Talk:Scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS

Although two prominent members of my church have question the HIV/AIDS link, I simply don't know enough to have an opinion. That, combined with half a dozen years experience writing neutral articles at Wikipedia, may enable me to present both sides here. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:03, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I can add plenty to the link, the NIH AIDS Research & Reference Reagent program, https://www.aidsreagent.org/Index.cfm is two doors down from my office.--Able806 14:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Excellent. It's always good to have an inside track to a real scientist. I learned a lot from my Wikipedia collaboration with climatologist William Connolley. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:23, 7 January 2009 (EST)

One Reference

If I may quote the first reference, "Feeding an adequate diet reverses these changes. It cures AIDS!." It was right under our noses! I applaud your attempt, Ed, but this one's going to be a hard one to find evidence for, methinks. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 14:20, 7 January 2009 (EST)

You're referring to the African starvation hypothesis, which clearly is not relevant to the industrialized West. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:24, 7 January 2009 (EST)

AIDS is AIDS, though, regardless of the setting. Otherwise you're dealing with a different condition, in this case malnutrition versus AIDS. I sincerely doubt that the source reflects someone practicing sound medicine. The nutrition-cures-AIDS one statement undermines the credibility of anything else in that source. I could also add that he's trying to explain cases where AIDS is transmitted via corticosteriods instead of HIV, but there's no provable correlation for this. A better source is needed for credible alternative theories to HIV, and this one should be removed. --DinsdaleP 14:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)

He's attempting to prove that high-dose prednisone and other glucocorticoids cause AIDS, which means that it could not be transmitted between sexual partners, blood transfusions, drug use, etc; these are just behaviors that led to the administration of the aforementioned medications. I think this is an interesting avenue to at least examine, though as I said before, a difficult position to find credible evidence for. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 14:32, 7 January 2009 (EST)

--RickD 14:58, 7 January 2009 (EST)==Jumping off point==

• The former Virgina Tech professor Henry H. Bauer recently wrote the book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (2007). I read through it and it's definitely a sourced, pro-intellectual book. Anyway, I recommend it as a respectable place to start. --RickD 14:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)

The only problem is that Bauer is trained as an electrochemist and was never formally trained in the biological sciences to understand immunobiology, biochemistry nor basic virology and pathology. It would be much better to find a person with a biological sciences background due to the credibility.--Able806 14:44, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Not sure what such Academic busy work like "immunobiology, biochemistry, basic virology, pathology" has to do with the matter. --RickD 14:49, 7 January 2009 (EST)

...huh? To understand the progression of the AIDS virus (?), should one not be educated in the fields of biochemistry, microbiology, and other workings of microorganisms and their connection with the human body? Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 14:52, 7 January 2009 (EST)

At some point, too strong a belief in a need for these specialities becomes a source of deception. Certainly, in research and development specialists and specialization have their place and are useful, but such skills, which is all they really are, are no big deal in the evaluation of their results. --RickD 14:58, 7 January 2009 (EST)