Talk:AIDS/Archive 1

I think there needs to be sources cited for lots of the facts in this article. I am not disputing the facts but for instance the following statements need some sources to back them up:

• "The medicines do not cost that much money to make. But the corporations (businesses) that make them charge more than the cost for the medicine. They say that they need money to do research to find and make new drugs for AIDS. But the money they charge for the drugs in wealthy countries like France and Canada can pay for the cost of research to find new medicines."

This is drug company policy line for why they cannot sell HIV medications in the third world at cost. Or is it that you need proof that the majority of profitable sales of HIV medicines are in the developed world? -NickGorton 05:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending and rude to people just because they asked for some sources to be listed. BallSack 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

How was that rude or condescending? I think you are projecting.-NickGorton 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

From my reading of it, it sounds like they want proof of that the money made in developed countries is enough to do research with. I don't know how this could be proved because it would be up to the drug company to say if it was enough. They might also be disputing the "do not cost much money to make" part 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, as it stands its not so much that people want the drug companies to sell cheap meds in Africa, but rather not go after generic manufacturers for patent violations (Of course only manufacturers that exclusively sell their drug in the 3rd world at a lower cost.) But they do pursue these manufacturers.

The issue is this: People cannot afford branded versions of a lifesaving drug in the 3rd world. So governments (like Cuba and Brazil) manufacture this drug for use by impoverished people (in their own countries and in Africa and Asia.) Then the pharmaceutical companies try to stop this manufacture (using WTO clout) based on the idea that it is a patent violation. But these manufacturers are unwilling to actually produce a cheaper product for the 3rd world.

That is, they will not help save millions of people dying in sub-Saharan Africa, and they try to prevent countries like Cuba and Brazil from doing so based on IP laws. Of course this is especially heinous when one considers that a large number of drugs are developed largely by government supported research. That is, public funds provide for the lions share of the development of new drugs in class (not necessarily copycats.) This is especially the case with AIDS drugs.

I did not go into detail about the basic underlying ideas as this is SimpleEnglish, but I did link to the WHO site which contains many of the details. I could have linked to Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines which give a much more detailed description of the actions of the drug manufacturers which pulls few if any punches. MSF has a reputation for being more defiant when dealing with this. From a Wall Street Journal article about their activities: “Doctors Without Borders, the Nobel-Prize winning humanitarian group, has defied South African patent law by importing inexpensive generic AIDS drugs manufactured in Brazil for use in a township clinic outside of Capetown. ...By importing the cheaper generic drugs, 'we could be sued for patent infringement,' acknowledged Toby Kasper, a spokesman for Doctors Without Borders. ...he added, 'We are not going to stand for a situation where we would be able to treat twice as many patients as we could by using only patented drugs. As medical professionals, it is our obligation to put the lives of our patients first.' “

Again, this is something about which there is not much dispute with regards to the facts. It is simply the readers interpretation of those fact that is at issue. And I tried to scrupulously avoid any interpretation. I just presented the views of people like MSF and the drug companies. Its just that 'we will lose money if the drugs get back to the US and Europe' sound pretty weak when compared to the justifications about saving lives like those of groups like MSF. Part of NPOV is presenting both sides beliefs when there is a contentious issue. I believe I have done this. Unless there is another POV from the drug companies (or other interested parties) that you think should be included. That is, I can write an article about the Holocaust and include information about Holocaust deniers. But that does not mean that their views are going to seem reasonable to a reasonable person when presented along side of historically accurate information. -NickGorton 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am neither for nor against the drug corporations, but it is obvious that you are strongly against them and this comes through in the section because of the choice of words. BallSack 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• "But there are some people who do not want people to know about condoms or clean needles. They do not want people to have condoms or clean needles. They believe that if people know about condoms and have condoms they will have more sex. They believe that if people have clean needles they will use illegal drugs more. Many of these people think this because of their religion. For example, the Catholic church does not want people to have or use condoms. They do not want people to have condoms because they do not think people should have sex unless they are married. But they think that even married people should not use condoms. They think that if people have sex, it should only be to make a baby."

