Talk:Inventing the AIDS Virus

Info from Peter Duesberg

There's a lot of information about this at Peter Duesberg#Controversy over Inventing the AIDS Virus that isn't covered in this article...It should be. — Scientizzle 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I copy-pasted that info into this article under "Legal Actions". That section in Duesberg's article can be replaced with a reference and link to this article when it is published. Bruce Swanson 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs)

Requested move

User:BruceSwanson/Inventing the Aids Virus → Inventing_the_Aids_Virus — To move the article to mainspace from my talkpage. The current redirect of that title to Peter Duesberg will have to be deleted. Bruce Swanson 00:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Going by the inside of the front cover on Google Books, it should actually be Inventing the AIDS Virus (AIDS in capitals). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Inventing the AIDS Virus over existing redirect. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Request prior to any move

At present this article appears seriously unbalanced. This is because the lead is not a lead: it is effectively a summary of the book. Given the extreme fringe nature of the book's ideas, it is critical that the summary be framed as such, and that a new lead be written that makes clear the circumstances and reception of the book. Do this before it goes into the mainspace, or editors will be all over it and discuss will probably quickly get heated. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the key is to be genuinely neutral in the face of the book's controversial nature. That necessarily means summarizing what Duesberg actually wrote, without embellishment or apology. There is a section touching on the book's reception, and that can be expanded on if editors feel it is necessary.

As for editors being all over it, that would be routine for Wikipedia. Discussion is probably bound to become heated no matter how the article is written. The Talk page makes a good heat-sink. Bruce Swanson 05:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs)

I agree with hamiltonstone – the present structure would have been ok for a stub, but the article is now long enough to merit a dedicated section to summarise the book's contents and a separate lead that summarises and contextualises the whole article. You're right that the summary section should be neutral and without editorial comment, but before the reader gets there they should be alerted in the lead that this is fringe material. See Wikipedia:Lead section for guidance. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a first step in this direction. The lead needs filling out, but i've taken the key steps of (1) having the lead state the fringe nature of the view and (2) making clear the subsequent text is summarising the book's points. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Exchange of letters

The sentence in Reception about the exchange of letters in The New York Review of Books is kind of floating by itself – it should probably be followed by a sentence summarising the exchange and making it clear why this was worth mentioning. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically quote-picking, trying to be balanced. I've left out Duesberg's replies as the section is about the book's reception only, and readers can follow the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs) 12:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

Currently it is: Inventing the AIDS Virus is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that contends that scientists–who with near unanimity believe that the HIV virus has been proven to be the infectious agent causing AIDS–are wrong.

Obviously it needs a re-write to fix the sentence structure: if you remove the clause set off by dashes the sentence is disabled, as follows: Inventing the AIDS Virus is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that contends that scientists are wrong.

More importantly, we need to get rid of the weasel words near unanimity believe. If something is scientifically proven, then scientists don't merely believe it to be true. Scientists don't believe that pellagra isn't a communicable disease. They know it isn't because it has been clinically proven not to be.

I suggest: Inventing the AIDS Virus is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that contends AIDS is primarily an acquired lifestyle-disease of drug abuse, antiretroviral medication, chronic malnutrition, poor sanitation, and hemophilia. The scientific community considers this hypothesis obsolete because since its publication HIV has been proven to be the infectious agent responsible for AIDS.

References would be needed. Any comments? Bruce Swanson 23:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with rewriting the sentence on grammatical grounds. Your suggestion is an improvement; I think it can be tweaked further, but we can work that out together. Sources for the acceptance of HIV/AIDS can be found in our articles on HIV, AIDS, and AIDS denialism - there are a lot, but given that this is generally accepted as true, a few representative sources (e.g. the NIAID fact sheet) should suffice. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of your change, but the second sentence sounds misleading. It suggests that the Duesberg hypothesis was quite reasonable in 1996 and only subsequently discredited. Going by AIDS_denialism#History, the evidence for HIV causing AIDS was considered conclusive at least as early as 1988. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

[1] In fact, "Inventing the AIDS Virus" is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that contends that scientists are wrong.

