Talk:Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title of this article[edit]

Please check: Man-made origin of AIDS
Last Bullet Point is "Toodle-Doo.". Check for Vandalism. h.mansour Jan 5th 2009


The current title is "AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus". I find this title confusing and lacking on grammatical grounds.

I support the inclusion of all non-mainstream verifiable ideas/hypotheseses/theories here. I just want to find a clearer name - a shorter version of "AIDS origin beliefs that are outside the scientific consensus".

"AIDS' origins outside scientific consensus"? "Origins of AIDS outside the scientific consensus"? "Origins of AIDS opposed to the scientific consensus" Others? SmithBlue (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I agree the title is slightly cumbersome it surely is accurate as those theories not only are "outside the scientific consensus" but most definitely are "opposed to scientific consensus." Finding a succinct yet accurate title might be difficult.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title may be interpretted correctly but it requires too much of the naive reader. It assumes:

  • That the reader can understand that the grammatically incorrect title means "Proposed origins of AIDS that are rejected by the scientific consensus around this topic".
  • That the reader understands that the beliefs in the article are not opposed to a generalised conception of "scientific consensus" but are rather rejected by the scientific consensus on this topic.

"Origins of AIDS rejected by the scientific consensus"? If we can say "opposed" without sources then "rejected" seems OK too? SmithBlue (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it was recently renamed to AIDS origins conspiracy theories by this edit. If its name stays like that then the coverage about the OPV hypothesis, Smallpox vaccine, African National Congress, and Duesberg hypothesis should be moved elsewhere, as they are merely wrong - not conspiracy theories. Open4D (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But in terms of constructive suggestions for how to proceed, mine would actually be that the article content should be left the same, but that its name be changed (again) - this time to Non-consensus AIDS origin theories. Open4D (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they are conspiracy theories: the OPV'ers maintain that the government(s)/big pharma/whoever has/have covered up the true origin of AIDS; same with the smallpox people; Thabo Mbeki and his hangers-on stated variously that AIDS (or HIV, or AIDS medications or poverty mislabelled as AIDS) is a plot of racial extermination by whites/foreign governments/business interests; Duesberg implicates a vast international/scientific conspiracy (led, presumably by his former friend Gallo) in promoting purportedly shoddy science and suppressing his (non-research-based) findings. At their very core or somewhere near it, each of these is a conspiracy theory. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to our descriptions of them. The OPV hypothesis is described as a result of poor techniques in vaccine production, and I don't see any mention of a cover-up. The smallpox stuff, I added; it seems to have been a genuinely held belief of some sensible people in its day and again does not describe any conspiracy. If some people claim the polio/smallpox theories are true and also that there is now a coverup, perhaps their beliefs in the coverups count as conspiracy theories, but I don't see how that means that the actual underlying AIDS-origin theories themselves are conspiracy theories.
Thabo Mbeki "has argued that AIDS is the result of poverty, chronic disease, malnutrition and other environmental factors", according to the article. Later on there is talk about "the CIA and Western drug companies [trying to] increase sales", but that would be an AIDS commercial exploitation conspiracy theory, not an AIDS origin conspiracy theory. I've never seen anything linking ANC/Mbeki with the kinds of things that Wangari Maathai now denies saying (genocide against Africans).
Duesberg blames recreational and anti-HIV drug use for AIDS. The closest I can find on his website to a conspiracy allegation is his claim that his "findings have been a thorn in the side of the medical establishment and drug companies since 1987. Instead of engaging in scientific debate, however, the only response has been to cut-off funding to further test Professor's Duesberg's hypothesis." That doesn't sound like a conspiracy allegation to me.
Is there no grey area between the opposite extremes of the current scientific consesus vs. the conspiracy theories? Open4D (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Hooper ever said that contamination of OPV vaccine was made intentionaly ? He never said that nor let it be understood that way : so , either his name should be erased from that article or the title of the article should be changed !Hooper's work has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy ( even if some may have understood it so...may they be opponents or defendents ). If the choice would be to delete his name from this article , another place should have to be found to present - correctly- the hypothesis he is still defending ( and was not the only one to do so : late Pr Hamilton - for example - did help this hypothesis to be examined ) Trente7cinq (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having found that Wikipedia(en) had a specific article dedicated to OPV AIDS hypothesis I am of opinion that Hooper's work should be erased from this page , which could thus still be named AIDS origins conspiracy theories . Consequently the introduction should be changed : for example "was the inadvertent result of experiments in the development of vaccines" would be useless . ( again if the title conspiracy is choosen , then why mention inadvertent actions ? Ever heard of inadvertent conspiracy ?Trente7cinq (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer on non-scientific nature of the article[edit]

