Without Prejudice
I attempted to post info on Wikipedia on the HIV=AIDS controversy - at first my post was censored - then totally remove!
What I posted was info from Dr. Kary Mullis, a biochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize For Chemistry - he invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a central technique in molecular biology which allows the amplification of specified DNA sequences. I wonder how many inventions or Nobel Prizes the Wilkipedia censor(s) have?
Dr. Kary Mullis states that there is not one scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" (notice PROBABLE). In Mullis book 'Dancing Naked In The Mind Field" - Mullis states:
"I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple of years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could site the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth- century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.
"Finally I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him. With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?" I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS does it?" "No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was. "Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered. "I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS." This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room. "
First of all, can your censors give me a reference to one (just one) scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS"? If they can't, then all of the dis-information on HIV=AIDS needs to removed from Wikipedia.
At the same time - your censors stated that Mullis's views on HIV+AIDS, is in the minority (that most scientists believe that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS) - again can I see the statistical reference - that is, a scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review to that claim?
I am interesting in sponsoring a live audio debate (in aacPlus codec) on the WWW - with Dr. Kary Mullis and anyone one of Wikipedia "censors" or so-called "experts" on HIV=AIDS, I am sure that we would have thousands of listeners (from readers of Wikipedia and other news sources) - what date and time would "you" prefer for this debate so that I can finalize arrangements with Dr. Mullis.
- Harry Pasternak
I believe this mail belongs at enwiki-l.
Mark
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:06:30 -0500, harry harrypasternak@sympatico.ca wrote:
Without Prejudice
I attempted to post info on Wikipedia on the HIV=AIDS controversy - at first my post was censored - then totally remove!
What I posted was info from Dr. Kary Mullis, a biochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize For Chemistry - he invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a central technique in molecular biology which allows the amplification of specified DNA sequences. I wonder how many inventions or Nobel Prizes the Wilkipedia censor(s) have?
Dr. Kary Mullis states that there is not one scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" (notice PROBABLE). In Mullis book 'Dancing Naked In The Mind Field" - Mullis states:
"I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple of years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could site the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth- century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.
"Finally I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him. With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?" I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS does it?" "No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was. "Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered. "I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS." This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room. "
First of all, can your censors give me a reference to one (just one) scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS"? If they can't, then all of the dis-information on HIV=AIDS needs to removed from Wikipedia.
At the same time - your censors stated that Mullis's views on HIV+AIDS, is in the minority (that most scientists believe that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS) - again can I see the statistical reference - that is, a scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review to that claim?
I am interesting in sponsoring a live audio debate (in aacPlus codec) on the WWW - with Dr. Kary Mullis and anyone one of Wikipedia "censors" or so-called "experts" on HIV=AIDS, I am sure that we would have thousands of listeners (from readers of Wikipedia and other news sources) - what date and time would "you" prefer for this debate so that I can finalize arrangements with Dr. Mullis.
- Harry Pasternak
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm
While in the early 1990's there were still questions about the connection and mechanism of HIV and AIDS, over a decade of research has provided the answers. Dr. Mullis guessed badly wrong on this one, and citiations which are now 10 years out of date simply do not hold weight, regardless of who made them at the time. There is now a mountain of evidence that HIV is the necessary, though not always sufficient, cause of AIDS.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:15:09 -0500, Stirling Newberry wrote:
Thank you Stirling for that very comprehensively referenced link. Perhaps, if it isn't already, that link should be added to some of the relevant articles. I note we also have an article entitled "AIDS reappraisal" which discusses many of the claims and counter-claims relating to this issue.
To the original poster, I would like to point out that, while your frustration is understandable, your claims of "censorship" betray a slight misunderstanding of the workings of Wikipedia. You talk of having "posted" information to Wikipedia, terminology generally associated with online discussion forums, and you talk of "your censors", implying that there is some identifiable group who have acquired this role. In fact, what you did [or so I assume] was to edit an encyclopedia article to contain extra information - your "post" does not exist as a seperate entity, but is an integral part of the article. The "censors", meanwhile, are simply fellow editors who felt - rightly or wrongly - that that information was misplaced; they have no higher authority than greater experience with the existing content, and you should not need to challenge them in order for your views to be heard.
Admittedly, in some cases, views do become entrenched within parts of Wikipedia, and this is something often discussed - sometimes heatedly. However, since the discussion and evidence you called for in this case *do* seem to exist - both within Wikipedia, and more generally - I don't think this is one of those cases. Clearly, something needs to be improved, since you did not find the information you were looking for, but this is most likely a matter of working out how better to cross-reference existing content, rather than radically re-evaluating everything on the site.
That said, I have not reviewed any of the content in question in any detail, and am not an expert in the field, so it may well be that there *are* glaring inaccuracies, and even some degree of bias, in the present content. Basically, however, I hope you find the culture of Wikipedia sufficiently open that you can discuss any such issues you find (note that every page has a "discussion" page attached to it for this very purpose) and work towards correcting them in a spirit of consensus.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org