==His problem was that he couldn't show why keeping the AIDS virus out of the blood supply prevented any new AIDS clinical diagnoses.
Wrong again. Look closely. Not only did the number of AIDS cases continue to rise when they began screening HIV out of the blood supply, but the number of AIDS cases continued to rise even though the number of HIV infections were in steep decline. Duesberg predicted this, whereas the AIDS establishment predicted the exact opposite. But because the implications of Duesberg's risk-AIDS hypothesis were not politically correct, Duesberg had his career ruined by the AIDS establishment:
Wrong again. Look closely. Not only did the number of AIDS cases continue to rise when they began screening HIV out of the blood supply, but the number of AIDS cases continued to rise even though the number of HIV infections were in steep decline. You are incorrect. It's well known that AIDS takes years to develop from HIV infection.
And both your graphs show AIDS cases declining starting in the 90's as you'd expect.
You know the CDC has this data through 2006. I'm wondering why you don't post it in the place of the older graphs? Because of the precipitous decline in AIDS cases?
Duesberg ruined his own career by gambling with people's lives.