[2] hemophilia is not a lifestyle

[3] Duesberg's original hypothesis when first promulgated wasn't considered laughable, but that was in the early 80's. It became laughable before the publication of Inventing the AIDS Virus, and continues to be laughable, though the laughter might be more riotous if Duesberg's adherence to it hadn't killed people.

[4] Duesberg contends that AIDS is a syndrome with multiple causes, rather than a disease with a single cause, and his arguments have a decidedly ad hoc feel to them.

[5] Inventing the AIDS Virus is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that falsely contends that AIDS is caused by a variety of factors including drug abuse, antiretroviral medication, chronic malnutrition, poor sanitation, and hemophilia. However, HIV has been demonstrated to be the infectious agent responsible for AIDS. - Nunh-huh 02:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a side comment re a recent difference of view evident in today's edits between Bruce and Nunh: I agree with Nunh that the wording which refers to AIDS, rather than "AIDS-defining diseases", is the better approach. As well as being accurate, it is also more simple and direct, and therefore appropriate to the lead of the article. The direct wording does appear accurately to describe the "Duesberg hypothesis". hamiltonstone (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

reviews

Currently the reviews section contains this: Although calling it "readable and engaging", Epstein in general sided with Duesberg's critics while allowing that "As in many other scientific controversies, what is at stake here is not just a specific scientific claim but notions of science itself, along with the very methods by which scientific claims are to be evaluated." I have now read the review, and this sentence seriously misrepresents the balance of the reviewer's views, which include that the author unfortunately is "elaborating, in "Inventing the AIDS Virus," a far-flung conspiracy theory"; that he "misrepresents scientific conclusions in describing the emergence in 1993 of a "backlash" against AZT in the medical community, as if researchers had moved toward his own position"; that the author "is at his least convincing in responding to new evidence and contrary arguments"; and that his conclusions involve "bad logic, and manipulation to boot". I think Epstein has been polite and moderate in his treatment, but it is a scathing critique of the book, compared to its current presentation in the article, and i intend to revise it accordingly. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with your edit and have revised that section a little further. "Epstein in general sided with Duesberg's critics" still seemed overly mild for a review that called Duesberg "the antichrist of AIDS research". I'm curious to have a better look at the exchange with the Lancet editor but that site seems to be having problems. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Koch's postulates

WLU's conversion of the summary to a bullet list has made it clearer and easier to follow. There's just one bullet point I don't understand: "the use of Koch's postulates to confirm HIV causes AIDS was inappropriate". Does Duesberg really disagree with the application of the postulates? Or does he claim they have not been fulfilled? I'll need to leave fixing this to someone who's read the book. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The latter, thanks Bruce. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead summary

I don't believe my edits to the lead were problematic, particularly not inaccurate. Duesberg's hypothesis is rejected by the scientific community and the lead should summarize the argument only enough to note it is flawed. It is undue weight to give detail on the specific incorrect causes. If it's a matter of wording - cofactors versus causes - that is easily corrected. If it's a matter of "giving Duesberg's ideas their due" that is inappropriate. Duesberg is wrong. Flatly, clearly, unambiguously wrong. There are not two sides to tell, this is not a real dispute, it's pseudoscience. This is not "my POV", this is the unambiguous consensus of the scientific community. We don't need to attribute these opinions as if they were gentlemen's disagreements. Duesberg is wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing an accurate description of someone's position and with one that is inaccurate is definitely problematic.

1)As has been discussed elsewhere, Duseberg believes AIDS is not caused by HIV. Others have proposed cofactors as part of the cause or as contributing to the causation. That's one of the problems with just throwing around "denialist" labels that don't go beyond slurring the individuals. It's best to explain what their positions actually are.

2) Once again you've removed someone's notable position because you don't agree with it. But this isn't an improvement to the encyclopedia.

