "AIDS denialism" is inaccurate and inappropriate.

224:, the NIH, and the WHO, please feel free to present them. 1573:

And by those criteria, AIDS denialism clearly qualifies.

843:

I would actually appreciate a link to information on the

297:. The article and the editors involved with it are being 2259:

I should probably note here that I requested input from

1265:

Opposing sound science based on sociopolitical reasons

1114:"Denialism"? I think "AIDS denial" is a better name... 451:

Example in this article which is clearly some sort of

182:

Not only is it this page's title that appears to be

1901:edited to remove unsourced defamatory material per 1857:edited to remove unsourced defamatory material per 1783:edited to remove unsourced defamatory material per 686:

The Scandinavian Journal of Political Alternatives.

574:Here's a specific suggestion: include a section on 121:http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm 1427:I agree, that it should has been established now. 765:The Scandinavian Journal of Political Alternatives 1884: 2043:Also, the report discussed in that article is 1269:pseudoscience. It's not an either/or question. 958:But a Nobel prize winner and developer of PCR 845:Scandinavian Journal of Political Alternatives 504:If Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis believed in 190:have raised concerns about. The selection of 1788:(Edit has been removed from article history) 8: 1084:(speech has the power to bind the absolute) 1958:It is know that the etiology of AIDS is a 1389:this category's application. Much obliged. 1357:self-ref has been doing the same thing at 289:should not let such a rhetorical label as 1993:, and doesn't contribute to the article. 1319:226 (December 9, 1994 p. 1642-1649), and 849:Scandinavian Journal of Political Studies 475:but the article throws these two in with 968:go into here. He's got his own article. 1359:Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory‎ 676:Suggested Small addition to the article 461:is a professor of molecular biology at 194:seems biased to present a rather crude 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 212:Not OR (it's sourced). Blogs are not 7: 1772:The following discussion is closed. 1750:. Material on Knowledge needs to be 523:This article is also the product of 432:whether or not Semmelweis were right 463:University of California, Berkeley 220:. If you have better sources than 28: 684:I used to work for the magazine, 490:. This being just one example. -- 455:of arrangement and presentation: 2022:The discussion above is closed. 767:is really qualified to say that 370:Not unless you have good, solid 33: 1704:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1667:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1598:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1569:the Wiki Arbcom on this subject 1567:"Not necessarily, according to 1522:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1449:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1391:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1363:Talk:Ancient astronaut theories 1341:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1290:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1286:the Wiki Arbcom on this subject 1250:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 1144:-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) 576:Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia 2283:... and lo, as if by magic, an 1284:Not necessarily, according to 1180:(ec) From your recent post on 1124:09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 293:be used to persecute the next 1: 2317:Vatican and AIDS conspiracies 2111:22:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 2097:18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 2075:14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 2057:13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1104:18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 1088:16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 2209:19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 2185:19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 2009:18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC) 1980:17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC) 1954:13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1933:10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1916:16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC) 1873:16:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC) 1845:10:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1824:08:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1802:14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) 1766:19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC) 1734:08:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 1718:American Medical Association 1712:04:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 1696:01:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 1675:15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 1660:08:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1644:08:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1623:07:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1606:15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 