Again, that is vatican policy line... why do you feel that needs support?-NickGorton 05:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You do not have to be snippy about this because maybe not everyone knows that it is "vatican policy line" and that is why it would need sources cited. BallSack 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And again, that is not at all rude. You are still projecting.

However, while I could see someone who does not closely read the news might not be aware of the pharmaceutical companies' view on generic sales in the third world, this is not the same. Unless you have been living under a rock, it seems inconceivable to me that you would live in a developed country and not be aware of this.

And do not mistake incredulity for being 'snippy'. You have made the complaint that my editing is NPOV. While there are two places (below) where I asking for sources is at least legitimate, asking for sources about this very common knowledge which needs no sources (like that the US is at war with Iraq or that C. Rice is the US SoS) is either one of two things:

• You are intentionally playing dumb about information of which you are well aware. You are doing this to justify the NPOV tag that you placed - because you do not like the conclusion reached. Then you complain that you are being persecuted when when the fact that the information you requested is described as extremely common knowledge.

From what the other person wrote it does not sound like he is against the conclusion of the article, I think they just want a link to sources for what the article says. 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

How is asking for sources "not legitimate?" What's so bad about having sources for things! 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I need to cite a source that the Vatican is anti-birth control? It is certainly the case that for some things (like the ones I provided sources for below) it is a legitimate request. However, do I need to cite a source that George Bush is the POTUS? How about a source that Tony Blair supported the US in the war in Iraq? That the KKK is anti-semitic? I mean c'mon, that defines the term nit-picking. Asking for studies that show that needle-exchange programs are effective is one thing. Asking for a source that the Vatican is anti-Condom is ludicrous. But hey, if you want a source, how about the Vatican? Even the 13 year old recent contributor to Simple (who writes very good stuff for a teen-aged non-native speaker, BTW!) who wrote the articles about the recent popes knows this. Or do you want him to reference his statement that the Pope(s) had a strong anti-contraception stance?-23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that my request for a source on the Vatican claim is illegitimate? Why not just put a footnote and link it to whatever document has the vatican's decree against condoms? What's so hard about that? BallSack 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• You genuinely have been under a rock for the past decade and have no clue that the Vatican has taken a loud, repeated, and strong stance against the use of condoms as a sin. If that is the case, you should really acquire some basic knowledge about the subject before you claim that an article is NPOV. Otherwise you violate the WP tenet of assume good faith. (i.e. assume that the author did write what is true unless you have some evidence otherwise. One can safely assume that if you didn't know this very public stance of the use of condoms by the Vatican, that you wouldn't have contradictory information. Like if you knew Cheney was the VPOTUS, you'd know that Bush was the POTUS.) -NickGorton 17:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the person knew what the article said was true but just wanted a link so other people can know also. 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• "But when scientists study (look at and learn about) people who use condoms and safe needles they see something different. They see that if teenagers (children 13-19) learn about condoms (and other birth control) they have less sex. And they start having sex later. They also have safer sex. (Safe sex mean doing things to not get pregnant and not get sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis.

The evidince is pretty strong about this.

• “Reproductive health education and sexual risk among high-risk female adolescents and young adults.” J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2005 Apr;18(2):105-11.

• “Survey shows intervention crucial to halt HIV in youth.” AIDS Policy Law. 2005 Mar 11;20(5):4.

• “Sexual possibility situations and sexual behaviors among young adolescents: the moderating role of protective factors. “J Adolesc Health. 2004 Dec;35(6):528.e11-20. -NickGorton 05:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Scientists also learn that if a city has a needle exchange program they have less people who use illegal drugs. Needle exchange programs are where people can come in and trade dirty needles for clean needles. This means that if they use drugs they will be more safe. But needle exchange programs do more than give people clean needles. They teach people about drugs. If people want to stop using drugs, they help them."

