I have been arguing against HIV-AIDS denialism for many years and have actually converted a few such ignorant death-promoters to the scientific perspective on the issue.
After watching the first day of a week-long “news” series on KCOP-Los Angeles (IIRC) in the 80’s strongly endorsing Duesberg’s and others’ denialist claims with virtually no balance whatsoever, I even personally launched an email, letter, and telephone campaign against KCOP that included Nobel laureates and others on the Skeptical Inquirer’s masthead that I contacted.
After a couple of days of this, the reporter and producer apologized (very begrudgingly) by phone to myself and on the air, but the strong stench of HIV->AIDS denialism didn’t fade for years.
With that in mind, I suggest that Guy in the Corner and others interested in this topic acquire the very recent September/October 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, the cover of which is headlined: AIDS: Deniers vs. Science.
It’s reasonable to say that because HIV/AIDS is not perfectly understood, there are scientific holes which open cracks just wide enough for the skeptics to gain a toehold.
This is true of almost any conspiracy theory. I would not waste time arguing with HIV/AIDS deniers. On average conspiracy believers are either unintelligent enough to understand the scientific data, or they have a disorder which is essentially a mild form of paranoia. It will be very frustrating convincing such an individual that the rest of the scientific/industrial/political/capitalist(you name the possible conspirators) cabal is not either in on the conspiracy, or duped by it.
Further complicating the AIDS issue, aside from the complexity of the HIV/AIDS pathogenesis itself is the relationship of natural host defenses and testing/definitional ambiguities. Suppose, as an example, that there are human genes which confer a natural immunity to HIV analgous to simian resistance to SIV. Until those genes are better defined, there will be even more confounding data showing healthy human hosts who are HIV-positive. That sort of data will only encourage HIV/AIDS deniers that they have had it right all along. In some African settings where HIV has existed for more than a generation, selection for such genes has already begun to occur, and until the entire host-pathogen relationship is clarified, clever deniers will always be able to find cracks from which to hang their billboards of doubt.
In the end you must decide if you are arguing with the Ignorant, the Stupid, or the Paranoid. Only the first can be cured.
Not even in the slightest. Again, these data are evidence that the antibodies being used to detect HIV proteins were non-specific. Back in 1990, that is.
This is the conclusion that I draw from the data. Incidentally, it’s also the conclusion that the authors of the study draw from the data.
If their data were so important as to prove that HIV negative dogs test positive for HIV, and therefore disproves the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, don’t you think they might have mentioned that possibility in the Discussion section of the paper?
And probably published in a better journal?
In other words you’re drawing conclusions from a paper that the authors themselves didn’t draw.
I’m curious. Are you saying that peoples that were genetically disinclined to be vulnerable to the plague are more inclined to be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS?
If so, do you have any idea why? This seems like one of those cool genetics/evolution things that you wish you had learned in school.
Its a mutation called Delta-32. If you have one copy you have resistance, if you have both you are immune. Its much more prolific in Europe as it is apparently the same gene that gave resistance/immunity to the black death in the 1300’s (and may have given resistance to smallpox).
