Great disclaimer at the beginning. I think I can guess the rest, given
that it features Peter Duesberg. Here is something I posted recently
about Duesberg's woeful attempts to come up with "HIV negative AIDS"
cases. Perhaps you can defend his approach.
--

Here is a bit of classic Peter Duesberg, from his 1993 paper in
Biotechology. He is expounding on his attempts to identify cases of
"HIV negative AIDS":

"Table 1 includes some American and European immunodeficiencies that
may not exactly fit the current definition of AIDS defining
immunodeficiency without disease, which is <200 T-cells per microliter
(CDC, 1992, MMWR 41, RR 17, 1-19), as for example, HIV-free male
homosexuals on various recreational drugs with "<600 cells per cubic
millimeter" or HIV-negative hemophiliacs with T4/T8 cell ratios of
about 1 or <1 (Table 1, refs. 46-61). But even if not all of these
cases fit the current definition of AIDS-defining immunodeficiency
exactly, they do so prospectively. This is because their T-cells
typically continue to decline either because of risk behavior, such as
the consumption of recreational drugs, or because of clinical AIDS
risks, such as chronic transfusion of foreign proteins as prophylaxis
against hemophilia (Duesberg, P.H., 1992, op. cit.)."

"They do so prospectively"!!!

I hope it is clear what Duesberg is saying here. In the Kaslow paper he
is citing (ref 14), gay men taking drugs did not display evidence of
AIDS unless they were HIV-infected. They had CD4 T cell counts in the
normal range. But Duesberg has decided to count them as "HIV-negative
AIDS" cases, because - according to him - "their T-cells typically
continue to decline either because of risk behavior, such as the
consumption of recreational drugs."

In other words, my theory predicts their drug use will cause their T
cells to decline to less than 200 cells, ergo I am counting them as
"HIV-negative AIDS" cases in order to support my theory that their drug
use will cause their T cells to decline to less than 200 cells. And
Duesberg accuses other scientists of circular reasoning! If you can
read this and still be surprised that Duesberg can't get published in a
serious journal, then I am at a loss. As you can see, he takes the same
approach with the literature on hemophiliacs.

Another interesting thing is that the reference to what the
HIV-negative gay men's T cell counts actually were is in the PDF of the
Biotechnology paper that is on Duesberg's website here:

http://duesberg.com/papers/the%20hiv%20gap.pdf

But in the version that is reproduced in HTML form on the "Virusmyth"
website, it reads thusly:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdbiotech93.htm

"HIV-free male homosexuals on various recreations drugs with "X cells
per cubic millimeter" (Table 1, ref. 14) or HIV-negative hemophiliacs
with T4/T8 cell ratios of about 1 or 1 (Table 1, refs. 46-61)."

Now, why would the Virusmyth website replace "<600 cells" with "X
cells"?

If you go on down through the other references in this Biotechnology
paper, you will that find Duesberg is similarly abusing them (e.g.
counting cases in Africa from papers that are arguing that these cases
do not, in fact, represent peope with AIDS). And Duesberg now claims to
have documented several thousand "HIV-negative AIDS" cases with this
kind of methodology, a claim Celia Farber repeats in her Harper's
article.

John Lauritsen--is that really you? Christ, are you still riding the
same stupid hobby horse all these years later?

I thought you were a rather bright individual. I guess not.

        George M. Carter

And this is the same pathetic piece of trash from 1994 that was posted
the other day. Is this the best you people can do?

Let's have a screening with David Pasquarelli! Yay! We'll invite is
ashes to speak afterwards. Maybe just put an urn up? Or was he buried?
Can we exhume him?

There! HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Gosh, he must have just been a big DRUG
USING whorish homo, right? That's what AIDS is! Or it's just starving
pickanninies in Africa! Sure! That's right.

And the evidence is EVER so strong for these hypotheses, right?

Feh.

        George M. Carter

still the question is why is aids research failing to come up with a
"cure".

you think by now the must know everything about it.