[GodGunsGuts]

If you would like to be added to the RETHINKING AIDS PING LIST drop me a FReepmail.**For more information, see my profile page**

[Hans]

The problem is who would trust anything Time Magazine wrote?

[GodGunsGuts]

Very sad. All Duesberg’s risk-AIDS hypothesis predictions were confirmed by science, and virtually all the AIDS establishments predictions turned out to be false, and how does the biomedical research establishment show its appreciation?...by destroying Duesberg’s brilliant career. The global warming fanatics have nothing on these guys. What a shame.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Then in 1988, Duesberg broke ranks with his colleagues and postulated that the newly discovered human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) was not the cause of AIDS.

His problem was that he couldn't show why keeping the AIDS virus out of the blood supply prevented any new AIDS clinical diagnoses. This is still true 20 years later. No virus, no disease.

As a result he was helping convince future AIDS victims (mainly homosexuals and other sodomists) that they didn't need to worry about contracting the disease in the face of evidence to the contrary. And he still has no evidence for this view.

But his views on cancer are much closer to those of the researchers who work in the field. We'll see.

[IrishCatholic]

If you look at the underlying problem in the story is that bureaucracy controls science and personalities control science. Not facts.
If you aren’t popular then you won’t get toys and money. So go with the popular theories if you want funding.

[Little Ray]

Ummm, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS then why do the treatment protocols based that “flawed” science seem to extend AIDS patients’ life expectancies?

[Logophile]

But even as some of his ideas rise to the top, Duesberg himself remains stuck at the bottom. Few scientists who have turned their attention to aneuploidy bother to cite Duesberg's work. His lab is down to its last $50,000, and this past year Berkeley officials relieved him of his only remaining teaching duty. Even some scientists who don't agree with Duesberg say that he has been treated unfairly. "The ideological assassinations that he has undergone will remain an embarrassing testament to the reactionary tendencies of modern science," Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote in 1996.

Even if it were discovered that Duesberg had been right all along, don't expect anyone to acknowledge him. Once the scientific establishment declared him a persona non grata, his work disappeared down the memory hole.