If it's so well documented, then why does Duesberg tear his "scientific" opposition to shreds in debate (to include printed debates in scientific journals)?
==If Duesberg’s claims were true, HIV screening of the blood supply wouldn’t have reduced the rate that recipients of blood, and blood products, get AIDS.
Did you take a look at the graph I sent you? HIV screening of the blood supply did nothing to reduce the number of AIDS cases. Indeed, the number of AIDS cases continued their steep rise for almost a decade, even as the number of HIV-positive blood donors steeply declined during that same period.
==You are incorrect. It's well known that AIDS takes years to develop from HIV infection.
You mean the infamous latency period that they kept have to revise for less than a year, to a year, to three years, to five years, to ten years, to twelve years, etc, etc?
Tell me 1/1%, how do you explain the total number of HIV infections remaining constant as the number of AIDS cases increased, and then decreased. Do you suppose it is possible that it has something to do with the graphs below?
