Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 9 February 2016

Archives

2005 – January 2008

Missing Information Link Between Vaccines and HIV

The article is now well-written in terms of NPOV and provides great info on the background of the OPV, the key players in the hypothesis and current attitudes in the scientific community, but one major thing is missing: the actual explanation of the hypothesis itself. The article asserts that the hypothesis blames the OPV for the AIDS pandemic, then it describes what the OPV is, and what it does. This is where a reader would reasonably expect to find a section saying, "Proponents of the OPV AIDS hypothesis believe that the OPV XXXXX, which caused the spread of HIV." However, what happens is we skip straight to who came up with theory and how it was received. With a certain understanding of biology and a critical 3rd reading, it appears to me that the hypothesis' assertion is that some or all of the vaccine was produced using chimpanzee tissues contaminated with SIV, but it's simply never stated one way or the other. Can we clarify this? Mfrisk (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what the theory asserts, though one would assume it needs to be referenced. Considering the fact that scientists have shied away from this issue, it would be reasonable to quote Edward Hooper himself I believe in explaining this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2EE8:5110:A524:7BAB:5BB2:CB49 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proper Treatment of Current Vaccine Information

I've edited and moved the inappropriately worded and disingenuously highlighted statements relating to the current Polio vaccine campaigns and associated challenges. It was neither fairly presented in its language or placement within the context of an article dealing with what the OPV-AIDS hypothesis is.

Theophilius Reed is right. The integrity of this entry is being editorially compromised as it has been quickly transformed into an advocacy piece. As a matter of transparency and open disclosure, I personally believe that the hypothesis is quite likely and that there is a strong body of evidence (historical and scientific) to minimally support ongoing investigation into its veracity. Recognizing my position, I expect myself to be unbiased and objective, acknowledging the significance of the opposition to this controversial theory therefore I support an appropriate treatment of it within the article. It is indeed part of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis story and needs to be told. Doing this with as little passion as possible is best.

However, I stand by my previous statement, and do not believe it constituted incivility nor a personal attack upon editor TimVickers. I strongly criticized his actions and editorial conduct, not his person. I use unvarnished language, because the level of bias he introduced into what had been an improving article signaled a lack of intention to actually improve it an objective way, but rather to editorially discredit the hypothesis in a doctrinaire manner, against the work of his colleague editors who possess competent reading comprehension and logic.

I have reassigned the aforementioned statements to their appropriate place with the article, and augmented the prose to reflect the true nature of the sources' claims, rather than what I believe was a selective misrepresentation of them. The theory is not partially responsible for failures to eradicate polio any more than theories of extraterrestrial organisms are to blame for the hysterical and panicked behavior of those who fear alien invasion. --Trick311 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to present a "neutral" picture of the OPV hypothesis - this does not mean we should present a sympathetic picture of the hypothesis. I recommend you re-read the neutral point of view policy. If we edit this article correctly we should produce text that accurately describes the hypothesis, and describes this from a mainstream viewpoint. The mainstream view is accurately summarised in the BBC and NYT stories we were discussing above, or the CDC website.

But in April last year, scientists proved that it was highly unlikely that HIV was spread by a contaminated polio vaccine. It had been suggested that HIV was initially transmitted to humans in the late 1950s through the use of an oral polio vaccine. The polio vaccine was given to at least one million people in the former Belgian Congo and what are now Rwanda and Burundi...However, three independent studies published in the journal Nature cast serious doubts on the controversial theory. - BBC

A controversial 1999 book, "The River," helped raise doubts. Its thesis was that the source of human AIDS was an experimental polio vaccine used in the Belgian Congo in the 1950's that had been grown on a medium of chimpanzee cells containing a monkey virus that is considered the precursor of AIDS. Most AIDS experts reject the theory. - NYT

The suggestion that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the AIDS virus, originated as a result of inadvertent innoculation of an HIV-like virus present in monkey kidney cell cultures used to prepare the polio vaccine is one of a number of unsubstantiated hypotheses. The weight of scientific evidence does not support this idea, and there is no more reason to believe this hypothesis than many other which have been considered and rejected on scientific grounds. - CDC website

If we produce a NPOV version of this article, a reader will both gain an accurate picture of what the hypothesis was, as well as an accurate picture that this idea is both controversial, and considered "highly unlikely" and rejected by most experts. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a NPOV version of this article lies in the future. To date the article has not provided an accurate picture of what the hypothesis both was and is. eg Rolling Stone formulation of hypothesis, River formulation of hypothesis, Zola(Hooper) formulation, recent Hooper publications(self/Martin) on formulation. Nor does the material inserted on the Ninane material provide an accurate picture. Nor the material on anti-vaccine fears being related to OPV AIDS. Both are very incomplete and misleading.

I agree wholeheartedly that the reader must understand that this hypothesis is rejected by prominent and authorative experts. However this article must also put forward the specific bases of their rejection. And also show the material raised against their rejections such as Hooper showing a cite for Ptt chimps in Lindi Camp and questioning statements that geographical range of Ptt chimps refutes OPV AIDS. And where it exists the rejection/refutation of Hooper's replies etc... "ad non-notability". There is a grand tradition on WP of editing a subject from a position of great ignorance. I for one, no doubt, will continue to do so. This topic requires more than usual of editors. See the article since its inception for evidence of this. I suggest Brian Martins website as a source of publications detailing the hypothesis. SmithBlue (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. These articles quoted above do not necessarily reflect a balanced viewpoint. The CDC website is biased and certainly not fair in terms of presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.169.30 (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

LMS?

The caption of the map states that the "LMS was first sited ..." what is the LMS? I can't find it anywhere else on the article using CTRL-F. Acronyms need to be defined before being used. II | (t - c) 06:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tis the Laboratoire Médical de Stanleyville. It looks like someone else just fixed the oversight - good eye. MastCell  19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions to intro

I find this compromise acceptable. The additional quotation provided by Vickers helps to clarify current opinion while leaving open the reality that this theory is supported by increasing evidence.143.226.27.72 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be postmodern, but we appear to have different deifnitions of "reality" (not to mention "evidence" and "theory"). MastCell  18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for people to operate under whatever version of reality they wish - on talkpages. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit because implied insults are preferred to overt ones, apparently) Hooper's theory is backed by an incredible amount of in-depth research. You are intent on doing a disservice to Misplaced Pages's readership because a panel of fallible human beings refuses to publish his side of the story. As a person who has read his book and the vast majority of his website, I can say confidently that his theory is elegant and fits the facts far more soundly than 'a hunter got cut hunting monkeys once' does. Have either of you read his book or his website to any significant degree?143.226.27.72 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes. For reasons why we present Hooper's claims in context rather than uncritically, please see WP:WEIGHT, the findings of the Royal Society, and the dozens of articles from Science, Nature, and other such sources which refute virtually every aspect of Hooper's claims. This is intended to be a serious and respectable reference work; our goal is to represent the current state of human knowledge, not to promote rejected claims which we feel have been unjustly neglected by the scientific community. MastCell  22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, both the Royal Society meeting and the Italian meeting were not meeting to find consensus, and officially no consensus was claimed. It was merely a meeting to present papers. As such, I feel your claim of appropriate weight is off - you're attributing claims to these meetings that were not made! -- You are also wrong that the papers in Nature and Science refute OPV's claims. Many of the important claims go entirely unrefuted. -- Can we include how several papers from Bill Hamilton, perhaps the most acclaimed evolutionary biologist of our time, went unpublished in Nature and were highly supportive of the OPV hypothesis? Same for several other respected scientists? And try to accurately paint this as it is, that it's a half dozen scientists on one side, and a half dozen on the other? Or do the weight guidelines require that the anonymous refereeing of Nature and Science be given more weight than Bill Hamilton sufficient that we cannot even mention Bill Hamilton and others? We're not talking about dozens of textbooks, but a handful of articles written in Nature and Science written by only a handful of authors. 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia articulates the view that is taken by the majority of experts on the subject, as shown by the majority of the high-quality sources that deal with the topic. This is not a sympathetic point of view, but a neutral point of view - see WP:NPOV for more details. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My dear friends, I feel that by this point I have memorized WP:NPOV. The overall message seems to be that, while NPOV is paramount, each case needs to handled within its own context. As someone above stated, this is an article that requires more than is usual of its editors. At this point I will take a hiatus on deleting content and instead add some from the less well-represented side of the debate. Is there an objection to this, as long as it is well-sourced?143.226.27.72 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please point out to the survey(s) done that show this is a majority opinion among the experts on the subject? Or are you equating what is published in Nature and Science as the majority opinion? 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as it does not give undue weight to a non-mainstream viewpoint and is backed by reliable sources, there can be no possible problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV we can write about OPV/AIDS all we want because this is the page dedicated to it.143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be reading a different NPOV than the rest of us. See, NPOV doesn't mean that all viewpoints should be discussed equally. You will also need to read WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:NOR. OrangeMarlin 08:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how wrong you are. NPOV states that excessive discussion of AIDS/OPV would be out of line in, say, the AIDS article or Hillary Kaprowski's article. This, however, is where relevant info needs to be posted. Now tell me why my recent scholarly article is not allowed in this supposedly unbiased space?143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; WP:NPOV also states that articles on fringe theories should not attempt to rewrite majority-view content from the perspective of the minority view. While we can provide more detail about OPV/AIDS here, we should not treat it more credulously or sympathetically than we would anywhere else. As to the recent article(s), Tim summarizes the issue below. The juxtaposition you've used appears to be an attempt to "debunk" or counter a paper in Nature by using original editorial synthesis. MastCell  18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, what is your basis for determining the bushmeat hypothesis is the majority view? A half dozen papers published in Nature and Science by a handful of authors? Can you find any sources actually claiming evidence in support of it? Any sources referring to it by anything other than conjecture or hypothesis? Any source calling it a theory? 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, since PMID 12655089 does not discuss Korber et al (PMID 10846155) applying this is article to "refute" Korber et al is original research, particularly since the Wain-Hobson paper only states that "ignoring recombination inflates the minimum path length connecting sequences in any data set" and Korber et al state that they removed recombinant sequences from their dataset. Unless you have a reference that specifically discusses shortcomings in the method used by Korber et al to identify recombinants, you cannot make that criticism. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's where WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH come into play. I know what the anon editor is trying to say, but it's a leap of faith that does not meet the standards of NPOV. OrangeMarlin 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid criticism of Korber et al's earlier paper on the subject (PMID 9669945), which was indeed made at the time (see Schierup and Hein). This criticism was the reason why Korber were careful to account for recombination in their 2000 Science paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the reason why I didn't use language like "refuted" or "disproved." They may have tried to account for recombination, but current research still supports the idea that there are problems with any phylogenetic analysis of HIV. Hence the term "problematic" that I used.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to quote Hooper or his supporters interpreting the research that way, would that satisfy you?143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What sources discuss the specific methodology used to identify recombinants used in the Korber 2000 Science paper? You have provided a source (PMID 12655089) that states that if you do not do anything to identify recombination this causes problems, but this is insufficient, since Korber et al state in (PMID 10846155) that they did remove recombinants. You need to cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper that comments specifically on the shortcomings of this research in order to discuss the shortcomings of this research in this article. Unpublished opinions from adherents of this hypothesis are insufficient grounds to cast doubt on the findings of an article in Science. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I imagine this falls under the 'Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball' idea. I hope that when the truth of this issue becomes public knowledge that people realize publications like Nature and Science are run by fallible human beings and can, indeed, be wrong, greedy, and/or biased. I think I'm done here, careful manipulation of Misplaced Pages policy can block everything I am trying to do to make the article less biased. Farewell for now, friends.143.226.27.72 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see The Truth. How often I've heard that comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Nature and Science are "wrong" is one that will be settled through investigation and give-and-take in the scientific community, not by argumentation on Misplaced Pages. Our job is to accurately convey the current state of human knowledge and expert opinion. MastCell  20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that most of the recent papers on HIV phylogenetics cite Korber et. al on the timing of the first cross-species infection, which makes me sceptical that there is any serious doubt on the accuracy of their approach within the scientific community. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How convenient, PMID 18833279 has just been published. I'll add this to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I beat you to it... the IP was adding multiple unrelated studies in an attempt to counter that brand-new Nature paper, so I thought the least we could do was to cite the actual paper under attack. :) Looks like you added it elsewhere, though, which looks appropriate. MastCell  16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed. Reading this paper, and the Genetics paper it cites, I see that the idea that recombination introduces a systematic error into date estimates has been tested and rejected. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Ignoring the fact that a paper by Worobey authenticating the later work of, again, Worobey, is a little fishy, the paper concludes that the phylogenetic dating of HIV Type O is not impaired. It mentions nothing about M or the extremely rare new N subtype. "Although recombination can bias estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor, this effect does not appear to be important for HIV-1 group O." Hooper's theory focuses on "the pandemic AIDS virus (HIV-1 Group M)." Is this not an example of original synthesis? I doubt it was intentional on your part, but it does seem to be an important technicality.