hey wikipedians

I note that the subheading "This article contains hypotheses not supported by scientific evidence. For current scientifically based hypotheses, see AIDS origin." seems rather unneccessary given both the title of the article and the first paragraph (both of which clearly delineate that position). This overemphasization smacks to me of bias against anything deemed 'non-scientific'. I think this warrants deletion of the aforementioned subheading. 206.223.190.7 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences in question simply remind the reader that the hypotheses reviewed may not be scientifically accurate and then provide a link to an article with accurate information. As for bias, Wikipedia indeed has a bias in favor of verifiable information from reliable sources. Please review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE for details. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my point. Obviously, Wikipedia strives to reflect the consensus position in its articles. I am saying that restating the same thing three times before the reader has finished reading 50 words is excessive (not to mention it reads poorly). 206.223.190.7 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Biological warfare hypothesis[edit]

Why isn't the US PATENT# 5,676,977 for the cure included in this portion? This is documented public information; and why was it deleted after I added it? The same was done with the US PATENT# 4,647,773, which is the US patent on the virus itself by Dr. Robert Gallo. I see no good reason why this information should be left out nor deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdotcom (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I have added this subsection under "Man-made or iatrogenic origins of AIDS". I found and photocopied the reference at the reference library of the State Capitol in Phoenix, AZ, about 14 years ago; I still have it. The chief witness before the subcommittee was Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, then Deputy Director Research and Technology, (DDR&E), in the office of the Secretary of Defense. To my knowledge, this material is not available online, so I shall provide a few short quotes:

At page 129, from written information provided to the committee by Dr. MacArthur:

“2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

“3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.

“4. * * *
“It is a highly controversial issue, and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.”


At page 121, Dr. MacArthur says,


“…that there will be a worldwide scourge, or black death type disease that will envelop the world or major geographical areas if some of these materials were to accidentally escape. That could not possibly happen….”

I have not personally seen documentary proof that Congress approved the funding. My unfounded speculation is that, the pilot program proceeded and death-row inmates were used as test subjects. With no long-term follow up of test subjects, one or more of them were exonerated and released before they became symptomatic. All this might have even occurred before DOD went to Congress, giving them an opportunity to unwittingly take the blame for what had already been accidentally unleashed on the public. This hypothesis is compatible with some of the more synister plots which could have occurred later. The Strecker hypothesis is a reasonable descriptioGovernment programs whose funding ran out after a specified period have been known to shut down completely. n of how DOD's pilot project may have been undertaken. Onerock (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original post and reference were deleted anonymously; I regard this as vandalism, and I have restored them. Would the culprit please identifying yourself so we can discuss and resolve your objections. If you doubt my source, I suggest that you go to the nearest large repository of federal documents and verify it for yourself. Your state capital's library should have a copy. Onerock (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing is original research, which probably explains its deletion. You describe this as "unfounded speculation", which is putting it mildly. Does the document you photocopied make any reference to HIV or AIDS? Has any reliable source ever Government programs whose funding ran out after a specified period have been known to shut down completely. linked MacArthur's testimony to HIV/AIDS? If the answer to both questions is no, then I don't see how this belongs in an encyclopedia with our content policies. MastCell Talk 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing and paraphrasing an unimpeachable public record is not "original research". Are you suggesting that an official government document is invalid without a link to a third party's citation of it? I seriously doubt that crediting that UFO magazine in which I originally heard of this document can add credence after I personally photocopied the original document at the State Capitol Research Library in Phoenix, AZ. If you doubt me, you can do the same. Unfortunately, I don't believe the minutes of congressional subcommittees are available online.