This is a very nice review by MMRW: “Update: syringe exchange programs--United States, 2002. “ Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005 Jul 15;54(27):673-6. (MMWR is published by the Centers for Disease Control. -NickGorton 05:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not have alternate wording to suggest at this point. BallSack 04:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording a little, because there are studies that say that kids who get real safe sex ed have sex later than their counterparts and some that says they have it at about the same time. (None say that they have sex earlier.) From a scientific/statistical view this suggests that there is an effect, but that it is a small one (making the studies that showed no difference vulnerable to a type 2 errors.) However, I gather you will pick that one to death. And in my experience people never seem to grasp the idea that if of 100 (reasonably well done) studies, 50 show a positive difference, 50 show no difference, and 0 show a negative difference, then a positive difference almost certainly exists. That has always seemed patently obvious to me, but I have learned to accept that people don't do statistics well. So I will bite that and change the wording to 'no dif' in the interests of not getting pecked to death.

First I would like to know what you mean by "real safe sex ed". BallSack 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That should be patently obvious after reading the information in the article: sex ed that teaches about real measures one can take to keep oneself safer from STDs and pregnancy - like condoms. That is, the opposite of abstinence-only education which, as is demonstrated in the studies that I quoted (and many more) is associated with increases in unsafe sex.-NickGorton 17:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this should be re-worded so that it does not give the impression that one teaching is more "real" than another teaching, because you have to admit that 1) there are many people who consider this "abstinence-only" thing a real way of teaching, and 2) obviously abstinence is 100% effective because they aren't having sex (well only if they follow the teaching and don't actually have sex that is) 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this section needs to be written in a more neutral way. BallSack 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But also there is no need to say someone will pick you to death, when they are just asking for some sources to be added to the article to back up the claims. Also because someone doesn't agree with you (and I'm not saying I don't agree with you) then you don't have to say they can't understand statistics, because that is just rude to other people. BallSack 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Playing innocent when your intentions are perfectly clear demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty. Or is it that you are still really suggesting that you were totally unaware that the Vatican takes a hard line stance against the use of birth control, and especially condoms? A search of google news shows over a hundred hits in the past month when you search for Vatican and Birth Control. In fact if you search regular google for condom and Vatican, the first article you get is “EU criticises Vatican's condom 'bigotry'” in which European Commissioner Poul Nielsen states: “They are hurting and bringing into great danger the lives of millions out there.“

I don't see any intentions of that person other than to have some sources in the article so I don't know what you are accusing them of having "intentions" but why not just add sources to shut them up then. 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets just say that it seemed odd to me that someone who cannot even bring himself to put categories and iw links in his new pages (which have included cunt, piss, shit, cock, ass, whore, bitch, schlong, nuts, etc) is really saying this out of academic interest. Call me a skeptic, but I just have the idea that this is not his intent. He might even be a 23 year old who just read Atlas Farted yet still retains that adolescent Beavis and Butthead-esque sexual attitude. Ayn would be so proud.

Way to pick out just the articles that you don't like (for whatever reason). I also created the following articles: honey freshwater saltwater well sweet cracker pizza pepperoni conception heaven multiuser multithreading multitasking button multiprocessing discussion decision whiteboard chemist biologist testicular cancer future past particle plus contributions to many more. You yourself didn't start putting iw into articles until a couple days ago; I went back and checked. Your calling into question of my intent it what goes against the "good faith" article, not my simple request for sources. Your overly-defensive reaction is what is troubling. When I made my request for sources I didn't even know it was you who wrote the original article! BallSack 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But then a more jaded person would also think that a user whose first contribution to SimpleEnglish might be.... maybe... a...

SOCKPUPPET!!!

What does a picture of a sockpuppet have to do with anything? I never uploaded that image! BallSack 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

To "Ballsack" - user NickGorton is trying to discredit me by implying that I am you, that is, that I am your puppet. Obviously this is not the case. I read wiki all the time and this article finally convinced me to respond to sometihng. 216.56.27.87 01:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No! Perish the thought! -NickGorton 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That is, if it was an honest mistake, you could have readily found information (from google or the Vatican's own website) in about 5 seconds. So its either the case that you were simply too lazy to look and too ignorant to know that information in the first place OR you were simply nit-picking every point to justify the NPOV tag because you did not like the conclusions (made by most public health workers and scientists) that were based on this data.