Furthermore, the part about chimps around Lindi camp not having the correct type of SIV is a strawman. Hooper states that "More importantly, however, Hahn and Worobey's assertion that the OPV theory claims that chimps from around Stanleyville were the source of the AIDS pandemic is, quite simply, false. In fact, as I have reported several times, the Lindi chimps were collected from a huge swathe of rain forest covering some 300,000 square miles - from Zapai in the north to Wanie Rukula in the south, and from Mambasa in the east to Mbandaka in the west. If Hahn and Worobey want to claim that they have sampled chimp SIVs from the areas that supplied chimps to Lindi, they would need first to collect chimp samples from right across the DRC rain forest and the savannah belt to the north. (And even then, as Pascal Gagneux has pointed out, it could be that the chimp group which provided the SIV strain immediately ancestral to HIV-1(M) has since died out.)" Can we get a group consensus for removal of this portion? I do not doubt the science, I merely doubt its applicability to the OPV theory.143.226.27.72 (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the Genetics paper's discussion, the paper generalises the results to all HIV-1 serotypes, using their data on type O to test the previous models of the effect of recombination. This interpretation is therefore theirs, not mine. Furthermore, their results have been accepted in the literature, since the Nature paper cites the Genetics paper to support the statement that "Despite initial indications that recombination might seriously confound phylogenetic dating estimates, subsequent work has suggested that recombination is not likely to systematically bias HIV-1 dates in one direction or the other, although it is expected to increase variance.".

Consequently we now have two lines of evidence, one Science paper by Korber et al that removed recombinants, and the Nature paper that got the same results, and cites later research which showed that recombination doesn't have a big effect on phylogenetic studies. This view may change in the future, but all the reliable sources agree on the date range of the early years of the 20th century, and give this result with high confidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be more accepting of their research if it at all fit the epidemiological data, i.e. if AIDS had appeared at some point in humanity's long history of inhabiting Africa and eating bushmeat before the 20th century, if OPV administration sites had not later become epicenters of pandemic AIDS, and if the supposed "cut hunter" had not mysteriously traveled hundreds of miles south before spreading his newly-acquired disease. I will give you that it is all circumstantial evidence, but there is a mountain of it. Moving on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.226.27.72 (talk)

Unfortunately, even in modern Africa a few hundred people dying of infections out in the bush are not going to be noticed, particularly if the diseases they die of are known to science. It wasn't until the epidemic became large enough that patterns in the incidence of rare diseases were be noticed by health organisation in the developed world that people started to suspect that a new disease might be behind these deaths. For instance, imaging that nodding disease happened in California, rather than Sudan - would it still be almost completely unknown? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

During colonial times (the first half of the 20th century) in Africa, European doctors in Africa actually kept pretty accurate tabs on strange cases and wrote frequently in widely dispersed journals. The idea that AIDS existed between 1900 and 1950 without anything being noticed by anyone strains credulity. There is more on this front, but I cannot find the specific article I am thinking of at this time.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not really logical. End-stage AIDS actually manifests as a large collection of superficially unrelated diseases, from PCP to non-Hodgkin lymphoma to PML to toxoplasmosis to tuberculosis. Putting it all together was a matter of epidemiology and retrovirology, and it was a major challenge even in 1980's US and Europe, to say nothing of the diagnostic methods and surveillance infrastructure in early-20th-century Africa. In any case, we're arguing about whether you, personally, find the evidence convicing. It's fine if you don't - it's a free country - but this talk page is not really the place for such discussion, nor does your personal incredulity have a bearing on how we present this material on Misplaced Pages. MastCell  20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Drop the holier than thou attitude, I understand this just as well as or better than you do. It took years for scientists to track down the cause of AIDS, but pretty much from the get go they knew SOMETHING was happening. In Africa there are recent epidemics that have been locally diagnosed based on a few cases in less than a year, there is no way AIDS could have been around since 1914. This article is a joke.143.226.27.72 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good attitude. OrangeMarlin 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well understand it better than I. I claim no expertise beyond an occasional viewing of House. Nonetheless, your personal opinion about the likelihood of detecting a completely novel, polymorphic, previously unknown infectious syndrome with the epidemiological infrastructure of 1914 Africa is not particularly relevant to Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topic. MastCell  17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true, I just wished to correct the misconception that colonial Africa was medically backwards. In almost all cases they had better tracking of epidemics and medical care than they do today in their independent states, because they had the resources of developed nations behind them.143.226.27.72 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} :) MastCell  20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chimps

What of my second point regarding the chimps around Lindi camp?143.226.27.72 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the paper directly connects this point to the OPV hypothesis, it is not OR for us to include this paper in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of OR in this instance. I was merely stating that the research is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the OPV/AIDS hypothesis. Unless you are arguing that Hooper is not an expert in his own hypothesis, the article targets something that Hooper never claimed. Even from the beginning in his book The River, he makes it clear that chimps from across Africa were almost certainly used at Lindi camp.143.226.27.72 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but the problem is that we cannot decide ourselves if the hypothesis tested in this paper is the correct version of the OPV hypothesis or not - our opinions are irrelevant. Is there a reliable source discussing if the hypothesis tested in this paper is relevant? Where was that quote from Hooper published? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The one I gave above is published on his website. Can we consider that an authoritative source, given his central role in the debate?143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"More importantly, however, Hahn and Worobey's assertion that the OPV theory claims that chimps from around Stanleyville were the source of the AIDS pandemic is, quite simply, false. In fact, as I have reported several times, the Lindi chimps were collected from a huge swathe of rain forest covering some 300,000 square miles - from Zapai in the north to Wanie Rukula in the south, and from Mambasa in the east to Mbandaka in the west. If Hahn and Worobey want to claim that they have sampled chimp SIVs from the areas that supplied chimps to Lindi, they would need first to collect chimp samples from right across the DRC rain forest and the savannah belt to the north. (And even then, as Pascal Gagneux has pointed out, it could be that the chimp group which provided the SIV strain immediately ancestral to HIV-1(M) has since died out.)" http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper04/evidence.html#ref13 This site copies the argument from Hooper's own site.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this could be used to support the statement that "Hooper continues to dispute the accuracy and relevance of these studies to the OPV hypothesis.", making this a very brief summary tries to deal with the problem that you obviously can't give equal weight to his website and Nature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your wording is more elegant than mine.143.226.27.72 (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if this edit was supposed to be related to this conversation, but I think it is. The edit was still original research and synthesis. If I'm wrong, then Tim, please revert my revert, if it makes sense. OrangeMarlin 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit was Hooper's research and Hooper's synthesis, not mine. OR and SYNTH do not apply here.143.226.27.72 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any discussion of Hooper challenging the 1918 hypothesis as a disproof of the OPV theory. Could you please quote this?143.226.27.72 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Hooper has done no "Scientific investigation" of the OPV hyopthesis, it would be unjustified to quote him at length in this section. His responses to the various pieces of genuine scientific research on this topic are covered in the final paragraph of this section. Such a summary is the best way of dealing with his opinions, which are not part of the scientific literature, so cannot be given equal weight to the real science on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hooper is a published scientist and respected journalist. His book The River was enough to excite pretty much the entire scientific community into holding two different conferences addressing his findings. He is virtually the progenitor of this theory, and it is not out of line to quote him with regards to it. He has done more scientific research on the matter than anyone else. Science does not just happen in journals like Nature or Science, it happens in investigative journalism and the sort of exhaustive primary-source reviews that Hooper has gone through. Two weeks ago he responded to the 1918 claim in a rational and well-supported manner. It is not unreasonable for a small blurb about it to be put into this article. Your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules is far too narrow.143.226.27.72 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed? No. We can't give weight to it. OrangeMarlin 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys need a new Wiki page: WP:NSON (Not Science or Nature). That way you can quote it at everyone trying to help out who doesn't get their only information from the "scientific community."143.226.27.72 (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Once Hooper's "research" is published in a scientific journal, then it can be discussed in the section on scientific research. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of science is that it's self-correcting. It's not so much whether something is published in Science or Nature, but whether anyone still believes it to be true. Hooper's idea was very interesting and had the hallmarks of a good scientific hypothesis, including falsifiability. It was tested, and the accumulation of results falsified the hypothesis. That's science. Now, in this sort of situation, the progenitor of the falsified hypothesis sometimes continues to lobby and inveigh about its correctness. Such efforts are notable, but not part of the scientific process. Are you aware of any recent scientific research which has supported Hooper's claims? Recent investigations have steadily supported its incorrectness, as far as I can see. MastCell  22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

