James,
Much of the genealogy of dissent that you outline here is true. But a couple of points: Yo wrote:
> Whatever the reasons, the empirical evidence has been mounting up ever
> since AIDS was identified: some groups are more at risk than others.
Key Questions: Which groups are those? Why are some groups more at risk than other people? You might have noticed that over the last several years, co-factors has become a very useful term for AIDS researchers. Why? In my opinion, it is a not very scientific catch-all term that allows them to account for the many, many "AIDS cases" that defy the predictions of the standard theory while not having to abandon the standard theory (with all of the professional and personal complications that would entail). Traditional cancer theorist have gotten into the act, too. Instead of fundamentally rethinking the "cancer virus" theory, they are now pointing to "dietary and environmental co-factors" (while also, of course, pimping new, very poorly worked out theories about genetic predispositions).
>
> >
> Duesberg, and some gay activists, have drawn attention to the mismatch
> between official estimates and official figures to point to the
> 'obvious' conclusion: HIV is a myth.
Duesberg absolutely does not conclude that HIV is a myth. He concludes that HIV is a harmless retrovirus present in all human beings and that could not possibly be doing all the things that are claimed for it. Personally, I think Duesberg is an arrogant fellow and to the extent I have been able to make sense of his politics, I don't like them. But he is not a dummy. And I do find it interesting that he very quickly went from being arguably the best known, and very well-funded, cancer researcher in the world--as, it is worth noting, a very, very mainstream researcher--to a reviled AIDS dissident.
>
the threatened heterosexual aids epidemic never happened.
Yes. And knowing what we know about viruses, it is right and proper to ask, "is it really a virus that is causing all this havoc?" There is a long and very productive history in science of questioning the unquestionable: the basic premise. But in light of the many deaths, for AIDS researchers to do that would make them vulnerable to criticisms of profound negligence, arrogance, opportunism...Who wants that? Better just to denounce AIDS dissenters as loonies, lumping them into the wacky new age category, or whatever. Hey and what the hell: they are not scientist so they clearly don't know any better.
Chris
>
>
>