1590:04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1561:03:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 1530:22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1515:21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1497:Category Talk:AIDS denialism 1491:19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1471:19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1457:22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1443:19:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1423:18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1399:22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1376:18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1349:22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1333:18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1298:22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1279:18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1258:22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1228:17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1200:17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1176:17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 1159:Category talk:AIDS denialism 1152:16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 660:06:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 649:06:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 631:20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 610:18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 588:18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 570:00:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 553:04:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 541:01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 500:00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 444:23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 403:07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 366:00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 336:15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 315:14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 269:16:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 251:08:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 231:05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 208:01:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 2350:18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 2334:11:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 2309:18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2279:17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2255:16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2151:15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 1182:Category talk:Pseudoscience 2366: 1206:(ec) Gee, what about the 1055:23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1037:22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1020:22:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1005:22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 990:19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 975:19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 954:19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 928:18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 905:18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 889:12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 861:19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 833:19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 818:18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 789:17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 751:14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 732:05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 699:05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 174:05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2024:Please do not modify it. 1774:Please do not modify it. 1461:Isn't self-ref helpful? 159:14:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 140:09:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 2218:Personal attack removed 2122:Personal attack removed 708:. Also we do not give 1889: 773:reliability of sources 273:The term is clearly a 1551:is more appropriate. 1157:Already discussed at 617:AIDS dementia complex 46:of past discussions. 1520:should have the tag. 1323:editor John Maddox. 512:or the existence of 2030: 280:with a presciptive/ 1968:"Case not closed". 1775: 1447:Completely agreed. 1309:Skeptical Inquirer 1029:Keepcalmandcarryon 997:Keepcalmandcarryon 920:Keepcalmandcarryon 853:Keepcalmandcarryon 743:Keepcalmandcarryon 533:Keepcalmandcarryon 506:transubstantiation 436:Keepcalmandcarryon 422:(Outdent)See also 261:Keepcalmandcarryon 151:Keepcalmandcarryon 2305: 2301: 2286: 2277: 2221: 2175:comment added by 2154: 2149: 2125: 2087:comment added by 2045: 2007: 1966:said about AIDS, 1952: 1923:comment added by 1917: 1875: 1814:comment added by 1804: 1798: 1794: 1773: 1642: 1513: 1489: 1441: 1198: 1086: 1073:denialist video's 816: 785: 781: 730: 622:hepatitis B virus 606: 602: 510:Loch Ness monster 470:won a noble prize 401: 334: 249: 180:Move as suggested 142: 130:comment added by 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 2357: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2293:reliable sources 2284: 2275: 2271: 2269: 