These 'investigations' are so flimsy and unscientific that Hooper can easily counter them without even going to the effort of a study. He has countered every single 'investigation' rationally and logically, the latest being the 1918 hypothesis. Journals refuse to publish his papers or even his letters, despite the many papers that are published by his opponents. If his claims are worth countering in Nature, why can't the claims themselves be published? If anything we can be emboldened by the fact that investigations are starting to move in a constructive direction with the 1918 hypothesis, rather than simple strawman attacks. Is it not noteworthy that Hooper's opponents feel the need to 'disprove' his hypothesis in a new way every year?143.226.27.72 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now we're back to your personal opinions, which happen to be at odds with those of the scientific community. I think we've been around this block often enough that I'm simply going to ask you to read the talk page guidelines and respect them. MastCell  22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You have taken me around this block. To make this article worth reading instead of the deletion-worthy pile it is right now, we need consensus or there will just be an edit war. To have consensus, I must convince you that the neutral point of view is not what this article has. Hence, my arguments. Do you have a different suggestion as to how I can go about this, or are you saying that an edit war is preferable? 143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy- and source-based arguments about the content of the article are welcome - in fact, this talk page is designed for them. Your past few posts are devoid of such arguments and simply consist of your opinions on the low quality of research published in Nature. That's unlikely to move anyone toward consensus. MastCell  19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe instead of wp:TALK you should read wp:NPOV, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:3RR. Nowhere at those policies does it state that an article is not worth reading until it fits your personal standards, that edit warring is ever even an acceptable threat, or that your POV is the NPOV. You've been blocked very recently for edit warring here before for the same reasons as you are revisiting now, so this time an admin might not wait for the full "war" cycle before you get blocked for longer than last time. We can only discuss research which has been published by peer reviewed journals because of a need to maintain a parity of sources within the article. NJGW (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey NJGW, I don't know where you came from or why you are involving yourself in this, but I am currently engaging with three fairly intelligent editors: MastCell, OrangeMarlin, and TimVickers. I find them to be reasonable individuals (for the most part) and I feel that we will eventually come to a consensus. Your militant language is not necessary here, I have read and comprehended all the pages that you have linked. My interpretation of those pages is different from those of others. My probation came from a lack of understanding of the 3RR rule, and it will not be repeated. Reading your page, it seems that your expertise is best applied elsewhere. Others have successfully 'contained' me here, if you will. :)

I've been watching this conversation for a few weeks now. I thought you might benefit from an outside source telling you that your last statement was over the line on several points... but if you can't realize that the "militant language" is a mirror reflection of what you said then that's a bad sign. My point on 3rr was that if you've "warred" on the topic before, an admin doesn't need to see "3r's" for a block, and wp:consensus states that your understanding that consensus cannot exist until you say so is mistaken. I find the others here to be very reasonable as well, and very patient for having gone in circles with you so many times. Consensus does exist here, as does denial of that consensus. NJGW (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to debate with you Misplaced Pages's many flaws, others have told me that this is not the place. I do, however, appreciate your concern for the quality of my discourse on a website.143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers: You agreed to me quoting Hooper's refutation of the relevancy of the study claiming that there were no SIVcpz carrying chimps near Lindi camp, why can he not be quoted disputing the relevancy of the 1918 claim?143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's used as an example of his opinions. I'd agree with you substituting a different opinion for that one, if it were a better example, but quoting him at length on several different topics in a section on scientific research would be wrong, since his opinions are not scientific research. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

His opinions are based on scientific research, but we've been there before, I guess. He does say that other scientists share his opinion on SIV recombination. I will look for quotes from these people, if such are permissible.143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooper has been published in scientific papers

Respected editor Tim Vickers, having read all of the naterial on Martin's and Hooper's sites, may like to explain; why he thinks Hooper has not been scientifically published, why the re-playing of the Hooper - Ninane interview durring which Ninane says he worked with chimps is not included in the section dealing with Ninane working on chimps or not, why the discovery by Hooper of a scientific paper putting a chimp at LMS in the 1950s that was from outside the area of chimpanzees found near Kisangani, is not included as part of Hoopers objections to "Origin of AIDS: contaminated polio vaccine theory refuted". Nature 428. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.177.245 (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hooper's only significant contribution to the scientific literature is PMID 11405924, which is a report of his presentation at the conference in 2001. The contents of this 2001 presentation can't be used to rebut research that was published this year. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your idea of significance seems curious. Please show cites that all the following publications,(except the one you have allowed) are insignificant.

From the archives of this discusion:_______________________________________________________________________________

Hooper also published in Nature; Zhu T, Korber BT, Nahmias AJ, Hooper E, Sharp PM, Ho DD (1999) "An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin of the epidemic" Nature 391: 594-597 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6667/abs/391594a0.html;jsessionid=C0A2FE731B713D5E9BCAF15B41BC5DB9 (Letters to Nature) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Society of London published Hooper in: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, volume 356, 29 June 2001 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/rs/papers/index.html

Lincei (meeting Origin of HIV and Emerging Persistent Viruses) published Hooper in: , 2003, Vol. 187, ISBN 88-218-0885-8 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper03/Hooper03.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The above show that Hooper is a recognised expert, in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:SPS, on OPV AIDS hypothesis, specifically the details of the Koprowski OPV trails based in Stanleyville. His restatements of the hypothesis are eligble to be included in the article including as responses to scientific research. I agree that apropriate weight will have to be created. SmithBlue (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And another scientific publication of Hooper: "Experimental Oral Polio Vaccines and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 356, No. 1410, Origins of HIV and the AIDS Epidemic (Jun. 29, 2001), pp. 801+803-814 SmithBlue (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I await your response to the other questions asked. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What research has Hooper done? Which of the above links lead to peer reviewed studies? What do OPED pieces from before 2003 tell us about research published in 2008? This has been covered before and is starting to get disruptive. NJGW (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To suggest, as you seem to be, that only peer-reviewed studies are admissible in this article is inaccurate. If such misleading and inaccurate claims are continued they will amount to disruption. The phrase from the archived material presented above that I suggest you research is "Hooper is a recognised expert, in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:SPS, on OPV AIDS hypothesis". As you will learn Hooper's self-published research is acceptable in the field in which he is an expert given that he has been "published" in the scientific sense. The alternative is that "the OPV-AIDS hypothesis" is not presented fully in the article devoted to it. Which is against WP policy. You use the term "OPED" http://en.wikipedia.org/Op-ed - do any of the articles cited above fit this description? - in any case please show WP policy that rules out the articles cited above. What research has Hooper done? - Historical research questioning the veracity of the claimed history of the Stanleyville OPV trails. I take it you have read the material at his website http://www.aidsorigins.com/ ? 203.59.177.245 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

wp:PARITY NJGW (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This guideline reads in part, "Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review." Fortunately, as noted below, policies take precedent over guidelines - but still it is interesting that, again, the inclusion of Hoopers self-published material is not ruled out. 124.169.185.133 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Parity guideline states that self-published/non-peer reviewed/non-research sources can be used to describe a notable fringe position, but that when peer reviewed/actual-research sources are available to discuss scientific consensus, any sources used to refute them must be on par (parity) with those peer reviewed/actual-research sources. NJGW (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it from your reply that you conceed all the other points I raise. I also take it from your reply that you have an understanding of the OPV AIDS hypothesis and to do that you have read Hoopers materials. How else could any of us here hope to present a balanced article on OPV AIDS?

WP:Parity; content guideline - WP:SPS; official English Misplaced Pages policy. Please take discussions on policy to appropriate forum.

Given your assumed readings on OPV-AIDS at Hooper's site perhaps you would like to answer the questions I ask above above concerning Ninane and also about the scientific article placing a Ptt chimp at Camp Lindi durring Stanleyville trials? 203.59.177.245 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Given your command of acronyms, I suspect your experience here goes beyond the history of your current IP. So you should have an idea of how things work here. This is not a forum for general discussion or debate about Hooper's claims; the relevant acronym, if you like, is WP:TPG. I'm not sure why you keep citing WP:SPS; it enjoins us to self-published sources very cautiously, if at all, and also tells us that anything worth saying is more likely to be found in independent, reliable sources (e.g. the peer-reviewed literature). As such, it seems to undercut your argument rather than support it. MastCell  07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS says we can use Hooper's self-published material. If you can see a way to write this article without mis-leading readers without using it then please share. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

""BMJ 1997;315:1689-1691 (20 December), Education and debate, Sailors and star-bursts, and the arrival of HIV, Edward Hooper, writer and medical researcher." http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7123/1689 124.169.22.60 (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-misleading article?

Here is my take on the current problems with this article.

Material from scientific articles is presented as refuting the hypothesis when in fact that material has been accounted for in the hypothesis either prior to the publication of the article or in a re-formulation of the hypothesis. (I see that MastCell doesnt like this - Popper might) Here we mislead the reader.

Material on the squabble over historical facts (a la Ninane) arbitarily truncated at positions that favour one side or another. Again we mislead the reader.

The content of the molecular and phylogenetic refutations is minimal - this stuff is why the hypothesis has little support. Tim Vickers, at least, has the ability to explain how this science works. Here we leave the reader under informed.

The supporters of the hypothesis have long claimed "suppression of dissent", which is notable given some of the supporters. This material is absent from the article. We leave the reader mis-informed and under-informed.