You shouldn't call people lazy and ignorant it is not nice 216.56.27.87 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And you should not resort to sock-puppetry to try to give your views the semblance of popularity. Bad Wikipedian. Bad! -NickGorton 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I take great offence to your spurious accusation. 216.56.27.87 01:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Or, put more succinctly, you should not be surprised if, when you play dumb about the fact that the Vatican is anti-birth control people react with incredulity. To be honest, I'd rather get that response, as the alternative is that people actually buy you are that painfully ignorant of current events. That is, better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass.-NickGorton 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I also changed the drug company section for the same reason. Though doing so actually made it more simple since I had to break the sentences up. So that was good.

If you (or anyone else interested) haven't either removed the npov tag (or proposed any alternate wording, or cited sources that otherwise made any more noise about this, I'll remove it. Appropriate enough after a clinic day, undoubtedly seeing at least a few of my pos patients. ;) I'll tuck in some sources on the page at that time so that we're square on that.-NickGorton 06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, its getting too indented for me to follow....

BallSack, you have cited a bunch of articles, with an average word count of 35. Few of which have categories or iw links (unless added by others.) Of course this is not bad at all. Its certainly good to add stubs of articles... I certainly have added many stubs to help lose red links. However, in context of the time you've devoted to bitch, ho, schlong, cunt, and shit it is less impressive. Not that I think those words don't belong in an encyclopedia. I think most certainly they do. I am simply incredulous of your motives here based on that.

I mean its just a bit disingenuous to complain that a large article with this much information, illustrations, iw links, categories, work on making red links blue, etc doesn't reference the Vatican's anti-contraception stance, when you can't even categorize or link your eight word stub for whore.

Moreover, complaining that something isn't NPOV and not giving the other POV that you see as missing simply is not very useful. You need to state that POV to be helpful.

And you did not put that picture on the commons. However, it well illustrates your actions here.-NickGorton 01:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am sorry that my contributions to Wikipedia are not up to your standards. You must run the place, or something. What on earth is your problem with people trying to contribute to wiki? Do you pull this stuff on all new contributors to wiki? Or have you singled out me for this treatment because I dared to ask for sources on a controversial subject? BallSack 02:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. But lets honestly look at your four complaints. Two I addressed with citations. Two I said were bogus. (Which they were.) You still haven't explained how you manage to be an educated person who has access to the internet who hasn't heard even of the Vatican's stance on condoms. As I said, a thirteen year old contributor here knows that. Its in the papers every day. Yet that seems to have eluded you? Huh? How is that again?

Because if you already knew that (which I strongly suspect despite your claims of ignorance on that point), why flag the article as NPOV rather than just putting a link to the Vatican's website? Why flag the article as NPOV because of a point that you know to be true? Why not just add to the article and link to it?

Because I did not know this to be common knowledge, and furthermore can't find it. Although everyone says that the vatican does not allow condom use no matter what, I have yet through google searching and vatican website searching to find the actual document that says this. And I figured since whoever wrote the article is the "expert" they would know where to find this. BallSack 03:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Or if you have some contrary knowledge, please tell us. I'd be very eager to learn the Vatican had changed its stance. Hell, I'd be happy for you to be able to rub that in my face simply because I would rather eat a little crow and see hundreds of thousands of innocent lives saved.

But as I said I suspect it is the case that you knew very well what the RCC thinks about condoms. But I think you read this article and said 'what a load of liberal crap' because of the implications. So you picked points from the areas that you saw as 'too PC' and then put them here claiming they were unsupported.

And I think if anything you are a little pissed that I read you pretty well. If I got the age right, it was just a good guess. The rest comes through in your edits. And the sock was classic.

I don't know what you mean by "comes through in your edits" but you should realize that not you, not anyone, is perfectly neutral in anything and you should not get so defensive when someone questions whether something you wrote is tainted by a bias or not. BallSack 03:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But as I said, you have done some good work. Just stick to things that are legitimate points. You could have made those two points and many of the edits that you have made here without grasping at straws about the Vatican/Condom issue, or making posts with a sock. (Remember, part of Objectivism is about scrupulous honesty.)-NickGorton 02:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess anyone who does not agree with you all the way must be my puppet or something. I did not even understand what you meant by sock until that other person explained it. Which frankly I think is rather rude to that other person to accuse them of something like that. BallSack 03:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some of your edits were actually good. You obviously can contribute a lot to this wikipedia... just try to make it positive. But if you want to qualify a statement, don't make it unsimple in doing so. Pick different words from BE 1500.

