Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:05:59 EST
>Here is the latest that Johnson has written on his view of the HIV/AIDS
>situation, as far as I know. If you read this you will see that his
>criticism is primarily with how HIV is transmitted. I'll let him speak for
>himself. And read the two articles, one from Independent (Johannesburg) >
>February 20, 2003, and the other from Globe and Mail Editorial (Toronto)
>Saturday, February 22, 2003, Page A20.
>Hope this helps.
Thanks for the update, Bob. Sounds like he's still pals with Duesberg
and dishing out the same sort of selective historic revisionism.
Although the articles discuss HIV transmission, the early paragraphs
strongly suggest that he still denies the relationship between HIV and
Note the following: PJ writes, "This sleight of hand came naturally
to the virus hunters at the National Cancer Institute, who had
invented the HIV theory of AIDS after they had wasted many billions
searching for a viral cause of cancer and needed a new "deadly virus"
to justify their huge funding."
They "invented" the HIV theory of AIDS, eh? Ha! That stillborn, pathetic
claim has been around since the late 1980s (If anyone believes that I've
also got the shocking story that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed...)
Or maybe the true story was that researchers found a previously unknown
virus that was not only responsible for killing many homosexuals and IV
drug abusers but was also getting into the nation's blood supply system
(additionally killing thousands of hemophiliacs and transfusion patients
like Arthur Ashe as a consequence).
But hey, if one assumes that most of science is little more than a
political exercise, who knows what to think? That's kind of a post-
modern viewpoint, isn't it?
firstname.lastname@example.org (to despam, remove 2nd hormel)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 11:50:58 EST