| Revision as of 00:15, 20 May 2010 editBruceSwanson (talk | contribs)974 edits Further statement.← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:54, 28 May 2010 edit undoBruceSwanson (talk | contribs)974 edits revised statement.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The orthodox ] hypothesis as it is found in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages cannot be maintained ''in detail'' by editors using their real names. That's because it is so fundamentally dishonest that anyone trying to validate its logic and assumptions would necessarily damage their personal and professional reputation. However, the existence of , of which I am a layman , would seem to indicate that AIDS-dissident viewpoints ''can'' be maintained by people using their real names. I recommend three simple rules to guide their edits: | |||
| I am a copy editor and proofreader living in the Los Angeles area. I've begun a on proofreading and its management; and have posted a speculative essay on our probable lottery-based, crowd-sourced future, . | |||
| ⚫ | Since many of my current edits deal with ] I should probably point out that as a ] ] in excellent health whose only drugs are ], ], and an occasional |
||
| Line 17: | Line 13: | ||
| ⚫ | Since many of my current edits deal with ] I should probably point out that as a ] in excellent health whose only recreational drugs are found in ], ], and an occasional ], my viewpoint is merely that of an incredulous bystander, not someone active in or threatened by the carnival of lies passing through our time. | ||
| ] has been pronounced by public guardians with their hands in the collective till -- an arrangement formerly banned but now embraced -- engraved as orthodoxy, given teeth, and made rich with grants dangerous for scientists, clinicians, and doctors to question. That leaves laymen. | |||
| Having read ]'s ], it's plain to this layman that AIDS is non-infectious. In the West it's primarily a lifestyle disease, after all these years restricted mostly to gay males or intravenous drug-users, dying of their own excesses and the financial interests of their doctors, then falsely canonized by fake-holy relics like the ]. An ] ] would be more honest in clinically appropriate cases. | |||
| Other than being fleeced by it as a taxpayer, my only interest in The Greatest Theory in the World is that it is so obviously a textbook example of what ], in her book ], described as a ''monstrous moral hybrid'', itself the product of what she termed a process of ''syndrome mixing''. Viewing the show through that filter gives one a ringside seat to what ''must'' eventually become known, if only as a footnote when all the principals are long dead leaving estates beyond the reach of civil law, as the worst disaster in medical history -- up to that time, of course. ] (]) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:54, 28 May 2010
The orthodox HIV/AIDS hypothesis as it is found in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages cannot be maintained in detail by editors using their real names. That's because it is so fundamentally dishonest that anyone trying to validate its logic and assumptions would necessarily damage their personal and professional reputation. However, the existence of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, of which I am a layman signatory, would seem to indicate that AIDS-dissident viewpoints can be maintained by people using their real names. I recommend three simple rules to guide their edits:
| “ | All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. | ” |
and
| “ | Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources | ” |
and
| “ | Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. | ” |
Since many of my current edits deal with HIV/AIDS I should probably point out that as a heterosexual in excellent health whose only recreational drugs are found in wine, beer, and an occasional cigar, my viewpoint is merely that of an incredulous bystander, not someone active in or threatened by the carnival of lies passing through our time.