Comments? I would appreciate suggestions as to how we can avoid misleading the reader - that is the over-riding rule at WP isn't it?203.59.177.245 (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Found Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. It may provide a format for a clear presentation of the OPV AIDS hypothesis controversy. And writing that it becomes obvious that this article which does not even present a full statement of the hypothesis is rather OPV AIDS hypothesis controversy 203.206.90.197 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: a simple google led me to an srticle by Hooper who in my opinion quite adequately undermines the supposed dating of HIV to pre OPV in Africa: in vitro viral exchange of RNA (or even between Chimps caged for years together: also Chimps from disparate regions (shipped up river etc and housed together and remember that this just doesnt happen in the wild!)... plus given the number of tissue cultures taking place: remember they vacinated millions around Africa... plus the inaccuracy of extimates of genetic change over such a short time period (OK for say using DNA to find a date for the Toba catastrophe) but for this sorry... the OPV campaign in Africa from widely dispersed Chimp tissues remains a coincidence that in my book is just too statistically significant... im opinion therefore the burdon of proof in this case shifts to a burden of disproof for OPV AIDS: HIV from (multiple) Chimp SIV through thousands if not tens of thousands (at least) of Chimp tissue cultures to millions of innoculations... do the math! ... article is inadequete for reasons of the scientific community protecting itself: as Hooper suggests: Nature and Scuience journals etc just wont publish pro OPV HIV artciles... thsi sort of info needs to go into the article unfotunately... the article is saying that the alterntive is a that few hunters over time scratched, bitten, eating or fucking Chimps was the alternative source of HIV? DOH! The statistical significance of the African OPV campaign is just so overwelming and a few poor quality scientific establishment articles supposedly "refuting" the hypothesis dont add up --- yet!!! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier dates given (from Nature paper of course) here and in the AIDS and AIDS Orgins articles just dont gell with the rise and propogation for the epidemic: i would speculate that if it first crossed the specied barrier in 1908 or 1924 as suggested then the AIDS epidemic would today be the equivalent of the Black Plague (as a percentage of modern population). Definately something funny is going on here in scientific circles (supression and ignoring of the truth - why is it homo sapiens is so dumb (if global warming doesnt convince)). 122.148.173.37 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Addressing editor on IP 122.148.173.37 - obviously you see the OPV AIDS hypothesis as a very possible explanation of the crossing over of HIV into humans. However, for good or ill, Misplaced Pages does not function by putting non-published material such as my opinion or your opinion into articles. Misplaced Pages has policies on what can be included and how. Unless you get a working knowledge of these policies you can not effectively edit on Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest that "disputed science" such as OPV AIDS is not the place to start learning about the interpretations of Misplaced Pages policies. Editors here are, in the main, very over-committed and hence have little time to be generous and educate beginning editors. For example the material on SV40 placed into the lead - do you know the guide-lines for what should and should not be in a lead? WP:lead is what you are after. I strongly suggest that engaging editors here on the veracity or otherwise of OPV AIDS is at best a waste of time. One that will likely shortly be seen as you disrupting the editing process. WP:Simplified ruleset will show you what you need to know to begin discssing this article in terms of editing it so that it follows WP policies. Again - this is the place to discuss how this article can be improved in line with WP policies. 124.169.185.133 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See above for precisely how not to treat new editors.143.226.27.72 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific problems of "Scientific Investigation" section

When I read a section with this heading I, and (I argue) most readers, expect it to either:

(a) Clearly present a historical view of the developments in the area

or

(b) Present the current scientific material as it relates to the current understanding of the area.

or

(c) Do both (a) and (b) making clearly obvious what is history and what is the current understanding.

Do the other editors here agree that this is a common and reasonable expectation? And, that to not not meet these expectations, without warning the reader, is likely to result in the reader being mislead? 124.169.119.27 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A) Maybe, B) Maybe, C) Maybe. Depends on the article. OrangeMarlin 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. To be more specific: in this article I think the expectations, as above, and the outcome of failing to meet these expectations commonly apply. Comments? 124.169.22.60 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editor is correct, this section is misleading. I have been working recently with TimVickers and made some progress on this front, but his belief in Science and Nature as the only vehicles of THE TRUTH, and his support by other editors who recognize his obvious credentials, have stopped this progress. What we have here is a refusal to believe that Hooper's credentials and experience make him worthy of quotation. This refusal needs to be overcome before any real progress can be made.143.226.27.72 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone considers Hooper "worthy of quotation" - we're just not accepting the idea that his claims should be put on an equal footing with scientific work published in various highly reputable journals, or with the opinions of experts in the field who are fairly unanimous in dismissing this hypothesis. Certainly Science and Nature are not the "only vehicles of THE TRUTH" - that's a hyperbolic caricature of what we're saying, which is simply that they are better sources than Hooper's website. MastCell  22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This 'hyperbolic caricature' was tossed at me readily enough. Regardless, the fact that others here seem to agree with me means that my points have at least some validity. Misplaced Pages is a democracy, after all. What would it take for you to take Hooper seriously? He's been published in multiple journals. Does every evolution of his theory have to be published in NATURE or SCIENCE for it to be acceptable material? This just defies common sense. In situations such as this, Misplaced Pages policy clearly allows for the statements of those such as Hooper to be used as evidence.143.226.27.72 (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we add first what we can all agree on. The info at http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/ section "Lincei meeting papers Origin of HIV and Emerging Persistent Viruses, Rome, 28-29 September 2001 Published as Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 2003, Vol. 187, ISBN 88-218-0885-8" has not yet been included in this article. I am working very slowly on Hooper's "Emile Zola ...". Others may be quicker or wish to focus on other articles. "Claims of Supression of dissent" material also needes to be added to this article - its is notable and scientifically published info. (not stamped - 04:23, 20 November 2008 SmithBlue) SmithBlue (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The 'Zola' paper is for the most part just a massive recap of the theory so far at the time of its publishing, but it does bear scrutinizing simply so that we can convince those obsessed with the credibility of mainstream academia that this Misplaced Pages article is a pile. Are there any objections to the papers SmithBlue mentioned?143.226.27.72 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Zola paper and some other material of the Lincei meeting are probably the most up-to-date scientific published materials that support the continued investigation of OPV AIDS. As such they are the most current "face" of scientific pro-"OPV AIDS" and need to be mentioned. The current scientific face of anti-OPV AIDS seems best presented by recent clock and phylogeny material. I do not think that this article can be supportive of the OPV AIDS hypothesis while following Misplaced Pages policy. What may be possible is an article that informs readers of the history and current state of the OPV AIDS controversy. SmithBlue (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole and bias in the text of the article

1. "The people involved in vaccine production and distribution from America state that no vaccine was prepared locally in Congo and that only the CHAT vaccine from America was used."

This sentence is ambiguous, and wrong or irrelevant depending on the meaning intended. The OPV theory is that the CHAT vaccine made in America was multiplied in chimpanzee kidney substrate in the Congo in order to make the approximate 1,000,000 doses for the Congo trials. The theory posits that the SIV contamination occurred at this time because of the use of chimpanzee kidney tissue for this purpose. There is no evidence that all 1,000,000 doses were made in the US and shipped to the Congo for the trials -- if the intended meaning of "no vaccine was prepared locally in Congo" is meant to refute this, there is no evidence to support the assertion. None is cited, and none exists. Alternatively, perhaps what is meant by this statement is that the CHAT vaccine was made in America, with no vaccine creation work done in the Congo. That is true, but irrelevant to the issue since Hooper's theory currently does not posit that the contamination occurred in the US during the vaccine development (he initially speculated that it might have, but has since made it clear that he agrees that it did not). If that is the intended meaning, what is the point of including this irrelevant reference, which demonstrates nothing?

The following quote from Barbara Cohen is also irrelvant since it addresses the non-issue -- possible contamination of the CHAT vaccine during the development in the US. Inclusion of the quote to suggest that it is relevant to the issue is just hyperbole and bias -- superfluous matter should not be used to describe the parameters of the issue.

The relevant references the article summarizes are references 20, 33 and 34. In particular this reference deals with the question in detail. If you have other reliable sources that address the topic, please list them here. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2. "according to a report in Science, Hooper "did not challenge the results: he simply dismissed them."

I accept that the Science article includes this statement, but it is a subjective remark not even true in context. Hooper heard the presentations for the first time at the confernece, and has since written extensively on the issues raised. It is normal not to have an immediate response to new material during the middle of a conference, which is what is referenced in the Science article. Frankly, the quote from Science is just mean-spirited and phony -- as if Hooper was supposed to have a scientific rebuttal in advance for something he had never heard before. Yet the Wiki article includes this perjorative comment as supposedly representative of the OPV theory as advanced by Hooper, and ignores his subsequence responses after later deliberation. Why? The meaning conveyed is that allegedly Hooper is pig-headed and had no response, which is plainly false.

Plotkin, a central critic on the OPV theory, has also written in one of his scholarly articles that "The River contains serious accusations against scientists. Yet the issue goes beyond personal reputations. The River is an attack on vaccination, and it is also the Faust myth brought up to date: the myth of evil scientists who stop at nothing. As attractive as that story may be in today’s antiscientific climate, it is false." These remarks are seriously wrong and frankly weird to appear in a scholarly article on the subject. Why not include that to show the over-heated and biased nature of the scientific response to Hooper if we are going to include perjoratives about him in the Wiki article?

This is an accurate quotation of an authoritative source. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

3. The paragraph beginning "In 2001, three articles published in Nature..." cites the phylogenic studies concerning the beginning date for AIDS. There is a significant body of published literature in peer reviewed journals, cited by Hooper and others, concerning the inherent unreliability of these claims based on two primary factors -- the extremely small sample size from which to make the analysis (the 1959 and 1960 samples from Kinshasa), and even more importantly, the failure to meaningfully account for the recombinant nature of HIV, which casts in doubt any phylogenic study. The peer reviewed literature on this question is divided, and failure to reference it is misleading. As a matter of science, the claims in these Nature articles are disputed by the scientists.

See the section and references on recombination. If you have any references that give a later common ancestor, please list them here. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vickers and I went over this issue a few months ago. The conclusion he reached was basically "Nature trumps all." I agree that the issues with phylogenic studies that have been documented in multiple sources make this claim by Hooper's detractors dubious at best, but career Wikipedians disagree with me so it is difficult to find a fair consensus on this issue.143.226.49.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

4. The final two paragraphs "The possibliity that chimpanzees..." and "Edwin Hooper responded..." are muddled and wrong. It is true that the Nature articles argue that the SIV strain found in southeast Cameroon seems to the be the best candidate for a precursor to HIV, and that the strain was not known to be present in the Kisangi area. But the summary as to Hooper's response is simply not what he has written. Why include patently false characterization on this question?

