Talk:Lynn Margulis

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

Request edit on 28 March 2018[edit]

  1. Delete "...with Jerry Coyne notably writing on his Why Evolution is True blog about Margulis' supposed "notion that AIDS is really syphilis, not viral in origin at all." rationale: Jerry Coyne's blog posts are not a reputable source. He often attacked Lynn Margulis for her opposition to neo-Darwinism. His claims that neo-Darwinism explain evolution and speciation have been demonstrated to be scientifically inaccurate.
  2. Delete "Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist who studies behavioral and social aspects of AIDS, cited her 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[48] and asserted that her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding."[49] rationale: The statement "The paper did not question the existence of HIV or AIDS, nor that HIV causes AIDS, but suggested that syphilis could have been a co-factor in the spread of AIDS." which precedes the mention of Seth Kalichman is true and therefore the claim of Seth Kalichman cannot be true and should be deleted. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but not their own set of facts." - Patrick Moynihan

2601:180:8200:C540:156F:42D7:A1F:B175 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 30-MAR-2018[edit]

I've read the paragraph and reproduced it below for this discussion. In the reproduction I note how each assertion is worded, and discuss whether any of the assertions are "out of place". Please note that this quoted text may have changed in the interim. It reflects only how the article looked as of 06:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

In 2009 Margulis and seven others authored a position paper concerning research on the viability of round body forms of some spirochetes, "Syphilis, Lyme disease & AIDS: Resurgence of 'the great imitator'?", which states that, "Detailed research that correlates life histories of symbiotic spirochetes to changes in the immune system of associated vertebrates is sorely needed," and urging the "reinvestigation of the natural history of mammalian, tick-borne, and venereal transmission of spirochetes in relation to impairment of the human immune system."[note 1] The paper did not question the existence of HIV or AIDS, nor that HIV causes AIDS, but suggested that syphilis could have been a co-factor in the spread of AIDS. In a Discover Magazine interview with Dick Teresi published less than six months before her death, however, Margulis spoke provocatively of how, "the set of symptoms, or syndrome, presented by syphilitics overlaps completely with another syndrome: AIDS,"[note 2] and also noted that Kary Mullis, a winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for the polymerase chain reaction, with unconventional scientific views, said that "he went looking for a reference substantiating that HIV causes AIDS and discovered, 'There is no such document.' "[note 3] This elicited widespread suggestions that Margulis was an "AIDS denialist", with Jerry Coyne notably writing on his Why Evolution is True blog about Margulis' supposed "notion that AIDS is really syphilis, not viral in origin at all."[note 4] Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist who studies behavioral and social aspects of AIDS, cited her 2009 paper[note 5] as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing", and asserted that her "endorsement[note 6] of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding." In the Discover Magazine interview, Margulis discussed with Teresi the primary grounds for her[note 7] initial interest in the material of the 2009 "AIDS" paper, being that "I’m interested in spirochetes only because of our ancestry. I’m not interested in the diseases," and stated that to her the fact that both Treponema (the spirochete which causes syphilis) and Borrelia (the spirochete which causes Lyme disease) only have retained about 20% of the genes they need to live freely outside of their human hosts, they should be considered as symbionts.[note 8]
___________

  1. ^ This is the assertion made by this particular paper being mentioned at this point in the passage: That the life history of symbiotic spirochetes needs to be examined with regards to how they affect the immune system of other organisms.
  2. ^ Here Margulis is making assertions outside of the paper, in a magazine interview. The passage clearly states that.
  3. ^ This is Margulis' assertion of what she believes to be another assertion made by Kary Mullis. According to Margulis, Mullis was unable to locate the document. Whether or not Mullis found the document or was even looking for it is made clear in this passage.
  4. ^ This is Coyne's assertion, and the text in the passage makes that clear.
  5. ^ ".....cited her 2009 paper": This could be made more clear who her is referring to. I believe it to be Margulis.
  6. ^ Another instance of her similar to the first. I believe this is also referring to Margulis. This should be made more clear by using the person's name instead of confusing pronouns.
  7. ^ This use of her is additionally confusing because we're discussing two women: Margulis and Teresi. Which of them this her refers to is unknown.
  8. ^ This last section highlighted in red is the most confused and problematic in the entire passage, and it's clear that it was added by a different editor than the ones responsible for the other passages. This sentence needs to be rewritten to remove the pronouns and clarify what it is that is being communicated, and by whom.

The problem areas of the text I've highlighted in red are discussed in the notes. The entire last section is the most problematic. I leave this hear to spark discussion on how it should be handled. The editor who made the COI edit request is asked to help form a consensus for change before reactivating the request. Regards, Spintendo      06:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 04-APR-2018[edit]

I must disagree with the idea that the text outlined in red is the most problematic. Perhaps the biggest problem with the discussion of Lynn Margulis's ideas about various spirochetoses (infections with spirochetes) is that this section should not be called "AIDS/HIV theory". A better title would be "Viability of Spirochete 'round bodies'". This is the subject of the 2009 paper which I was a co-author and an editor. There was then and there still is a controversy, but the controversy is not about HIV/AIDS theory. Instead the controversy is threefold: first, is wheher or not round bodies (a pleomorphic shape that spirochetes may take or in which some spirochetes spend all of their life history in) are viable (alive); second, that antibiotics are guaranteed to cure infections by spirochetes (syphilis and Lyme disease); and third, that the standard tests used for screening for spirochetoses are reliable. Much of mainstream biology and medicine still assume that round bodies are not viable (dead), that antibiotics cure spirochetoses, and that standard screening tests for spirochetoses are reliable. There is abundant evidence (which I can provide if requested) that these assumptions are examples of what Whitehead called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. That is that they are commonly believed but are in fact not supported by scientific study. Since neither Jerry Coyne nor Seth Kalichman has any expertise on the question of whether or not spirochete round bodies are viable, the question of the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating spirochetoses, and the reliabilty of the standard screening tests in use, I see no reason to include their opinions which are wildly off-the-mark and seem to have been included by someone with a desire to disparage Lynn Margulis with the ad hominem label of "AIDS denialist". As the title of our 2009 paper makes clear, she did not deny the existence of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. What she questioned was whether or not HIV alone was the exclusive causitive agent. Margulis's thinking that AIDS may have co-factors is a position shared by Luc Montagnier, the French virologist and joint recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). 2601:180:8200:C540:CD25:ACDF:ECB7:9418 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"opposed competition-oriented views"[edit]

In 'Symbiosis as evolutionary force': "She opposed competition-oriented views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species." Can someone clarify this? Surely she gave full credit to competition within species...? And this needs to be clarified: Did she disagree with the entire notion of competition between species, or simply with that being the overwhelming focus of research and theory? Maybe someone with a deep enough knowledge of her work can fairly address these points. Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]