"Does the document you photocopied make any reference to HIV or AIDS?" If it did, that would prove it is a fake. In 1969, DOD announced to congress that it wanted to create HIV-AIDS, except they didn't call it that because those terms were not yet invented. The term HIV-AIDS accurately describes what DOD intended to create, despite the fact that they wanted it to be quick and non-contagious, and Dr. MacArthur did not specify that the agent was to be a virus.

My "unfounded speculation" in the talk section never appeared in the wiki article, so you cannot offer that as a reason to delete my addition to the article. It is not speculation to say DOD could not have known what they would get from the new science of molecular biology; they hadn't even invented the terms genetic engineering and recombinant DNA, yet. Nor am I speculating that the proposal to Congress made no mention of long-term follow up of test subjects. Government programs whose funding ran out after a specified period have been known to shut down completely. It is common sense that, without long-term follow up, a contagious disease with an incubation period of several years could have escaped. I am only speculating when I suggest that the inevitable may have actually happened.Onerock (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The material you seek to insert does not deal directly with HIV or AIDS. No reliable source links MacArthur's testimony to HIV/AIDS. The link between the testimony and HIV/AIDS appears in your posts, but not in reliable sources (at least, not in any that have been presented here). The edit therefore falls afoul of Wikipedia's prohibitions on original research and synthesis. MastCell Talk 23:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No intelligent reader needs to be told by a “reliable source” that “… a new infective microorganism …. refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” is related to HIV-AIDS. This quote from Dr. MacArthur is as good a description of HIV as could be expected at a time when neither the virus nor its name had been invented. Since my cite has been repeatedly removed along with the article, I repeat it here for the benefit of anyone who might want to enter the fray. Sudoc # Y4.Ap6/1:D36/5/970/part 6/ pp. 104-144Onerock (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I combined this material with the Cantwell section, because he quotes it in his chapter on Biological Warfare as can be seen here This should suffice as a 'reliable source'! 119.92.125.233 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published book does not suffice as a reliable source. I'm not sure that Cantwell should be mentioned in this article at all, but I will check to see if there are reliable sources describing his theories. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS developed by modern biology?[edit]

Should the passage below be added to the "Man-made or iatrogenic origins of AIDS" section?

Dr. John Seale of the Royal Society of Medicine had his memorandum quoted at length in the "Third Report from the Social Services Committee, Problems Associated with AIDS, Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda" which was an important investigation into AIDS, carried out in 1988 by the Social Services Committee of the House of Commons in the British Parliament.

Dr. Seale stated "Every biological scientist who has dispassionately studied the virus and the epidemic knows that the origins of the virus could lie in the development of modern biology, just as the origins of the nuclear bomb with modern physics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

timeline[edit]

i think this page would be much better and provide a much more thorough overview of what 'non-consentual' research has been done , when the different theory's would be in ordre of first publication, first anouncement. that way the ridiculous anti-african simian theory would more obviously show as a distraction to go with the "offical" racist explanation for aids etnoselectivity.24.132.171.225 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "non-consensus", perhaps? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

goudsmit[edit]

as you probably all know the to-be consensual theory is : jaap goudsmit's. this is a synopsis for his "further" significance in viral research.:"" Segmented genomes confer evolutionary advantages; different strains of a virus with a segmented genome can shuffle and combine genes and produce progeny viruses or (offspring) that have unique characteristics. This is called reassortment or viral sex.[76]""

(from virusses wikipedia),the relevance for this page is that this is eaxctly the odd kind of theory that was needed to explain such a(n obviously) recombinant virus as aids. i really never have heard of research confirming this(76), except when it concerned other suspect recombinants. so yes for sars(is birdflue), aids, and h1n1, but no for every other virus that exists. that is most improbable and perhaps a thing people know of is disproven.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of molecular research on retroviral recombination; how it's relevant to this article isn't clear. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New report[edit]

AIDS is not anywhere from the 1930s, according to a new report. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keraunoscopia|galaxies , the information you mention is most interresting Trente7cinq (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper[edit]