Hooper wrote that he would describe "the large organised cover-up that has taken, and is taking place on this issue." and stated that "it is now clear that there is a substantial cover-up going on about the CHAT research that took place in Stanleyville/Kisangani in the 1950s". Sthating that Hooper believes that there has been a "cover up" eems an accurate summary of his views. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hooper has specifically addressed the "The possibility that chimpanzees..." showing that chimpanzees were transported from a very wide area to Stanleyville. He cites a journal article giving the presence at Camp Lindi of a chimp imported from a distant area. This article remains misleading, citing outdated proofs and giving just the Koprowski faction's side of stories. See the doco "The Origins of AIDS"S" to hear Ninane stating that they did use chimpanzees. There seems current scientific evidence that refutes OPV AIDS. Its just that a reader will not know what is current and what is superseded from reading this article. Vickers seems to take the view that material from Nature, no matter how out-dated, remains accurate indefinitely. SmithBlue (talk)

No, I think that's a strawman representation of his position. It is reasonable to think that a conclusion from Nature (supported, of course, by the Royal Society, the CDC, and essentially the entire scientific community) remains valid until a reasonably decent source can be found falsifying or disproving it. The problem is that there has been no real indication that the material from Nature is outdated, or superseded, or incorrect in any way. Unless I've perhaps missed a significant peer-reviewed journal article, a statement from a medical/scientific expert body, or a sea change in scientific thought about the origin of AIDS? Because a 2004 documentary produced to raise the visibility of this alternative hypothesis doesn't exactly "refute" material from Nature, the Royal Society, the WHO, the CDC, etc. WP:MEDRS has more on this sort of thing. MastCell  21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, SmithBlue, but this article and my experiences in other articles have shown me that Misplaced Pages is a completely useless reference for any topic that is at all controversial. In these cases it is not an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," but one that is ruled by whichever moderator takes a personal interest in the subject. I will continue to monitor this topic as Hooper's investigations are ongoing and he may one day find evidence strong enough to overcome even the corruption at Nature, but my hopes are not high.173.53.164.39 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's understandable that this is a difficult place to discuss controversial topics: the moderators must get bombarded with theories opposed to scientific consensus, and they can't be expected to examine the nuances of each one to see whether it actually carries weight. That said, I believe that Bill Hamilton's support for this theory makes it appropriate to mention it in an article on the subject, and I don't believe any genuine refutation of the theory has emerged since his death. In light of this, should articles on the subject repeat the statements of the scientific community as though they must be objectively true, or could they perhaps be prefaced with something like "The position of the scientific community is this:"? I think that's a reasonable point, and one that deserves to be taken seriously. BBrihem (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

BBrihem is correct.173.26.182.62 (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, he's not. Hamilton died in March 2000. The Royal Society meeting which reviewed and synthesized evidence on the topic (concluding that OPV-AIDS was incorrect) took place in September 2000. The 4 scientific papers which are generally considered to have nailed shut the coffin of OPV-AIDS were published in 2001. It is incorrect, and a bit ignorant, to say that no "genuine refutation has emerged since Hamilton's death." And it's unfair to Hamilton to assume that he would have persisted in advocating the OPV-AIDS hypothesis in the face of conclusive scientific evidence produced after his death. MastCell  21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

_______

I find this issue highly interesting, and also revealing as to the sometimes ugly side of scientific investigations. Hooper himself says that his theory is not proven, and wants a balanced inquiry into the issue. As reflected by the Plotkin quote above, the scientific response has not always been balanced.

There are serious issues as to the viability of the theory, but as a matter of simple probabilities, it is a lot more plausible that the competing bushmeat theory. For thousands of years, Africans have butchered and eaten the various primates infected with SIV, and yet allegedly in the space of a few decades, HIV arose from SIV on four separate occasions (HIV-1,M,N and O and HIV-2) due to bushmeat practices. Coincidentally, OPV polio trials using various primate kidneys as a substrate occurred in the same areas, with a strong correlation of initial HIV infection and polio trials. As a possible vector for infection, SV40 proves that transmission of primate viruses to humans due to contamination of vaccines can and has occured.

I agree that the article should reflect the scientific findings to date do not support the theory. But the article slips into suggesting it is quackery, and overstates the strength of the scientific inquiry to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.225.162 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed cite

"What Happens When Science Goes Bad. The Corruption of Science and the Origin of AIDS: A Study in Spontaneous Generation Louis Pascal with an introduction by Brian Martin University of Wollongong Science and Technology Analysis Research Programme Working Paper No. 9 December 1991 Department of Science and Technology Studies University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia Copyright Louis Pascal December 1991 ISBN 0 86418 199X" The above cite was removed in July. It really doesn't matter if the work is cited on a university homepage - what matters is that "What Happens When Science Goes Bad. The Corruption of Science and the Origin of AIDS: A Study in Spontaneous Generation" exists and that this is its citation.

The rest of the re-work looks smoother. But the basic important flaw of heavy POV pushing remain. SmithBlue (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This "working paper" does not appear to conform with RS criteria, hence its removal. Do you have suggestions regarding POV? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SmithBlue is correct.173.26.182.62 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The working paper is a historical document being referenced as a historical document, not as a description of current understandings. And it has been specifically addressed in scientific journal. ( "A startling 19,000-word thesis on the origin of AIDS: should the JME have published it?". Journal of Medical Ethics 18: 3-4. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1376075&pageindex=1#page.) And yet you are claiming that non-RS is reason to delete its citation. Firstly you have not shown non-RS - and given that the above scientific journal treated as RS and worthy of response the burden is on you to show why it is now non-RS. And to show why RS is relevant to a historical paper. Please explain.

POV of article? Pronouncements from the Koprowski camp, for example Ninane denying using chimpanzees and the research showing that wild chimps near Camp Lindi are not carrying the form of HIV that became AIDS, are presented as un-argued facts that support the refutation of OPV AIDS. Where-as any non-niave reader will have heard Hooper's recording of Ninane stating that he did use chimpanzees. And they would also be aware of Hooper having discovered records of a chimp from a distant area being kept at Camp Lindi. And that other previous claims of OPV-AIDS interferring with current vaccination programs have been made and shown to be fallacious. And of course Hooper has claimed that these counter-facts bear on the case. But this material from an expert in the field is not presented in an article devoted to the subject.

Other major problems with article The continuing presence of out-dated research that is presented as if it was still part of the current refutation of OPV AIDS also contribute to a "Science section" that is very misleading and jumbled with narrative and "historical listing" of research being being mixed up in a unclear way. This applies to pro-OPV-AIDS research as well.

Finally I can find no source for B Martin being a OPV-AIDS hypothesis proponent. He may think its worth investigating (which is not a "proponent")or he may just be documenting, and experimenting with, the response of some sections of the scientific community to the OPV AIDS hypothesis.SmithBlue (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting rejected by a journal does not make a paper RS or notable. When Pascal or Martin publishes a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, we could consider including it as a source for this article, especially if the paper is a review or demonstrably influences the field. Until then, it does not satisfy WP:RS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless my understanding of RS is severely dated then what you present directly above is factually incorrect. There is no demand for "peer-reviewed". Especially when dealing with historical documents. That Pascal's paper is specifically and respectfully addressed at length in a scientific journal does make it notable. And increases its RS quality to way above "summary dismissal". The list of B Martins publications is at http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/controversy.html#AIDS It does appear to contain several peer reviewed articles directly addressing OPV-AIDS.

I hope you are going to address the 2 other major flaws I raised. SmithBlue (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The OPV AIDS hypothesis falls under the purview of WP:MEDRS. Articles on science-related topics have more stringent criteria for RS than many other topics. Furthermore, an article can hardly be an historical paper if it was never published. As such, it does not appear that the Pascal/Martin document is so important as to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia.

As for your other "major flaws", I presume you mean firstly the assertion of extreme POV (if you consider the consensus of the HIV/AIDS research community to be extreme POV, then Misplaced Pages is probably not the place for you per WP:FRINGE); and secondly the characterisation of a "B Martin" as an "OPV-AIDS hypothesis proponent" (I apologise sincerely if I have mischaracterised the individual, but whatever his position, he does not appear to be a notable HIV/AIDS scientist).

On further reflection, it is apparent that the Snead-Pascal-Martin arm of the "hypothesis development" is not supported by sources, especially since several statements in this section have sported citation needed tags for almost six months. Several of these statements also appear to derive from personal knowledge. Given the poor sourcing and the appearance of agenda-driven promotion, I feel it is necessary to rewrite this part of the hypothesis section. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I support your idea of re-writing the section and remind you that consensus to remove the Pascal cite does not exist. The course required by WP is clear. We must seek input from other editors. 118.172.66.238 (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

repeated removal of my link - why this censorship of pertinent info?

Hello,

http://www.youtube.com/fluxsid

is the link of my investigative movie, largely shot in NE Congo - called Private Congo Investigations

If you can locate the paper published at the Royal Society conference by Daniel Low-Beer you will see that the paper is based upon my work, and I am thanked accordingly.

I am a scientist trained at Oxford, and have been researching the origin of AIDS for several years. A rough cut of my film - made over several years - in North East Congo - is up on youtube. In it, among other things, light is shed on the contamination that Dr. Albert Sabin had found in Koprowski's Leopoldville vaccination campaign which started in Aug 1958, approx. one year before the world's first HIV positive blood sample found from the same city. Several interviews with Dr. Koprowski himself are also in the video which have never been seen before - including instances of him not remembering the dates of his own world's 1st mass vaccination campaign, and his post - dating the date to after the 1959 sample. Dr. Leonard Hayflick, a very famous scientist, who was head of Dr. Koprowski's Wistar Lab, is also seen making points relevant to the idea that chimp cells were used secretly for purposes of securing a patent. And finally, visuals of Assistants at Lindi back in the 50s, talk about what was done, and about chimp kidneys being sent to the USA.

All of this is relevant to OPV/AIDS and the origin of AIDS. You have only to see my move.

But somebody keeps removing my link - I am new to Wiki, but please try and let my link remain, as it sheds light on the entire discussion here and more.

Thanks

Fluxsingh (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Internet videos are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. In addition, Misplaced Pages articles on medicine and science have strict sourcing requirements: review articles in major peer-reviewed journals are the preferred sources for these topics.

If you would like a place to showcase your original work, YouTube may be an acceptable venue. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is not. Please see our original research guideline. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(From my talk page.) I'm sorry, but personal videos and interviews, such as are found on YouTube, aren't considered reliable sources of information. It needs to be published by a third party in a verifiable and reliable source. Those are the rules here. At Misplaced Pages sourcing is everything, so we have very specific policies that govern what types of sources we can use. Misplaced Pages doesn't publish original research. You also have a conflict of interest, and if you aren't careful, you can also get blocked. Have you read the links I left on your talk ("discussion") page? You should also check out each of the items I have linked in this message. If you fail to do so, you'll just end up in trouble, get blocked, and your link may even get added to our blacklist. I suggest you take this matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask them what they think you should do.

