-----Original Message-----
From: Jim heartfield
>
>Because the predictions of the spread of aids did not materialise in the
>way assumed, the scientific theory of AIDS has always provoked
>dissidents like Duesberg, Joan Shenton and others. Such dissidents' own
>theories are problematic (the separation of HIV and AIDS is far from
>convincing).
>
Duesberg's theory is also scientific. He's an epidemiologist at Berkeley.
It's all perfectly rational. There's no simple way of dismissing his
theory. It may be promlematic, but so is the standard view.
>Thabo Mbeki's doubts about AIDS might well be motivated by a penny-
>pinching attitude to health care (it's not the richest country in the
>world) or even by homophobia (though I doubt it);
Mbeki must really believe that the dissidents are right. How else to explain the risk he's taking by associating himself with people widely perceived to be lunatics? Anyone who reads Duesberg's theory is going to come away with the impression that he has a powerful argument. Basically, he posits that AIDS is caused by two factors-- heavy use of "hard" drugs and malnutrition. The reason so many gay men came down with AIDS in the early 80s is that overuse of very harmful drugs had been commonplace in the gay community for several years by that time. AIDS has all the hallmarks of exposure to toxicity (as well as malnutrition) and none of the hallmarks of viral infection. Instead of responding to this simple fact with reasoned argument, his opponents have ignored him or accused him of being deranged. It's the fallacy of abuse.
I'm certainly not convinced on this issue. I would like to be convinced, one way or the other. But where is the rational response to Duesberg?
Ted