3) Your edits are grotesquely biased and distorted. You say he proposed a "discredited" hypothesis and offer opinions as fact. That's inappropriate. He proposed a hypothesis that others may have discredited, he didn't propose a discredited hypothesis. Stop POV pushing and going overboard trying to argue your position. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

4) I believe lawsuit is one word.

I strongly suggest you refrain from editing articles wher eyou are so passionate about your position that you engage in distortions, slander, and insist on introducing inaccuracies. By continuing to do this you are just damaging the encyclopedia and promoting ignorance.

Please revert yourself and the damage you've done to this article. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Duesberg is wrong. Cofactors might worsen the health of the patient or hasten their death, but only HIV is causitive. Duesberg on the other hand, says, incorrectly, that HIV is not causitive. He is wrong. He doesn't have a position - or more accurately, he doesn't have an evidence-based position. He's got an axe, and he's grinding.
2. Duesberg's position is not notable. It's incorrect. And found in the body, this is the lead.
3. Duesberg is wrong. This is a fact. His hypothesis, presented in the book, was discredited when it was published.
4. Feel free to correct it.

I've based my edit on WP:UNDUE and an extremely solid representation of the mainstream position on HIV and AIDS, as well as the Duesberg hypothesis itself, i.e. that it's wrong. Calling me ignorant for doing so suggests you don't know what the mainstream position is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest the following revision? WLU's version:

Inventing the AIDS Virus is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that denies that HIV causes AIDS, proposing instead the discredited Duesberg hypothesis that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and AIDS is the result of unrelated, nonviral causes. The scientific consensus that HIV is in fact the cause of AIDS and that Duesberg's beliefs specifically are without merit.

Alternative, recognising that the hypothesis is now discredited, fixing a missing word, and removing the word "specifically" (which seemed unnecessary and odd to me):

Inventing the AIDS Virus is a book by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg that denies that HIV causes AIDS, proposing instead that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that the symptoms diagnosed as AIDS are the result of unrelated, nonviral causes. The scientific consensus is that this "Duesberg hypothesis" is incorrect, that HIV is in fact the cause of AIDS and that Duesberg's beliefs are without merit.

Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the latter version is an improvement. I think we can present his distilled viewpoint in the first sentence, and wait until the second to note that his viewpoint is considered erroneous. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The word "denies" seems a bit silly to me.

Passenger virus should be wikilnked and might need to be explained a bit, as it's not clear to most readers what exactly is meant by that.

I also don't think Duesberg posits that the symptoms are necessarily non-viral, only that they are the result of a weakened immune system that opens up the individual to various diseases and cancers (some of which may indeed be viruses).

I don't know why we're dancing around the core of his assertion, which seems to be that AIDS is a diagnosis of various diseases and sicknesses found in individuals with weakened immune systems, resulting from various causes unrelated to HIV, and that HIV is not itself a serious malady. MastCell seems to have some grasp of this subject matter, so he might be a good source to check with for accuracy (although he hasn't been much help in stemming the POV pushing tide of slurs and inaccuracies). My main objection to WLU's edits is that he keeps smearing Duesberg and others, adds inaccuracies and removes accurate content in a blatant effort to argue his position and beliefs. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, why would lead out the causes he ascribed for AIDS? Can you explain how these changes would improve the version that's there now? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've pasted in Hamiltonstone's suggested version and linked passenger virus but there's no need for an explanation since it is linked and has the word "harmless" before it. I don't think there is a need to get technical when the point is tangential (and wrong).

