proximoception (
proximoception) wrote2006-06-05 03:15 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
(no subject)
Harpers published a remarkably brave piece on AIDS and Duesberg in March (though it didn't mention the latter's name till halfway through, after anecdotes of malpractice murders; that's the state of things), available online here: http://www.harpers.org/OutOfControl.html
no subject
Your physician friends' assurances stem from superior knowledge or from how horrible the alternative possibility is, for them personally. I just bring this up to note the limits of an expert-consensus defense against this particular kind of charge. Any expert in the witness box is also a defendant.
Duesberg refuses epidemiological evidence? He's always accepted, with reservations, the correlations among the AIDS diseases--e.g. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch4.html [non-pdf]. He accepts that "AIDS" is a real thing, in the sense that these diseases are the first through the breach when the immune system breaks down. He even accepts the high correlation of these diseases with HIV, his point has always been that the specifics don't indicate cause. When did he deny "the power of sophisticated statistical analysis"? As a non-epidemiologist, Duesberg's argument has relied on nothing else. If you're saying sophisticated next-generation models have been applied by HIV->AIDS theorists, I'd like to see the results. Truly.
And I apologize if the pdf below was by quacks (admittedly, inevitably the vast majority of AIDS-dissenters), I'll have to look at that myself. Though I'd also like to know what the false-positive/false-negative tunings are like for diseases of comparable (alleged) fatality rates.