Above you mention that this might be published. Please provide a link to that source. Maybe it will qualify. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I thank the respected editors for their prompt response. I want to point out something: - if you see my movie - you will see that it is already BASED on all the published material and sources - from Nature, Science, etc. that you have added to your quite impressive (for people not involved in the debate directly) entry on polio-aids. Polio-aids, if true, has immense implications for human life and safety, speaking from the point of view of our species. Hence it is important, that the editors ascertain whether I have TRULY broken the rules. If my video, is only a visual representation, of what has been already discussed in print in your article, then what is the harm in including it. I chose the visual representation of communication because there have been so many cranky theory of aids origin, not to mention the billion dollar lawsuits that some might face, if polio aids is true, that I felt that a visual representation of already published scientific article was important, especially since Wiki itself suffers from a paucity of images. Yes, over the years, my research in Congo led to to believe that there was more truth to polio aids then the scientific mainstream journals (which presented only a politically correct version) represented - and which lay people thought to be the unvarnished truth. But this is not about my point of view. In your article, you have quoted several scientific sources discussing polio - aids, albeit, cautiously, some dismissive, some supportive. What if somebody put up a visual image of all of this debate. Wouldn't that count as an Wiki entry - being simply a DIFFERENT mode of communication, in order to make dense scientific ideas accessible in a more democratic fashion, free of jargon, using the power of the audio-video medium, which many feel - to be the language of the future? Just as Wiki is the encyclopaedia of the future. Thus, given the important of the topic, I humbly request the editors to SEE my movie. It will, if nothing else, inform your various debates on this page. It is only 1 hour or so, in 8 parts. I put it up for free on youtube, because of the importance of the topic. Fluxsingh (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

formatted prev post I reencourage you to read the sourcing requirements for such articles. Anyone can put something on Youtube saying "I just read all the pertinent literature and look what I found". Problem is the reliability of this source is not determined by the literature but by the youtube poster, in other words not much. That is why things like PUBMED level reviews et al are considered so highly. Second, thanks for revealing your relationship to this source. Per our conflict of interest guidelines, your best approach now would be to relinguish the decision to use it to uninvolved editors here (read: everyone else). Third, one no-no of the project is advocacy. We are not here to advance any position, rather to describe them fairly and in proper relation to each other. So your approach as demonstrated by your posts is not what is desired in the articles here. In your case maybe your best best would be to submit your synthesis into a reputable scientific journal so that the peer-editing process can examine your methodology, and hopefully then validate it by its publication. Then the sourcing hurdle can be overcome and it becomes an issue of due weight, that is, how important is it relative to everything else. Another small piece of advice: Do not use the word "censorship" on the talk page like you have. This is only because the population of editors who have a tendency to do so have, on average, a very small potential for constructive contribution to the project. So by avoiding such language you prevent yourself from not being taken seriously. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But there is censorship here.82.83.232.57 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not reliable sources or acceptable external links. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read that piece on 'sourcing requirements' and it specifically states that you should make readers aware of any controversy on the matter. I notice some of the editors respect the journal 'Nature' with near fundamentalist zeal. As a scientist, I would like to inform you that these journals are not neutral - and are indeed funded near solely by pharmaceutical companies and the like - otherwise they couldn't profitably exist - and such companies are not very happy with the idea that AIDS might be a medical mistake and further that multibillion dollar lawsuits might be lurking around the corner for Glaxo, Aventis, Smithkline, Belgian Govt. Wistar, RIT, and so on. Also, what is the use of publishing that 'X,Y or Z involved in the vaccine trials is admitting chimp kidneys were used'? That information is already in the published literature but is being ignored by scientists as it feels uncomfortable to them. In any murder investigation by trial, a confession has more value than that being currently given by journals like Nature. I felt that maybe it was important to actually FILM these people confessing. Mr. BullRangifier has been repeatedly reminding me of all the various rules as soon I joined Wiki and threatening me with expulsion right from the word go, and no doubt rule enforcement gives pleasure. But I wonder how many of the editors banning my contribution here have taken the time to understand the OPV/AIDS controversy and the contribution that my film makes? It will take one hour, longer than the time to tell me of rules a, b, and c. But on issues of importance, literally life and death importance for our species, as editors, you have a responsibility to make sure the readership knows that there is a controversy, the issue is not resolved - and if visual evidence exists - to have access to it. Finally, after some investigation, I learnt that there is not a blanket ban on youtube, but a (rightfully so) caution as to indiscriminate use, but Wiki can use even secondary sources and media reports if it passes the editorial test and circumstances prove amenable. Here, the editors are not even willing to watch the film - hence I label it acute censoriousness. Fluxsingh (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told to take this matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard? You haven't done it yet, so you are really pressing for a block for disruption of this page. Albert Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Do you really wish to have some success in your endeavor? Then do as suggested. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer, here a humble question which I hope will not get me in trouble or get me blocked. Does Einstein's definition of insanity also apply to repeating over and over again one same answer that does not adress the question it refers to? Fluxsingh has mentioned the interest conflict of major peer-reviewed journals on this matter through the pharmaceutical companies which found them. Do you or Misplaced Pages have evidence that those journals are not funded by pharmaceutical companies and where can this evidence be found in Misplaced Pages? How is it decided by Misplaced Pages whether one peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source with respect to one specific issue or not? Thank you. --217.253.43.58 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wow

Quite a fun edit war on this discussion page. One asshat won't let anyone post anything that even describes the idea in full detail, and its replies, because it was blanketly refuted in Nature. I'd suggest reading The River, watching the documentary made for the BBC (which the "scientists" sued over claiming defamation), or at least checking out the guy's website at: http://www.aidsorigins.com/

Basically, I looked into it, and all of the arguments published in Nature are bullshit, and the OPV theory is quite plausible and supported by at least circumstantial evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.122.230 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Biased Premise In Introduction

I was bothered by this introduction and tried to correct it, but my own revision was biased and I removed it. With that said, the statement that this theory is "refuted" is absolutely and unquestionably indefensible, especially based on one journal article in Nature. The reality is that the author presents no real scientific evidence or studies that support either the veracity or the refutation of the theory being discussed. I am tagging this as biased until the phrasing can be corrected and the article made more balanced, and more importantly the evidence for the scientific arguments and claims being made is more substantial and verifiable. Right now this article is nothing more than a bunch of scientifically phrased personal opinions. One or two journal articles does not "refute" a theory, especially the ones referenced. This article needs some verifiable and reproducible science before anyone can make any claim even approaching the one made in the introduction to this piece. The Moody Blue 00:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the article, or its cited sources, carefully. This hypothesis enjoys virtually no reputable scientific support, and it is biased to pretend otherwise, assuming we're trying to create a serious, respectable reference work here. The article clearly cites expert opinion on the topic, from the Royal Society on down, supported by the (large number of) key studies which falsify pretty much every falsifiable aspect of the hypothesis. Its defenders seem to have been reduced to conspiracy theories, which doesn't exactly speak volumes for the scientific support for their claims. I'd like for you to review the sources in the article, as well as perhaps this site's sourcing guidelines and core policies such as verifiability, undue weight and WP:NPOV as a whole, before we discuss the "bias" of this article further. MastCell  05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The defenders have not been reduced to conspiracy theories. They cite support from Walter Nelson-Rees (of HeLa fame) and Schierup and Gerry Myers (late of the HIV Sequence Database), giving the details of their scientifically published papers and their questioning/rejection of using the molecular dating approach for HIV-1. http://www.uow.edu.au/~/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper08.pdf Additionally the actions of the most vocal of this hypothesis critics have been questioned in scientifically published articles by Brian Martin of Wollongong University. Martin, B. (1993b) Correspondence, Nature, 363 (20 May), p. 202. : Martin, B. (1996) Sticking a needle into science: the case of polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS, Social Studies of Science, 26, pp. 245-276. : Martin, B. (1999) Suppression of dissent in science, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, pp. 105-135. : Martin, B. (2001a) The burden of proof and the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 356, pp. 939-943. : Martin, B. (2001b) The politics of a scientific meeting: the origin-of-AIDS debate at the Royal Society, Politics and the Life Sciences, 20 (September), pp. 119-130.

This material is all publicly available and known to those who have studied this topic. Though absent from this article. Your claim of "reduced to conspiracy theories" has one hopeful explanation - ignorance of the topic. Please rectify this before making pronouncements that require a basic understanding of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis. 122.151.75.246 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking, cite material removed and application of inappropriate guidelines

This article continues to be a sorry example of POV pushing.

The material on Pascal's article has been removed. Despite of publication details being formerly present and journal responses to the piece being fully cited.

Ninane's statement that he did no work with chimps is presented without including that Hooper has a recording of Ninane saying that he did work with chimps.

And WP guidelines for a medical article are being applied to an historical article.

Very low quality article. 122.151.114.188 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is a perfect example of a neutral point of view. You can add anything that as long as you can verify it with reliable sources. And as far as I know, historical articles demand the same level of scrutiny as medical articles. OrangeMarlin 15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A coherent presentation of the hypothesis

To achieve a coherent presentation of the hypothesis for the reader I believe we need to accept that Brian Martin And Ed Hooper are experts in the field of the OPV AIDS hypothesis. They are both scientifically published in the area. Each multiple times. This I believe would make the materials at

Ed Hooper's, (author of The River), site http://www.aidsorigins.com/

and

Prof Brian Martin's site, (Woolongong University) at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/

available for use in the article.

Do we accept them as reliable sources for material supporting the hypothesis? If not why not? 122.151.66.213 (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of how scientific fields are delineated. The OPV-AIDS hypothesis is not a "field" unto itself. HIV/AIDS is a field; the origin of HIV/AIDS is a subfield within it. As it turns out, the experts on the origin of HIV/AIDS view this hypothesis as falsified and incorrect, as the sources cited in this article make clear. We need to convey that expert viewpoint honestly to the reader, rather than trying to narrowly redefine a scientific field to include only adherents of a specific fringe viewpoint. MastCell  17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming that experts do not consider this hypothesis falsified. I am claiming that the proponents of the hypothesis include the scientifically published Ed Hooper and Brian Martin. I think you read overly much into my use of the word "field". If you'd suggest a replacement word I'll consider it for future use. What sections of their published material is eligible for inclusion into this article in your view? I believe the relevant passage in WP:MEDSCI is "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field." Do you agree that Hooper and Martin are "significant-minority views" 18:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)122.151.96.51 (talk)

What might the ideal form of this article look like? The current article is not a clear and open explanation of OPV AIDS and its refutation. Looking for possible templates leads me to consider the articles on "cold fusion" and Lamarckism. Both these articles have the property of presenting their field developmentally. Does anyone else have other WP articles dealing with refuted hypotheses available? 122.151.96.51 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mast Cell has stated what has been done. You are wanting the article to state a fringe viewpoint. Not going to happen. Now why don't you find something else to do around here? OrangeMarlin 20:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of scientifically published medical ethics papers on the OPV AIDS hypothesis - how?