The core of his assertion is incorrect, and we're not dancing around it, we are, per WP:UNDUE, giving it minimal weight and only the briefest of overviews. There is no need to have someone with a grasp of the subject matter review it - Duesberg is wrong and that's that. His specific claims have been refuted, as well as the general AIDS denialist position that HIV doesn't cause it. This isn't POV-pushing, this is due weight to the scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS. There are not two positions of equal, or even unbalanced validity. One is correct, and Duesberg is wrong. Though I personally believe that HIV causes AIDS, I am not justifying this with "WLU, personal opinion, 2010". I am basing this on the eight references included in the body text that clearly and unambiguously state it. The version without his specific beliefs is better because it gives due weight to the scientific opinion (of which Duesberg is not a part) and does not give undue weight to his incorrect assertions. That is the policy basis for my edits, and no other editor thinks we should go into the specifics for the lead. Any time you read a lengthy discussion of someone's ideas, followed by a brief "but it's wrong", it doesn't matter how many citations you include afterwards, the lengthy discussion carries much weight. That is why WP:UNDUE notes "...undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." All are important, but because a lead must be short, the back-and-forth must also be short - which means leaving out specifics. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WLU, I thought you both had points to make, but your inclusion of the Horton point in the lead goes way too far. On that I am with Freakshownerd - it is POV pushing. Take it out of the lead please. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that there is conclusive scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS? That seems to be in the body, but the opening paragraph goes the "overwhelming scientific consensus" route. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is fair to say. This is the clear, unambiguous scientific consensus. I've adjusted the wording.

Hamiltonstone, your point is taken, removed. Turns out it's a little more complicated than that - Horton published in the NYRB a statement from (HIV?) investigator Barry Bloom "I was appalled at your review of Peter Duesberg’s book in The New York Review of Books. You have dignified a position which I believe cannot be justified, namely encouraging human beings to ignore a life threatening risk, either for the purpose of playing the ultimate devil’s advocate, or because of sheer opportunism. " so it looks like Horton may not have said it. There's a follow-up piece from September. I'll review both, it looks like there is considerably more that could be added to the reception section, which is good. Though I've removed it for now, it is possible based on the NYRB articles, that several people did say in response to the book itself that Duesberg should test his hypothesis by infecting himself with HIV. This is not a nice thing to say, it is certainly a lethal suggestion Duesberg's pretentions aside, but if it is verifiable and is a direct reaction to this book, it could go in the lead. I will propose such an addition for comment on the talk page however, rather than making it directly.

Let's not forget that this book is a summary of dangerous pseudoscience that touches a lot of controversial areas - homophobia, racism, AIDS denialism, bad science, academic freedom versus public safety, and a well-established scientific consensus. Duesberg's ideas are wrong and unpopular, so emotions run high in reaction to him. That a suggestion is unpleasant and deadly is one thing, whether that suggestion, if made by enough people in response to this book, should be included in the lead is another.

But yes, the overall point is taken - I'll get consensus before making related changes to the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the text looks OK at present. My issue with the way the "innoculation" point was included in the lead was not the question of whether it was said. Rather, its inclusion in a fairly short lead had a pointy tone to it that wasn't really neutral. As to including it in the body text, in the context of other reactions to his work, it could be appropriate provided the referencing is clear. I do have a bit of a feeling, though, that as it is largely a rhetorical flourish by his critics (albeit an understandable one), maybe it should only be included if there is a documented reaction or response from Duesburg? Anyway, my mind is open on that one. Perhaps I should explain the extent to which I agree with freakshownerd, and it is this: Duesberg is wrong, yes, but to the extent that this article is about his (incorrect) book, it must at least accurately describe his (incorrect) text. And to the extent that the WP article is about the book, not about the author, the article needs to be kept focussed on its subject. Of course I recognise that isn't a black and white exercise in a case like this (where the author, his views and his other activities are inevitably raised in those reliable sources that discuss the book); it is just something to keep foremost in mind in the framing of the text. Thanks to you both for your work here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of Duesberg's commentary on HIV/AIDS would probably be considered a "rhetorical flourish" :) I take your point, it is a shortish lead, and unless an entire section on "Duesberg should give himself a harmless passenger virus" can be written, it's probably too much. We'll have to see, I'll try to read and expand in the near future. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Unused reference

This appears to contain reference to the book, possibly multiple books by Duesberg. It's only a partial, I'll see if I can get a full. The reception section actually seems quite short and lacking; in particular, an expansion of exactly where and why Duesberg is wrong should be included, per WP:UNDUE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

The article as is violates WP: Truth, WP: Neutral Point of View, WP: Righting Great Wrongs. Yolo has reverted my fix with the comment WP: Fringe. What I suggest is that Yolo and real-name editor Mark William Schierbecker (aka Marcus Qwertyus), get together and nominate the entire article for deletion if you both agree that it constitutes fringe material. 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs)

Why does it violate those policies? Marcus Qwertyus 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to delete. Whatever we think of the book, it is notable. We have articles about worse books.