I decided to delete the paragraph on Hooper according to what I wrote a few days ago ( cf section Title of this article)Trente7cinq (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I see that this article has been renamed. Just about anything would be better than the old name, but I'm also not too sure about the new one. Firstly, I don't see why we need the words "overview of". All encyclopedia articles give an overview of their subject, so those words seem to be redundant. It also seems to use pretty tortuous English, even if not as tortuous as the previous name. Another issue is the capitalisation. How about the more fluent and correctly capitalised Discredited theories of the origin of AIDS? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point(s). I really like your suggestion, too. So I'll just go ahead and fix that, as well as the wikilink at Origin of AIDS#Discredited_Theories... Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but "Discredited AIDS origins theories" would probably be best. No redundant "of" and "the" needed in title. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think think that that seems like rather clumsy language. We are not newspaper headline writers with limited space, so we don't have to worry about making the title as short as possible.Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we don't have to have it short; but the current version seems clunkier to me than my suggestion. Either way, this is clearly a better title than the previous one. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bah - you're right; it's just too wordy. Phil, would you be opposed to changing it to "Discredited AIDS origins theories"? Or I'll just go ahead and change it - revert, if you care to... Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not NPOV. Its true that Wikipedia gives more weight to mainstream than fringe views,but Wikipedia shouldn't pass judgement in its own voice.169.231.43.139 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Title[edit]

This article contains hypotheses not supported by scientific evidence.

This leader is biased and I suggest that it be deleted. It imposes an opinion on the reader without allowing the reader to dispassionately and independently arrive at his or her own conclusion. It's almost like a desperate appeal to the reader to be "careful not to believe the contents of the article". The origin of Aids, contrary to "western scientific consensus", is a controversial issue.

Another suggestion is to change the title to "Alternative Theories of the Origin of Aids". The current title flagrantly violates the NPOV policy and imposes a bias in favour of "western scientific consensus" over what is still, in essence, a controversial topic. Many African scientists, for example, reject the "Monkey Origin" thesis and even go as far as describing it as racism disguised as scientific knowledge.

Scientific theorizing is not static. New bodies of evidence continuously emerge; old bodies of evidence are subject to constant scrutiny or reinterpretation as technology advances and new discoveries are made. Scientific evolution and improvement in knowledge, therefore, make it possible to validate a theory that was once ridiculed and dumped in the dustbin of history. Once upon a time, people were ridiculed and even persecuted for daring to suggest that the earth was round. Gregor Mendel's work in Genetics received recognition only many years after his death; he was ridiculed by the so-called mainstream scientific consensus of his day. In science, therefore, a theory is either validated or invalidated when confronted with evidence. A theory is only as good as the current evidence that supports it; evidence, that itself, is often subject to change. In scientific deduction, therefore, there is usually no room for definitive statements such as a theory being "true", "false", or "discredited". Hence, the title as it stands is not only biased, but also unscientific and unprofessional.--Campingtrip (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the statement is ridiculous when applied to some of the theories presented.
Of course there is scientific evidence for some of the theories. Many science journal published, peer reviewed articles.
The statement seems to be a misleading and poorly expressed attempt to state that "there is much stronger scientific evidence :showing that these hypotheses are incorrect than there is evidence showing that they are correct".
This dumbs down the readers of this article and reflects poorly on WP as an encyclopedia. :203.214.39.173 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, for most (all?) of those theories there is little to no evidence. Yes they have been published (some times even peer reviewed), but were mainly speculative and their evidence did not hold up under closer inspection and hence they were disregarded by the scientific community at large. Note while "peer reviewed" is an important quality criteria for sources and helps to restrict inaccurate information, but it not fail safe. There is plenty of completely false and subsequent disregarded material, that was peer reviewed published at some time. That why journals publish errata and why one needs to consider published reviews and follow up articles on the subject rather than only looking at peer reviwed status of the original publication. Having said that, i have no objection against a title change, to a version sounding somewhat neutral. May argument/objection concerns the actual description within the article and we cannot create the misleading impression, that those theories are "equally valid" alternatives, which are still seriously considered by the scientific community, because they are not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little evidence to back up ANY of the theories regarding the origins of AIDS. By your immaculate logic, we shuold dump every theory under this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.169.30 (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific "consensus"??[edit]

