I hope you won’t think I’m picking on you, but I need to point this out. I understand your admiration for Peter Duesberg. But, consider for a moment if he would be as defensive because someone disagreed with him. The whole point of the dissidence movement is criticism of a prevailing theory. For myself, the very heart of my discomfiture with the AIDS establishment is their unwillingness to tolerate disagreement and dissent. It’s bad science. It’s a betrayal of the scientific method to say that any body of scientific research is set in stone and cannot be retested, criticized, revised, and even, disproved. It shouldn’t be personal or political. It should be no crime in science to be wrong. All that matters is the advancement and evolution of knowledge. It’s all part of the process. No theory and no theorist should be put on such a pedestal. That way lies madness.

We’re not molecular biologists, but the tests, the drugs and the stigma are a civil rights issue.

Site rule: No name calling in comments, or you don’t get to comment.

Try to be accurate, and have a little respect, d——, Peter has sacrificed more than you ever will to get at the truth.

I have to say, I find this interesting. It’s more than a little wonky, and not easy for prime time, but you can get a sense of how hard these guys have to work to cobble together these molecules. I’m more than fairly convinced that there are several dozen-to-innumerable processes going on at a cellular level, that are now being categorized (and synthesized) as a single idea.

That’s why I’m more than a little sure that Peter D. is incorrect, and the Perth group is more than a little correct. HIV isn’t a ‘harmless passenger virus’ – it’s not a singularity. It’s a multiplicity of events, synthesized into one idea…

Either they’re all HIV, or none of them are HIV.