As regards the big chunks that have been put in and taken out a few times, I think they are basically valid in content although overdone a bit in tone. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider this statement from the intro:

“ The scientific evidence is conclusive that this theory, known as the "Duesberg hypothesis", is incorrect and it is the unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV is in fact the cause of AIDS. ”

Note that the statement is supported by the footnotes 1 2.

Now let's imagine moving the above quote to the Reception section. At first this seems outwardly plausible because the statement describes how Duesberg's ideas espoused in the book have generally been received. There it would keep company with the following quote currently in that section:

“ The central role of HIV in the development of immunodeficiency is, in my view, established by the force of epidemiological and laboratory evidence. On this key issue, Duesberg is, I believe, in error," but "Duesberg has predicted, correctly, that the virus alone is not enough to explain all aspects of the immunodeficiency process. ”

There are two problems: 1) the statement we've just added isn't supported by the above distinctly ambivalent quote; and 2) the statement we've just added can't be used anyway because its footnotes don’t actually reference Duesberg's book. Attempting to place the quote there would be a blatant POV violation. As it is, its existence in the article is a subtle POV violation only because it is separated from the Reception section. Nevertheless, it is not supported within the article itself because the article contains a quote from a reliable neutral source that doesn't support the claim of "unambiguous" scientific consensus.

Marcus and DanielRigal, now do you see why I think that the statement claiming "unambiguous" scientific consensus should be deleted from the article? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Why do you think this shouldn't be communicated to the reader? It seems like important context if our intent is to provide a neutral, encyclopedic overview of this subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, merely because science couches its publications in terms of philosophic uncertainty is no reason to misrepresent it as anything but the unambiguous consensus that HIV causs AIDS, AIDS kills, and antiretrovirals save lives. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Then we must specifically address, within the article itself, the referenced quote (noted above and below) by Richard Horton. As it stands, the article contains an unaddressed logical contradiction: Horton is himself personally convinced about the central role of HIV, but he then adds without qualification that Duesberg is correct that HIV alone can't explain immunodeficiency. His statement contradicts the article's claim of unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Just as in any well-written article, a Wikipedia article cannot, without explanations appropriate to the context, contain statements that logically contradict themselves, either explicitly or by inference.

However, I believe any explanatory comments about Horton's quote would, by definition, be a POV violation of neutrality. Therefore any statements asserting an unambiguous consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS should be either re-written or deleted. I think it is on this specific point that this discussion should continue.

“ The central role of HIV in the development of immunodeficiency is, in my view, established by the force of epidemiological and laboratory evidence. On this key issue, Duesberg is, I believe, in error," but "Duesberg has predicted, correctly, that the virus alone is not enough to explain all aspects of the immunodeficiency process. ”

BruceSwanson (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Yobol meant to say that Richard Horton is or was an AIDS denialist. Guess we'll never know.

Moving on, although the article has been altered again, and the Duesberg hypothesis unofficially downgraded from hypothesis to belief, the logical contradiction I pointed out earlier stands unchanged: In the intro, the assertion is made that there is an "unambiguous" scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS. Then there is a quote from said Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, that Duesberg is correct that HIV doesn't explain all the facets of immunodeficiency. Now, what is the reader to make of that? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban for BruceSwanson (talk · contribs)

Note this discussion regarding a topic ban of Bruce for all AIDS-denialism related pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And note my reply.

The Horton Quote

Just want to notify before I move it to Horton's own page. It's obsolete (from 1996) and not in line with consensus. It belongs on his page, not this one. Operative67 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inventing the AIDS Virus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604155409/http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html to http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html

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) 22:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)