That's an oxymoron, if I ever heard one. Who writes this crap? Science isn't done by "consensus", as any high school student learns — or should have learned. It's done by hypothesis --> experiment --> theory, and then the theory is published and tested, tested, tested by others to try to find flaws in it. There is no "consensus". "Consensus" only applies to politics, not science. — QuicksilverT @ 23:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently scientists write this "crap". Yobol (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientific consensus" is not a description of how science is done, but a description of result which are overwhelmingly agreed upon in the scientific community at a certain point of time. Such a classification is an important important context information an encyclopedia often needs to provide to readers to avoid conveying a misleading impression that a description of a dissenting minority or even some total fringe represents a widely accepted theory.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: In this context the recent edits were somewhat problematic. First of all they are somewhat unsourced editorializing, but more important the editorializing seems to appear like an attempt to discredit the widely accepted theory of the Aids origin and misrepresent the various theories as "equally likely" alternatives.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must be borne in mind, however, that scientific consensus does not necessarily imply scientific fact.

What does that even mean in this context? Scientific consensus is linked. The whole issue of what the word "fact" means in a scientific context is a battle for the philosophers of science. What's it doing here, in the lead of the article? And how does it connect with any of the content? Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the article to be discussing the nature of "scientific consensus". Furthermore, Wikipedia has several guidelines for articles such as this. We use reliable sources (see: also WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine))and do not add our own commentary or opinions. We must maintain a neutral point of view, without giving equal validity to fringe sources or claims. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme damage origin theory[edit]

I came across a purported cause of AIDS from the following article:

MN Republican bases economic agenda on theory that sperm enzymes in anus causes AIDS by David Edwards published 10 July 2014 by RawStory.com

This article alleges that Bob Frey (a Republican candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives) stated that:

AIDS was caused by sperm enzymes entering the anus of another male

In addition to this paraphrasing it attributes a direct quote to him:

“When you have egg and sperm that meet in conception, there’s an enzyme in the front that burns through the egg. The enzyme burns through so the DNA can enter the egg.”

Although it lists "an" enzyme (singular) I am aware of two mentioned on Wikipedia that could be candidates for the topic that Frey is allegedly referring to. These being:

Our acrosome reaction article mentions that the acrosome includes:

"surface antigens and numerous enzymes which are responsible for breaking through the egg's tough coating"

The term "numerous" confuses me, a term like this implies more than two. Does anyone know any enzymes besides acrosin and hyaluronidase which are contained within the acrosome and used to burn through the egg coating?

Anyway, I am wondering if anyone knows any other cases of this sperm-enzyme-cause of AIDS. I don't see a section on it here. Is it possible that enough notable people have advocated such a theory that it would be considered notable enough to cover on this page? Does additional information exist such as who gave the idea to Frey, and if the enzyme(s) alleged to cause AIDS have been specifically named?

I found an additional reference, which was linked to in the one above, from the day prior:

Minnesota House candidate makes AIDS, 'Gay Agenda' campaign issues by Cyndy Brucato published 9 July 2014 by MinnPost.com

It elaborates with a longer quote attributed to Frey:

“If the sperm is deposited anally, it's the enzyme that causes the immune system to fail. That’s why the term is AIDS – acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.”

The problem of non-specificity still exists. It says "the enzyme" but since there is more than one enzyme responsible for breaking down the egg's outer wall, it's not clear which enzyme this cause is being attributed to. If there was consistency about that, a section on the page could be named after the enzyme.

Brucato of MinnPost goes on to say that this is linked to an earlier discussion:

This explanation of AIDS .. is essentially the same one given by Bob's son, Mike Frey, in testimony given before the House Civil Law Committee last year during the debate over gay marriage.