2249: 2248: 2215: 2197:reliable sources 2187: 2147: 2143: 2141: 2134: 2119: 2099: 2072: 2067: 2044: 2005: 2001: 1999: 1950: 1946: 1944: 1935: 1914: 1909: 1899: 1870: 1865: 1855: 1833:reliable sources 1826: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1781: 1756:reliably sourced 1726:Albion moonlight 1652:Albion moonlight 1640: 1636: 1634: 1615:Albion moonlight 1553:Albion moonlight 1511: 1507: 1505: 1487: 1483: 1481: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1226: 1196: 1192: 1190: 1078: 810: 786: 783: 779: 729: 727: 722: 658: 607: 604: 600: 568: 488:value judgements 399: 395: 393: 342:Ignaz Semmelweis 332: 328: 326: 295:Ignaz Semmelweis 286:Ignaz Semmelweis 247: 243: 241: 214:reliable sources 125: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2319: 2297: 2273: 2265: 2246: 2244: 2191:It is actually 2170: 2167: 2145: 2137: 2082: 2070: 2065: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2003: 1995: 1948: 1940: 1918: 1912: 1907: 1868: 1863: 1809: 1790: 1778: 1744: 1638: 1630: 1509: 1501: 1485: 1477: 1437: 1429: 1415:Malcolm Schosha 1222: 1194: 1186: 1131: 1112: 1075: 1072: 871: 777: 775:is concerned. 723: 718: 714:fringe theories 706:reliable source 678: 654: 598: 564: 453:logical fallacy 397: 389: 330: 322: 278:value judgement 245: 237: 218:Townsend Letter 146:Covered above, 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2363: 2361: 2353: 2352: 2318: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2257: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2078: 2077: 2032: 2029: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1962:issue, or, as 1925:80.237.191.141 1895: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1848: 1847: 1816:80.237.191.141 1779: 1770: 1769: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1609: 1608: 1564: 1563: 1549:Fringe science 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1493: 1445: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1352: 1351: 1301: 1300: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1231: 1230: 1209:New York Times 1204: 1203: 1202: 1130: 1127: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1024: 1023: 1022: 941: 933: 932: 931: 930: 908: 907: 870: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 763:I don't think 756: 755: 754: 753: 735: 734: 677: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 521: 473: 472: 471: 465: 459:Peter Duesberg 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 303:Henry H. Bauer 291:Aids denialist 162: 161: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 27: 22:AIDS denialism 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2362: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2324: 2316: 2310: 2307: 2294: 2290: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2270: 2268: 2262: 2258: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2250: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2235: 2231: 2219: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177:71.254.202.46 2174: 2164: 2152: 2148: 2142: 2140: 2132: 2128: 2123: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2108: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089:208.105.82.91 2086: 2076: 2073: 2068: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2041: 2038: 2025: 2010: 2006: 2000: 1998: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1945: 1943: 1937: 1936: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1888: 1878: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1805: 1803: 1800: 1787: 1786: 1777: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1741: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722:Oprah Winfrey 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1635: 1633: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1574: 1572: 1570: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1545: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1506: 1504: 1498: 1494: 1492: 1488: 1482: 1480: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1444: 1440: 1434: 1432: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1210: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1191: 1189: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1168: 1167:pseudoscience 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1139:clarification 1136: 1128: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1116:69.177.235.86 1109: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1010:noteworthy.-- 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 978: 977: 976: 973: 972: 966: 961: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 942: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 929: 925: 921: 917: 912: 911: 910: 909: 906: 902: 898: 893: 892: 891: 890: 886: 882: 878: 876: 868: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 834: 831: 830: 825: 821: 820: 819: 814: 809: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 790: 787: 774: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 752: 748: 744: 739: 738: 737: 736: 733: 728: 726: 721: 715: 711: 707: 703: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 687: 682: 675: 661: 657: 652: 651: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 633: 632: 629: 628: 623: 618: 613: 612: 611: 608: 595: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 571: 567: 562: 554: 551: 550: 544: 