I also added a qualifier about the duration of patents and the meaning of this with regards to antivirals. (If you'd like a source, its from the USPTO.) And I didn't go into the myriad of ways that pharma companies elude this mark (in the US and internationally) to extend the duration of the patent or to market derivative drugs (see: Desloratidine for an example.)-NickGorton 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the part "Some" drug companies, because common sense would indicate that drug companies are in the business of making new drugs, and use profits to do it. Rather than make a judgement on what percentage of profits are used by what percentage of companies it is better to leave it blank. BallSack 02:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well in this case, common sense is not correct. Not all pharmaceutical manufacturers do research. Some just manufacture. Also, not all research (in fact most research on 1st in class drugs) is not done by pharmaceutical companies.-NickGorton 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back to "studies show" because not all scientists agree on these things. There are studies on both sides funded by both sides who can make the results come out however they like to disprove or prove something. BallSack 02:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That is unsimple. The paragraph starts: When scientists study this... then talks about what they see in those studies. Also, show me any number of scientists who believe that this is not the case. I will show you twenty for each one. This is not something that is debated in the peer reviewed literature. Just because a handful of kooks with PhD's in non-biology science fields believe in Creation Science that does not mean that the vast majority of mainstream scientists (and the vast vast vast majority of biologists) don't think its a load of crap.-NickGorton 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Creation Science" (which for the record I don't believe in one bit). And if people believe something different from you doesn't automatically make them "kooks") BallSack 02:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, this article is not about CS. However that illustrates a very pertinent point. Saying that the mainstream views are what Scientists believe is not inappropriate. For example, it is OK to say that 'scientists believe' that life on Earth evolved through natural selection of random mutations. This is because that is the mainstream view. Just as is Special Relativity, and Global Warming. And Just as is this point in Public Health, Epi, and Medicine.-NickGorton 02:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me what is unsimple about "studies show" because I genuinely want to know what is unsimple about that wording BallSack 02:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Show is fine. Study is not on the BE 1500, though that does not necessarily mean that you can't use it. It just needs defined. There is a page study. But that is the sense of study as in to learn a subject. A 'research study' is a different kind of study, though that could be fixed with a disambiguation on that page. Still the remaining negative of that term is that 'studies show X' is an idiom meaning: 'the preponderance of the evidence done by scientists demonstrates X'. Its something that is naturally obvious to us, but not to a non-native speaker.

I actually have a medical colleague who speaks Portuguese with whom I correspond sometimes. Her grasp of English is probably midway between En-1 and 2. Though certainly she has a better grasp of scientific and medical English. I used that term with her and we were talking past each other for a while.-NickGorton 03:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back to "reduce the chance of" because using condoms is not 100% effective. BallSack 02:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, unsimple, but I have a better way to say it anyway.-02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I added information about condom usage. BallSack 03:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That kids taught about condom usage is not disputed. I have quoted you several research articles (including a review) that show this. If you have a paper published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to dispute this, please post it. Otherwise stop with all the unneeded qualifiers.

The issue on which people have some disagreement is what effect this has on age of first intercourse. The evidence says either there is no effect or a small effect that kids taught safe sex have first intercourse later. That is not the sentence you changed.

The condom stuff is fine, but the percentage you quoted is way more of an over-simplification than any issue you have about 'most' scientists or whatever. With any contraceptive method, there is a rate for ideal and actual usage. There is a difference, and you need to discuss this. Also you are referring only to peno-vaginal intercourse. There are different rates of effectiveness depending on the kind of sex. Moreover the protective effect of condoms varies based on the disease you are talking about. So grouping STDs together and saying condoms help you not get them is fine. Giving an overall number is a gross over simplification. And you want it as simple as possible, but no simpler. I would lose the percentage. It is enough to use an adjective like very effective.-NickGorton 03:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not a sock!

The sockpuppet in question isn't a sock? Really?

Well lets look a little closer. The socks first post were to a discussion page that supports BallSack's comments. Then the sock makes no further posts till he's called a sock (well, and until I explained to BallSack what the picture meant.)