A YouTube video (uploaded 12 March 2013, also the date appearing on the video) is linked in association with this which is 2 minutes 43 seconds long. I will link to the relevant part where he makes the claim, at the 53 second point. Here is roughly what he says (he mumbles a bit and skips around):

When ejaculation occurs inside of a colon, it's highly aborbant material, the cells do not have a barrier for the sperm, and those enzymes enter the bloodflow.
When the enzymes enter the bloodflow and continue along. the environment, if that happens, these enzymes in the bloodflow causes what we know as AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
AIDS of course brings common diseases, colds, and things, and it magnifies them to the point where it's unhealthy.
Not only does it strengthen the disease within the carrier of AIDS, the person with the destroyed immune system, but it also strengthens the disease that can be spread to society at large.
There's an example in Los Angeles country in California where among the gay community, a rash, almost like boils, very raw skin, broke out on the hands, feet, mouth, butt of these gay communities, and they couldn't find a cure for it for a long time.
These doctors called the Center for Disease Control and they couldn't find this cure for it. The cure they found, a very strenuous antibiotic, was Zybox, it cost 2400 dollars for one course of use.
I urge you to vote against the changes inside this bill because it's going to put a health risk to society at large...

I did Mike a few favors in making this sound a bit more legible since when he pauses to collect his thoughts he often repeats a term or conjugates a verb properly and so forth, but that's the gist of it.

So controversy has been generated from this theory spanning from March 2013 with Mike Frey to July 2014 with Bob Frey, that is a year and 3 months of this theory being propogated by the Freys, so it seems notable enough to me to cover to some level on this page.

Would any other burdens of notability need to be fulfilled here? Does anyone know if anyone else (particularly prior to 2013, as I haven't backtraced it past Mike's speech) promoting this cause theory?

I'm interested in example, in which enzyme is alleged by proponents to do this, and how specifically that enzyme in the bloodstream is supposed to hamper immune function. Do they think the enzyme would damage white blood cells or something? Ranze (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! First off, the help you provided Frey & Frey is unfortunately not usable, per WP:NOR. The rest doesn't really qualify as a "theory" in any meaningful sense, and the adherents are not independently notable (the Bob Frey you linked is a different person) at this time. That leaves this guy's viewpoint as little more than "shit some unelected candidate said about AIDS," which IMHO does not merit inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility left out - A created theory with no real content[edit]

One possibility seems left out from the article and it is the fact that the theory itself is without underlying reality, i.e., that one has come to describe a phenomenon beyond reality and failed to see it for real such as describing leukemia as HIV/AIDS instead. As such this constitutes a created theory with no real content. What say you, should we include this aspect, one out of Philosophy of Science or the science lesson itself. Bye. 85.165.44.101 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in the second sentence of the article: "Alternative theories regarding the hidden origin—accidental or intentional—of HIV/AIDS must be distinguished from AIDS denialism, which is the view of those who deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS." The sentence links to the relevant article on denialism. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper[edit]

The article does not accurately state his theory, and references alleged contrary evidence that is plainly irrelevant. I know that it is common to cite to this evidence in addressing Hooper's theory, but that does not give it any weight.

Hooper did not argue that the original vaccines were contaminated. Those were used in the Congo to manufacture at the facility in the Congo the hundreds of thousands of doses then distributed locally for the trials. It would not have been feasible to make all the vaccines in the US or Europe from the initial samples, and then ship them all to Africa for use. What is known is thay kidney tissue from wild African chimps was used as the substrate to grow many doses from the samples sent to Africa. That is when the SIV contamination occurred, and it is highly probable such contamination did occur.

The referenced samples that still exist and were found free of such contamination were from the original vaccines that were delivered to the Congo. There are no surviving samples of the vaccines subsequently produced in the Congo. It is irrelevant and false to point to preserved initial vaccines that were contaminate free when the theory is that the contamination occurred later when those vaccine samples were mass produced in the Congo.

The theory also explains the simultaneous occurrence of HIV2 in West Africa since the tissues of the sooty mangabey were also used as a substrate for local manufacture of vaccine trials conducted there.

Hooper has never claimed that his theory was proven, nor that it was the sole possible cause for HIV. But do not cite bogus evidence as allegedly disproving it. 

Dmbeaster (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This theory can not be true by many reasons. Among them: HIV appeared well before the OPV was invented, and HIV is not transmitted orally. Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Firm Hand" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firm Hand. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discredited_HIV/AIDS_origins_theories&oldid=1211849308"