Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?

[craig duncan <craig-duncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The first thing i note, after reading the first page of the paper cited by
Chris, and then rereading the first paragraph immediately below, is that a
switcheroo has taken place.  Now we're no longer talking about there being no
such thing as the HIV virus but rather (a much more reasonable question) what
is the link between HIV and AIDS (if any)?  To quote from the first page of
the cited study:

> According to this hypothesis AIDS is not contagious, not immunogenic,
> not treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and HIV is just a
> passenger virus.

In other words, i think it's fair to note that this study _itself_ does not
question the existence of the HIV virus.  I think it's been understood for a
long time that poor nutrition and (non-virus caused) abuse of the immune
system play a role in the development of AIDS.  Now maybe this discussion can
proceed a little more reasonably.

craig


bar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Read the following paper and you will have answers to your questions. One
> of the best surveys of the current medical knowledge and in my view a
> compelling refutation of the hiv causal link to aids.
>
> The Chemical Bases of The Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs,
> Anti-Viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition, Duesberg,P.University of
> California, Koehnlein,C. Kiel University, Rasnick, D. University of
> California, 2003 Journal of Biological Science 28
> http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
>
> Chris