SLM slmanley at csulb.edu
Thu Dec 8 14:19:44 EST 1994

Keith Robison (robison at lipid.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The "bad" news for the Duesberg hypothesis is the recent identification
: of a plausible primate model for AIDS published in a recent issue of
: Science.  The animals are infected with a particular HIV strain, and
: do get many of the same symptoms as AIDS (low T-cell count et al).
: One of Duesberg's old hammer points was that HIV did not satisfy
: Koch's postulates for the AIDS disease agent -- that the linkage between 
: HIV and AIDS was purely circumstantial, and that given the nature of
: AIDS (multiple opportunistic infections), it was plausible that HIV
: was just another opportunist [i.e. effect, not cause].  Creating an
: animal AIDS model would appear to nail that argument -- HIV has 
: now been shown in the lab to cause AIDS.  

: I haven't heard any comment from Duesberg about this recent development.
: Is he going to admit he was wrong, fade from the scene, or start moving
: his goalposts?

: robison at mito.harvard.edu 

is there any article in which **each point** made by Duesberg is answered
succinctly and when the answer is "it is not known" it is stated. as i see
it the problem with "AIDS Scientists" is that they dont take the time to
take Duesberg on in a legitimate scientific exchange and they are affraid 
of saying "i dont know". outsiders, including me, interpret this as an 
indication that the politics of AIDS and AIDS funding, is driving the 
science and the discourse instead of the "search for truth". 

More information about the Bioforum mailing list