From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Dealing with "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" people.
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6149
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.105428.24182@cs.ucla.edu> aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.151222.6771@cs.ucla.edu> doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug  
>Sewell) writes:
>> I have several well-meaning acquaintances that are convinced that HIV
>> doesn't cause AIDS.  And they're persistent as <insert favorite evan-
>> gelistic cult here> about it, and somehow think that unless I buy into
>> what they're offering, they've failed in life.
>...
>> What better can I do to deal with these people ?
>
>Such people are not unique to the AIDS situation. This is about on line  
>with the UFO cults, Shroud of Turin believers, and psychics. Some person  
>with a Ph.D and an axe to grind grabs onto a dubious theory and uses  
>his/her education and intelligence to support the unsupportable in a way  
>that is all to convincing to most people. Usually, there is some  
>compelling sociological force behind wanting to believe such theories. 

>
>2. Recognize that while education may be necessary to be an authority, it  
>is not sufficient. There are lots and lots of crackpots with Ph.D's  
>running around. Duseberg even has a respectable position at Berkeley, I  
>believe. Don't let credentials sway you.

Duseberg is also one of the worlds leading retrovirists.  He may be wrong,
but it's difficult to consider him a crackpot.

>
>4. If a better model came up, it would be adapted relatively quickly.  
>Contrary to popular belief, most scientists are not stick-in-the-muds that  
>will hold onto a theory at any cost. Some extremely radical,  
>career-destroying theories have been readily adapted in the past when it  
>was recognized that they were superior; witness Planck's quanta, which  
>nobody believed at first, Godel's theorem, which was immediately  
>recognized as correct even though it turned much of mathematics upside  
>down, etc. If Duseberg's model is correct, (actually he doesn't have one),  
>why doesn't anyone in the scientific community take it seriously??

If a better model....well, probably the reason why Duseberg's theory is not
appreciated is that it is only a negation--he says this is not the case in
my professional opinion.  No detailed theory about the cause of AIDS is
given by  Duseberg.  Sometimes  people have to have answers.  Can you
imagine what the media would do if many scientists agreed that they did not
know what Caused AIDS?
>
>5. The HIV-AIDS connection may indeed be wrong, but its flaws are no  
>greater than those in many other medical theories. It's the best bet we  
>have right now.

Exactly my point.  It's the only theory we have that makes any sense, but
when you look at it more closely, according to Duseberg, it doesn't add up. 

>Most significantly, Duseberg's theories are no reason to be complacent  
>about AIDS and not use condoms. Even if AIDS might not be contagious - a  
>long shot - it would be stupid to base your actions on an off-the-wall  
>theory, no matter how much you want to believe it. This shouldn't need  
>saying, but I think that many of the people that want to believe that HIV  
>is not the cause of AIDS do so because they don't want to believe that  
>they are at risk from their activity. I've actually been in situations  
>where men have tried to use this as a justification for unsafe sex. Not a  
>good idea!
>

Rightly said.

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids