Comment: Like I said

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Duesberg is easily proven wrong (see in situ)

Like I said

you need to read the book. Because the points you made are strawmen which you'd know better than to use if you'd actually read his book and understood what he actually says.

Do you know how people are actually diagnosed as having AIDS? By identification of one or more old diseases that fall under the long menu of "AIDS dideases," such as pneumonia, TB, Kaposi sarcoma, muscle atrophy, etc., etc. Of course not everyone who mainlines heroine or smokes crack or inhales poppers gets AIDS. But those heavy drug users who've abused these drugs over a long period of time often do develope one or more of the above dieases: poppers=kaposi sarcoma (KS actually appears as a side effect of amyl nitrate inhalers in the PDR), mainlining heroine=TB, smoking crack=pneumonia (as already stated, in many hardcore users over long periods of time). People diagnosed with one or more of these old diseases are often diagnosed with AIDS even if they test negative for HIV, and are put on highly toxic pharmaceuticals like AZT (which by itself, causes AIDS -- see this chapter from Duesberg's book:

Just because a scientist "bucks the system" doesn't make him incorrect either. Consider Duesberg's reputation and ask yourself why a brilliant scientist like him would be willing to lose research grants and being smeared throughout the establishment scientific community over this issue. Also, consider how people like Duesberg can be singled out as an example to keep other scientists in line. It's an old tactic that works well, unfortunately.

Read the book.