543: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 501: 497: 493: 489: 486: 482: 478: 474: 469: 466: 464: 460: 457: 456: 454: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 441: 437: 433: 427: 425: 424:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 404: 400: 394: 392: 386: 383:, as well as 382: 378: 373: 369: 368: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 338: 337: 333: 327: 325: 318: 317: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 287: 283: 279: 276: 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 253: 252: 248: 242: 240: 234: 233: 232: 229: 228: 223: 219: 216:, nor is the 215: 211: 210: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 178: 177: 176: 175: 171: 167: 160: 156: 152: 148: 145: 144: 143: 141: 137: 133: 132:32.137.88.236 129: 122: 119: 116: 109: 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 2320: 2266: 2242: 2227: 2192: 2168: 2138: 2135:(removed by 2105: 2079: 2042: 2035:The article 2034: 2023: 1996: 1967: 1959: 1941: 1900: 1885: 1856: 1806: 1782: 1780: 1771: 1760: 1746: 1745: 1682: 1681: 1631: 1576: 1575: 1566: 1565: 1502: 1478: 1430: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1302: 1266: 1264: 1245: 1218: 1214: 1208: 1187: 1170: 1166: 1132: 1113: 1098: 1076: 969: 964: 959: 872: 848: 847:. I found a 844: 827: 823: 768: 764: 724: 719: 710:undue weight 685: 683: 679: 625: 594:original syn 547: 481:Foo Fighters 431: 428: 421: 390: 323: 238: 225: 221: 179: 163: 123: 120: 117: 113: 82: 47: 41: 2342:Someguy1221 2201:Someguy1221 2171:—Preceding 2165:POV Pushing 2083:—Preceding 2066:RetroS1mone 2037:Gallo's Egg 2031:Gallo's Egg 1964:Kary Mullis 1919:—Preceding 1908:RetroS1mone 1864:RetroS1mone 1837:Someguy1221 1810:—Preceding 1688:Nightscream 1582:Nightscream 1463:Doug Weller 1368:Doug Weller 1325:Nightscream 1271:Nightscream 1135:arbitration 916:Kary Mullis 897:Nightscream 869:Kary Mullis 691:AlRonnfeldt 477:Nate Mendel 468:Kary Mullis 299:presciptive 166:AlRonnfeldt 126:—Preceding 40:This is an 2289:WP:SOAPBOX 2049:GDallimore 1752:verifiable 824:Plasmodium 641:Firefly322 580:Firefly322 492:Firefly322 485:rhetorical 358:Firefly322 307:Firefly322 275:rhetorical 200:Firefly322 192:WP:SOURCEs 102:Archive 13 94:Archive 11 89:Archive 10 1972:Randroide 1133:Based on 377:WP:FRINGE 282:normative 83:Archive 9 77:Archive 8 72:Archive 7 64:Archive 5 2300:HEFFIELD 2173:unsigned 2107:MastCell 2085:unsigned 2047:manner. 1989:, broke 1960:disputed 1921:unsigned 1812:unsigned 1793:HEFFIELD 1762:MastCell 1339:helpful. 1224:Nunh-huh 1172:MastCell 1100:MastCell 1047:Neptun88 1012:Neptun88 982:Neptun88 980:point.-- 971:MastCell 946:Neptun88 881:Neptun88 829:MastCell 808:Eldereft 780:HEFFIELD 656:Nunh-huh 637:WP:TRUTH 627:MastCell 601:HEFFIELD 566:Nunh-huh 549:MastCell 518:addition 381:WP:UNDUE 227:MastCell 128:unsigned 20:‎ | 18:Talk:HIV 2247:Radecki 1987:WP:TALK 1317:Science 1246:Science 1211:article 1163:WP:PSTS 1080:Xiutwel 529:WP:TALK 525:WP:CONS 508:or the 479:of the 385:WP:NPOV 346:WP:NPOV 222:Science 43:archive 2267:Verbal 2261:WP:ANI 2230:Szlevi 2139:Verbal 2127:Szlevi 1997:Verbal 1991:WP:BLP 1942:Verbal 1903:WP:BLP 1859:WP:BLP 1785:WP:BLP 1632:Verbal 1503:Verbal 1479:Verbal 1431:Verbal 1321:Nature 1240:or is 1188:Verbal 1045:PCR.-- 769:Nature 725:Marlin 720:Orange 704:Not a 391:Verbal 324:Verbal 239:Verbal 196:WP:POV 2285:other 1215:Times 1110:Title 1095:WP:EL 1082:♫☺♥♪ 874:this. 813:cont. 514:Libya 372:WP:RS 354:WP:OR 350:WP:OR 305:. -- 184:WP:OR 16:< 2346:talk 2330:talk 2304:TEEL 2274:chat 2234:talk 2205:talk 2181:talk 2146:chat 2131:talk 2093:talk 2071:talk 2053:Talk 2004:chat 1976:talk 1949:chat 1929:talk 1913:talk 1869:talk 1841:talk 1820:talk 1797:TEEL 1754:and 1730:talk 1708:talk 1692:talk 1671:talk 1656:talk 1639:chat 1619:talk 1602:talk 1586:talk 1557:talk 1526:talk 1510:chat 1486:chat 1467:talk 1453:talk 1438:chat 1419:talk 1395:talk 1372:talk 1345:talk 1329:talk 1294:talk 1275:talk 1254:talk 1219:AIDS 1195:chat 1148:talk 1137:and 1120:talk 1051:talk 1033:talk 1016:talk 1001:talk 986:talk 965:have 960:does 950:talk 924:talk 901:talk 885:talk 857:talk 784:TEEL 747:talk 695:talk 645:talk 639:. -- 605:TEEL 584:talk 537:talk 496:talk 440:talk 398:chat 379:and 362:talk 331:chat 311:talk 265:talk 257:here 246:chat 204:talk 198:. -- 170:talk 155:talk 136:talk 2326:ADM 1042:One 716:. 712:to 516:or 348:or 2348:) 2332:) 2263:. 2245:AK 2236:) 2207:) 2199:. 2183:) 2133:) 2095:) 2055:) 1978:) 1931:) 1843:) 1822:) 1732:) 1710:) 1694:) 1673:) 1658:) 1621:) 1604:) 1588:) 1571:." 1559:) 1528:) 1469:) 1455:) 1421:) 1397:) 1374:) 1347:) 1331:) 1296:) 1277:) 1267:is 1256:) 1150:) 1122:) 1053:) 1035:) 1018:) 1003:) 988:) 952:) 926:) 903:) 887:) 879:-- 859:) 749:) 697:) 647:) 596:. 586:) 539:) 498:) 442:) 364:) 313:) 267:) 206:) 172:) 157:) 149:. 138:) 98:→ 68:← 2344:( 2328:( 2302:S 2298:S 2232:( 2220:) 2216:( 2203:( 2193:N 2179:( 2153:) 2129:( 2124:) 2120:( 2091:( 2051:( 1974:( 1927:( 1839:( 1818:( 1795:S 1791:S 1758:. 1728:( 1706:( 1690:( 1669:( 1654:( 1617:( 1600:( 1584:( 1555:( 1524:( 1465:( 1451:( 1417:( 1393:( 1370:( 1343:( 1327:( 1292:( 1273:( 1252:( 1146:( 1118:( 1049:( 1031:( 1014:( 999:( 984:( 948:( 922:( 899:( 883:( 855:( 815:) 811:( 782:S 778:S 745:( 693:( 643:( 603:S 599:S 582:( 535:( 494:( 438:( 360:( 309:( 263:( 202:( 168:( 153:( 134:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index