> if you mean have i seen very impressive writings that punch all kinds
> of holes in the standard theory, yes.
I can find impressive writings that punch holes in a lot of things. Unfortunately, I can't say that the existence of holes necessarily invalidates a theory; what does is a counterexample.
> why? if you found out that UN does not require an HIV test in africa
> to determine whether an african is HIV positive, wouldn't you think
> something funny is going on?
No, I'd think that most nations in sub-saharan africa are too poor to pay even a few dollars for an HIV test to diagnose someone with AIDS. They only pay a few dollars a year per person on health care period.
What researchers do do is sample those diagnosed with AIDS by clinicians to judge accuracy, much the same as pollsters sample those expressing a preference to judge the way an election is going to go. Diagnosis of AIDS is reasonably accurate (no doubt helped by the fact that AIDS is rampant in sub-saharan Africa) while diagnosis of HIV status prior to developing AIDS is inaccurate.
Virusmyth contains three main objections to the HIV-AIDS link
1) Some dispute whether HIV exists. (notably Kary Mullis and the Perth group) 2) Some dispute whether HIV causes AIDS (Peter Duesberg, who even tried to claim the virusmyth challenge prize, most others) 3) Some dispute whether AIDS exists.
Not exactly a consistent bunch of critics.
Marco
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | Whenever books are burned <
> mpa at the-wire.com | men also in the end are burned. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --Heinrich Heine <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'