The scientifically published material on OPV AIDS includes the medical ethics papers of Brian Martin. I'm looking for ideas: how do you think that this part of science too can be best included in this article? 122.151.96.51 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of reliable sources. I think not. Read it, understand it, and you'll see that the junk science you're pushing will get nowhere on Misplaced Pages. It isn't science. It's denialism.OrangeMarlin 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you reject inclusion of Brian Martin's scientifically published work even when kept within the bounds of WP:MEDSCI "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field."? 122.151.96.51 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your framing. This particular tiny-minority view is being presented on Misplaced Pages - hence this dedicated article, which is significantly more coverage than any other serious, respectable reference work would allocate to this fringe viewpoint. Brian Martin's published work is cited in our article already, so I'm not sure who you think is "rejecting" it. On the other hand, we need to highlight serious science performed by numerous groups of actual researchers and published in top-tier journals over the work of a single social scientist. That's where the "context of acceptance by experts in the field" comes in. MastCell  21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

MastCell; I've some appreciation of your intellect and the effort you put into admin and editing. Are you seriously putting forward the case that the best available option for this article is to have all of Brian Martin's published works on the medical ethics involved in OPV AIDS compressed into "Brian Martin, a proponent of the OPV AIDS hypothesis, argued at the conclusion of the conference that if other AIDS-origin hypotheses were scrutinized in such detail, they would prove equally unsatisfying"? I'm not saying it isn't. I don't know how WP has been going. I can see a great lack of civility here and kneejerk protection reflexes in others. If this is what controversial articles on WP have become and must become then I'll join with anyone who wants them all deleted. They'll be poisoning the editors. I'm not clear but I don't remember you putting up, as an admin, with the bullying that has gone on here recently. Anyway its your call - do we try to make this a sensible article or leave it as it is. SmithBlue (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't unhatted this tendentious discussions. The anonymous editor is repeating crap discussed before and thoroughly debunked. Now he'll think he has a pass to continue this rant. Nevertheless, the anonymous editor needs to read WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. This is just pushing a denialist position. But you're much more patient than I am with this stuff. OrangeMarlin 02:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Its nice to see you too OrangeMarlin. Hows it hanging? SmithBlue (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit to the left.  :) Do I know you? And please forgive me, but I don't remember everyone who was a friend or was a target of my acerbic wit and incivility. OrangeMarlin 05:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You think I'm bullying. No, I'm sick and tired of the same tedious bullshit at every article. MastCell is a nice guy who tries to guide these anonymous types to the bright light of knowledge. I'm sure there is some benefit to that. I'd rather just run them off. There is NOTHING that has been presented that has any value. Yes, we could include Brian Martin's delusions and denialism, but why? This hypothesis has been so thoroughly debunked. If Martin had something of value, published in a real journal, not just some blathering on his blog (I know it's not quite that, but it's not a reliable source), then we could change this. But just because Martin says something, it doesn't mean anything until such time he proves it experimentally. It's funny how the denialists in evolution, vaccines, HIV, climate change, etc. all use the same verbiage. But what they don't use is science. So, this is the reason why the anonymous IP doesn't get anything by derision from me. What good does it do? He hasn't edited anything else. Pushing a debunked fringe theory. Why bother SmithBlue? And if you're pushing the same denialism, oh well, you've got the total amount of civility that I'm willing to provide. OrangeMarlin 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - why are you sure that Brian Martin has not been published in a real journal? SmithBlue (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - there is a difference between pushing a silly theory and seeking to have an accurate depiction of the history of that theory. Its the second I am aiming for. Just like the articles on cold fusion and Lamarkian Evolution. Neither of them push the disproved theory - but both present a sensible article that follows the historical development of the refutation/rejection/falsification. SmithBlue (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Topic" and "Field" the distinction

Further discussion has me thinking that I was wrong in my use of the word "field" in association with Ed Hooper and the OPV AIDS hypothesis. I think MastCell is correct in separating the topic and the field.

I currently think Ed Hooper is clearly not a recognized expert in the field of HIV phylogeny. So his included rebuttals of HIV phylogeny need to come from non-self-published sources (within the limits of WP:MEDSCI).

However in the field of the history of the Congo CHAT trials he is a recognized expert. And so his self published material in this field is includable (within the limits of WP:MEDSCI).

And Brian Martin is a recognised expert in the field of medical ethics and as such his self-published work is includable (within the limits of WP:MEDSCI). SmithBlue (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: edit "Development of hypothesis"

Reposted - apologies - I was sure I was logged in. But I wasn't.

"material" here means "material in line with RS, V and MEDSCI"

I propose to add material to the section "Development of hypothesis" that will include more from Brian Martin on the ethics of the debate and laws suit, and a rebuttal of "Ninanes chimp denial" by Hooper. I will also be including material, around the paucity of available records on the CHAT trails, from both camps. Please frame any objections in terms of WP rules and guidelines. I ask for admin support in this. And will seek it elsewhere if it is not provided here. SmithBlue (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for confirmation over at RS before beginning the edits. SmithBlue (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll revert anything you write. We have all that we need on Brian Martin's denialism. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin 17:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me make myself clearer. I'm not going to revert, without reviewing it. BUT, if it changes the POV of this article, or supports a denialist POV, then yes, I will revert. RS is decided by the editors here, not some random group of editors who may or may not scientific. OrangeMarlin 17:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. What science has Martin done that is published in a peer reviewed journal and has established anything beyond some bullshit rhetoric that means squat to real science. As is written in the article, "time to move on." OrangeMarlin 17:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My main objection is based on undue weight. I think we need to be very honest with the reader here - essentially every expert and expert body with relevant expertise has dismissed this hypothesis. Its primary advocates, at present, are a social scientist with a particular interest in "dissent" from "scientific orthodoxy", and a journalist whose arguments seem to be increasingly less scientific and more conspiracist. It is a violation of fundamental Misplaced Pages policy (and of honesty with the reader) to set this up in a he-said-she-said, two-equally-valid-sides fashion. I'm not suggesting we ignore Martin, but how much weight does he deserve here when juxtaposed against Nature, Science, the Royal Society, and essentially the entire relevant scientific community? MastCell  21:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree WEIGHT will need to watched. However I see WP policy and guidelines only saying "include all RSVN material". Nothing about de-complexification or ignoring inconvenient aspects of a topic. SmithBlue (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is part of a fundamental, non-negotiable content policy. It explicitly says that we don't include "everything published in a reliable source". Meeting the requirements in WP:RS and WP:V is necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion, and those policies can't be interpreted in isolation or with disregard toward WP:WEIGHT. MastCell  23:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A Description of the Hypothesis is entirely MISSING

In an article entitled "OPV AIDS hypothesis", I am shocked to find an almost complete lack of the description of the hypothesis itself. Aside from the first sentence, which only hints towards a general concept that one might derive from the hypothesis, there is literally no other detail or description of the hypothesis to be found except through painful extrapolation and recombination of tid bits of information contained within the several rebuttals listed in the article. It is interesting to note that the brief description of the OPV/AIDS hypothesis in the AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus contains a more complete summary of the hypothesis than does this article. DIck Butterfield (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

factually incorrect

"... The possibility that chimpanzees found near Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Stanleyville) were, indirectly, the true source of HIV-1 was directly addressed in a 2004 study published in Nature. Here, the authors found that while SIV was present in chimpanzees in the area, the strain of SIV infecting these chimpanzees was phylogenetically distinct from all strains of HIV, providing direct evidence that these particular chimps were not the source of HIV in humans.

Edward Hooper responded to these studies by either denying their relevance to the OPV hypothesis, disputing their accuracy, or asserting the existence of a "large organised cover-up" or other conspiracy."

The statement that Hooper responded to to the 2004 Nature study showing the strain of the chimps local to Lindi by "either denying their relevance to the OPV hypothesis, disputing their accuracy, or asserting the existence of a "large organised cover-up" or other conspiracy" is factually incorrect.

He actually responds by (A)showing a medical journal article listing a NON-LOCAL chimp as present at Lindi Camp during the time period relative to the OPV AIDS hypothesis, see M.M. Vastesaeger et al.; "L'atherosclerose experimentale du chimpanze. Recherches preliminaires"; Acta Cardiol.; 1965; Supp. 11; 283-297., and (B) questions the existence of evidence that the Lindi chimps were collected only from Parisi Forest. see http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/127/50/203.217.74.177 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

possible rewrite

Ok, so what would theoretically be wrong with rewriting the substance of the article to read something like the following? <insert Hooper's modern description of the OPV hypothesis>. <new section> However, the only peer reviewed science journal articles refute these claims. <citations> Proponents of the OPV theory have replied but failed to make it into the peer review literature. <citations>. 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I rushed to conclusions from merely reading the talk page. 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there have been a new published peer review paper that claim earlier phylogenetic dating of RNA retroviruses is nowhere near as accurate as once thought. Is it inappropriate editor synthesis to explain how this sinks the major point of the anti-OPV papers? (Citations on demand and/or when I get some free time.) 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I retract most of my complaints of the main article. It might need a touch-up with a new paper in Science or Nature (I forget offhand) that brings into question all of the phylogenetic dating on HIV, but that's a one or two sentence change. 12.108.188.134 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Schierup03.pdf This paper specifically addresses the Korber et al. 2000 paper.

This implies that most of the present-day HIV-1 subtypes may be much younger than the phylogenetic dating of Korber et al. (2000) suggests

If only a single viral particle was transmitted, then the MRCA of all present day M group sequences must have existed in humans. if this scenario is correct it is therefore valid to attempt a timing of the MRCA and such an estimate could provide a lower bound on the time until the species transmission occurred. However, if the recombination has occurred in the viral population originating from the MCRA, it is not valid to use a phylogenetic method to obtain the time estimate, and our results suggest that doing so would give a certain overconfidence in the previous estimate of 1931+/-10 years. \P If however, more than one viral particle has been transmitted, the situation is much more complex. In this case, some parts of the sequence may have a MCRA in humans, whereas other parts may have a MCRA in Chimpanzees further back in time. The TMRCA of an "average tree" in this situation would be virtually uninformative about the time of the species transmission event.