BallSack's contribs: 0032-0057.

Then BallSack takes a break.... during which time (coincidentally), his sock posts from 0114-0148 – to show he's not a Sock dammit!

Then BallSacks back: 0204-0309.

Honey, you can't think you are the first Wikipedian who thought of that? Nor can you think that its not obvious from the posts. Just give up and say: D'Oh. I was busted. Trying to get a meatpuppet to log on from your buddies' house will be so tiresome.-NickGorton 03:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think you are really reaching at straws here because I have told you, I am not that other person, and since you seem to some kind of site admin you should already know that I am telling the truth. And now you are dragging someone else into this situation who has nothing to do with it. BallSack 03:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Condescension

It really bothers me that you keep saying that my edits are not "legitimate", or that they are "negative", or that you accuse me of having some kind of horrible agenda, and constantly talking down to me like you know more than everyone else. It almost makes me want to leave this wikipedia and never come back. Which would be a shame. And all because I asked for some sources on something. I guess I have now learned my "place" on wikipedia and I dare not edit anyone elses article for fear of provoking unsubstantiated claims and accusations against me. Really, I would like an apology for all the horrible things you have said about me, when I have not said a single disparaging word against you and merely asked for citations. BallSack 03:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop using the sock and I will never again mention it. But don't deny the obvious. Its called the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. And I did not insult you, I simply described you very well and you got upset because I did this and caught you using a sock. And I note that we still haven't heard how it is that you simply didn't hear anything about the RCC's stance on condom usage. The righteous indignation would sound a little better if you could perhaps answer that question. How had you not heard about the RCC's stance on condoms?-NickGorton 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I answered this in a previous section. Read the talk page. BallSack 04:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah but I see you are not going to give up that easy.... isn't it hard to keep both those windows open at once and keep logging in and out. (Cuz of course the sock had to re-appear and post after I detailed the time differences.) Or are you using a meatpuppet now? -NickGorton 03:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? I told you I am not using a "sock" and you can go look up the $*&#ing internet address if you don't believe me! BallSack 04:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Proof that Santa doesn't exist

I will be happy to find you a citation that the scientists who study this problem see that teaching kids about safe sex causes them to actually have safer sex.

Then find it and put a link to it in a footnote or whatever and I will remove the NPOV tag. It's all I wanted in the first place was a source cited! BallSack 12:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There are sources that I have already cited here in this article that show this finding. However there is no study that shows what you suggest - a study of the views of biologists. However that can be inferred from the preponderance of the literature. -NickGorton 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As soon as you cite me a source that physicists believe in special relativity.

What you are making is called a non-falsifiable argument, and it is a logical fallacy. That is, even if I cited every single research paper in the medical literature that studied this phenomenon, you would still not accept that as a valid proof because there might be a 'scientist' lurking in his basement who doesn't agree with this.

Moreover, I have offered significant evidence of the scientific literature on this subject. You have offered: 0. And medline is there for you, should you decide to start reading the literature on this as I do. So its not up to me to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, it is up to you to prove that he does.-NickGorton 06:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When will you finally realize that I am not trying to discredit you, or AIDS, or anything, I just wanted some sources added to the article! Instead you keep attacking me at every turn, and using such condescending language! BallSack 12:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, tell you what. I'll just put both references that I have already cited in the article, you just answer one question I've had from the beginning - as a good faith indication of your eagerness to help this article: Were you or were you not aware that the Vatican was anti-contraception a week ago? -NickGorton 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you read the talk page for yourself because I have already answered that question. In fact this is the second time that I have told you that I answered that question. BallSack 23:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, apparently that's the standard here alright. I had to add the footnote templates. But in the interests of referencing the article accurately, I decided to include the MSF link - which is overall far more honest (and harsh) about the drug companies actions. -NickGorton 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please put hyperlinks

Please put hyperlinks to the research you are citing, so that it is accessible to everyone. BallSack 23:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I should be in bed.... but I had to peek one last time. If you enter those titles into PubMed, you can find the article in queestion and the abstract. Some articles are free access, some you gotta pay. Here is the Nationally Library of Medicines pub med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi - 05:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)