So what are the rules on Weight, NPOV, and such, in this specific case? Last paper wins? Do we note (rightly) that this specific rebuttal of the OPV hypothesis is in dispute in the scientific literature? 12.108.188.134 (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is the most beautiful of smokescreens. If I may direct your attention elsewhere on Misplaced Pages?

There's a lot of text here, and given our rejection of original research perhaps this is the best we can do, but not being in the humanities I don't consider critical evaluation of arguments to be "research", so I wanted to point out the obvious: When people, especially scientists, philosophers, and lawyers are being defensive, their words need to be parsed closely. I'm not going to get anywhere near behind some absurd journalists' allegations, but the burden of proof for refutation is pretty easy to delineate. Given the history of SV40 a simian virus transmitted to uncounted (many millions tested positive so far, hundreds of millions suspected to be positive) humans through BOTH the OPV & the IPV of Sabin, Salk, and Koprowski; and given that HIV strains originate as (often asymptomatic) SIV strains, and given that the first actual confirmed instance of HIV infection (not merely a similar pattern of symptoms) appear in urban Kinshasa shortly after polio vaccination: the hypothesis that IPV & OPV resulted in widespread transmission of (NOT "were the only or earliest origin of") an SIV virus to humans has to be considered the most reasonable hypothesis. (Also note that whether the injection of live SIV into humans causes illness or is easily dealt with is a separate issue.) The only way to refute this is to test all batches of OPV & IPV for contamination, a process which I believe is no longer possible. Back to close parsing, we note the care with which the medical community (despite its obvious motivations to close/cloud the issue) has not in any way tried to refute this most reasonable hypothesis. Instead they "refute" very particular and singular hypotheses: it was not Koprowski's OPV, they tell us. If the Medical Community were trying to do an honest job here, they would be delineating instead how SIV is different from SV40, and thus how the path for widespread iatrogenic SV40 infection could not also have been followed by SIV (or other as yet undisclosed simian virii). In conclusion I will note that the obvious tests of injecting SIV into humans to see if they get sick will probably never be done, so we can't know if the same strain of SIV adapts in a consistent way to its human host, which would moot the "requirement" that SIV mutate to HIV before the OPV/IPV were delivered. There is probably no better way to create a human-adapted virus out of an ape virus than to inject the ape virus into millions of humans and see if any of them make it just through random mutation.

I'll also note that the comments in article about Chimpanzees neighboring Kinshasa not being the source of Kinshasa HIV (if I read that right), while this argues against the particular allegations of Rolling Stone, it actually counters the bushmeat theory and supports instead a mechanism similar to SV40, SV40 having been introduced into the polio vaccines in the first world, from non-local apes. 76.126.215.43 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not the best we can do! See the example of the French version of which I now linked a translation in the NPOV discussion here below ("Article Bias"). Harald88 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just been getting into this theory, and all I can say is I'm astonished by the absurd bias shown here. I have no vested interest in this debate, but I can see that Hooper's hypothesis is by far the only one actually based on convincing levels of evidence. I was going to make the same point as Harald88 above, however, he beat me to it. Take a look at the French wiki page for an example of honest, fair, accurate representation of his theory. Why is the English article so different? Could it be that the majority of scientists who so clearly have a vested interest in sweeping this theory under the carpet speak English? I really don't know. I do know that I'm deeply disappointed with the moderating of this article by people who clearly lack the ability to moderate from an objective position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2EE8:5110:A524:7BAB:5BB2:CB49 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want a better response then consider doing the following things:

1. Write out your proposed draft yourself rather than talking theoretically about it.
2. Comply with Misplaced Pages's medical guidelines - see WP:MEDRS. Putting a citation after every sentence you write would be best.
3. Consider creating a user account so that people can talk to you.
4. Expect volunteers to respond to your work but do not expect anyone to start your project for you.
5. Lots of people here cannot speak French. You would more likely find French people on that page who speak English. Consider asking them for interlanguage support.

Thanks for your interest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Bias

In 2008 this article alone taught me that Misplaced Pages is worthless for any information that is even remotely controversial. Power editors such as Tim Vickers and MastCell have total content control. Thanks to this realization I have never donated to Misplaced Pages and have convinced several others not to do so as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3201:4F0:A59C:AB1B:36DC:22ED (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason why I have also never donated to Misplaced Pages. It is claimed that Wikipedis's crowd-sourcing model should be a guarantee of independence but this might have been true ten years ago. The power of anonymous administrators to rule above the form and content of controversial articles is discouraging. Formal invitations to contribute appear hypocritical to me. --217.253.43.58 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased, in that it doesn't even explain the hypothesis or the origin of the hypothesis correctly, it goes from "general OPV/AIDs hypothesis description > its been completely refuted > look at the damage its caused".

I am impartial here, but from what I've read this article is a joke. It's been epidemiologically refuted? Okay, tell us when where how and why. Don't just make claims.

Several prominent biologists, including the late Bill Hamilton, have said this deserves a close look. Even if it has been completely disproved (which it may very well have, but isn't described well at all in this article) it deserves to be treated with a fair shake, like all the other outside-the-standard theories put on site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positronics (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To what extent is this cited source, already in the article, sufficient to meet your needs?

Worobey, M.; Santiago, M. L.; Keele, B. F.; Ndjango, J. B. N.; Joy, J. B.; Labama, B. L.; Dhed'a, B. T. D.; Rambaut, A.; Sharp, P. M.; Shaw, G. M.; Hahn, B. H. (2004). "Origin of AIDS: Contaminated polio vaccine theory refuted". Nature. 428 (6985): 820. doi:10.1038/428820a. PMID 15103367.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are several statements in this article that suggest a bias to downright naive belief in what a selection of sources is claiming about possible criminal activities that they deny. This article turns any police detective into a "conspiracy theorist".

A good example of bias is for example the suggestion that a 2004 study that was published in Nature about tests on local chimps had any relevance. Years ago I saw a documentary that gave eye witness accounts according to which all the chimps in that area had been killed - in other words, any chimps living there many years later are not likely to be a representative sample. Regretfully I don't have a reference to that documentary which debunked that Nature article (maybe it was BBC, but I'm not sure it may also have been French; it was of 2004 or slightly before). If someone can find a reference to that documentary and add it, that would be very helpful!

As a matter of fact, I came to this article in order to find that lacking info...Harald88 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just found that the French Misplaced Pages also has an entry on this topic - it seems to include reference to the documentary that I remember and it's a good example of NPOV: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Origine_du_virus_de_l'immunodéficience_humaine#La_th.C3.A9orie_du_vaccin_anti-polio_.28en_cours_d.27.C3.A9laboration.29

I propose to rework this article to have the same neutral tone, and including the same information, as that section. Harald88 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand - you want to get rid of a source from Nature because it's contradicted by a documentary you once saw but can't remember anything specific about? If you have specific sources or changes to discuss then this is the place, but you'll have to give us something better to go on. MastCell  19:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course not! As common with POV issues, the problem is not the presentation of noteworthy information but the omission of it. It's possible that much of that information is not widely known in the English literature. Therefore, a few lines above this line I gave a link to the French Misplaced Pages that links to and briefly mentions the documentary that I was looking for (or at least one of them); if I see it correctly, that article also gives other pertinent references that are lacking in the English version - some of those references are even in English. Because of the balanced presentation of facts, the French Misplaced Pages article doesn't suggest that the hypothesis has been disproved. Harald88 (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

PS of the references that are given, the link to the English version of the Origin of Aids documentary is broken. I now found a working English link: http://www.aidsorigins.com/view-origins-aids-documentary Harald88 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh and here is the official reference: http://onf-nfb.gc.ca/en/our-collection/?idfilm=56285 Harald88 (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW the fact that a forced publication bias exists may also be of importance and perhaps worth citing (it's certainly not the only cause of bias, but at least it's sourced):

"the legal action cost Rolling Stone half a million dollars and discouraged Curtis and others from pursuing further investigation of, and publication about, the polio vaccine theory. Koprowski also sued Associated Press over a story by a different journalist." - http://jme.bmj.com/content/29/4/253.abstract .

And in addition to the good example of the French Misplaced Pages, I also found a good summary article by the same author that may serve as guideline for improvements of the English Misplaced Pages article: http://www.uow.edu.au/~/bmartin/pubs/07skeptic.html Harald88 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To my surprise I found now that that same author, prof. Martin, even presented a very relevant paper at the 2000 meeting at the Royal Society which not only matched the past but even the following years. And amazingly, that paper is referred to in the current article but the link is to an article by another author! To simplify our task of giving a fair presentation of facts, we can simply include its summary in this article (but also some other parts of that article are pertinent):

There is a distinct difference in the way that different theories about the origin of AIDS have been treated, with the widely supported cut-hunter theory given relatively little scrutiny while the oral-polio-vaccine theory has been subject to intense criticism. This difference in treatment cannot be explained as application of the scientific method. A better explanation is that the burden of proof is put on all contenders to the cut-hunter theory, giving it an unfair advantage, especially given that this assignment of the burden of proof appears to reflect nonscientific factors.

- http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/01ptrslb.html

Harald88 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a massive violation of WP:WEIGHT. We can't give that much undue weight to Martin, a single academic whose views on this subject are well outside the mainstream. Doing so misrepresents the actual state of knowledge on this topic. MastCell  21:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you completely misunderstand the subject matter - social science is even a different scientific discipline than the one that you discuss and the scientists that your refer to are not even instructed in that field! The topic of his paper - fair, unbiased hypothesis testing and reporting - is essential for both the content of this article and the requirement to correct the WP:NPOV violations of this article. That issue is addressed in the French version. I'll now create a separate page with a translation of the French version as it shows how WP:NPOV is correctly applied for this article. Harald88 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I now prepared a quick translation of the corressponding French version, by way of example of fair reporting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Harald88/sandbox3

Remember that WP:NPOV is one of the main rules - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Harald88 (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside review of article lede

Some editors here might be interested in an outside review of the first 2 paragraphs of this article's lede.

Short version "Many factual errors are squeezed into these few words."

Find the long version 1/3 the way down the page at Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

1. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/what-really-caused-aids-epidemic