Mr. Carter:  "I do too--but they don't get the fact that they're
questioning one
authority while slavishly following denialist "authorities" who are
based on a.sholes like that right wing psychotic Rasnick."

1.  Who are "they?"  If you go to the AIDS Myth Exposed forum on MSN,
you find all kinds of different ideas.

2.  If you are talking about the "big names," there is considerable
diversity as well (Perth Group versus Duesberg is obvious enough, even
to those with no scientific understanding beyond what the "average"
person has been told about "HIV/AIDS").

3.  As to "following," again, if you just go to that one forum, you
will find more than a few people who have come to their own
conclusions, and cite evidence to support it.

4.  I have created my own site to discuss my views on this and other
subjects related to human health, again, which cite from scientific
reports and studies:  http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/

5.  I welcome a debate on this subject, and ask, as I have before, for
someone from the "orthodoxy" to step forward as a representative.  The
debate will focus on one very narrow issue only, and the
interpretation of the existing evidence will be what is discussed
mostly.  Raising tangential matters will not be allowed.

6.  This is not a political issue, but if one cannot provide a
scientific explanation that is consistent with the evidence, I can see
how resorting to calling people things like "right wing psychotics"
might help to deflect attention from this sad state of affairs.

7.  Politics is essentially about "ideology," whereas science is
supposed to be about the scientific method, which is clear and
straightforward.  One needs to begin with a formal hypothesis.  I have
asked for the hypothesis for "HIV/AIDS," but nobody seems to be able
to provide one.  Instead, there are markers used that are built upon
assumptions that were simply taken for granted, and those markers
don't even appear to be very good ones.

8.  I have read Rasnick's many statments about "HIV/AIDS," but I have
never seen any of these statements  contain remarks that appear to be
"right wing."  It is Mr. Carter's obligation at this point to provide
evidence of his claim.

9.  I am more than willing to take the "Duesberg challenge," if
certain minimal provisions are met, but nobody has shown any interest
in accepting my offer.  Moreover, I have put forth proposals that
would directly refute "HIV/AIDS," but again, no person of the
"orthodoxy" has shown any interest in this, even though I am willing
to pay for it if I am wrong.  For those who are unfamiliar with the
scientific method, it is often much easy to do a direct refutation
experiment as opposed to a demonstration of the claims accuracy.
Though in some cases it may be necessary for a hypothesis to put
presented, in this case, one could gather some gay college dropouts
who are "HIV negative" and isolate them, then have them "party like
it's 1979" for a couple of years, then take AZT for a couple of years,
then see if they "test positive for HIV."  Of course, if the orthodoxy
will state that they are "false positives" under these circumstances,
then we need not even conduct the experiment, as they will have then
demonstrated that they are interested in supporting ideology, and not
doing science.

My point was not to discuss Nader, but to point out there's extremes on
both sides.

B/

Perhaps you should add that detail to Wikipedia. :)

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory.  I haven't heard that one before.

I've no doubt there are some people who crave to be diagnosed HIV+,
and there are even some discussion forums for these so called 'bug
chasers.'

I think some people who have been diagnosed HIV+ do become addicted to
the treatment system.

I recall going to a meeting some years go about HIV+ treatments which
was organised by a local charity.  It was billed as having no
pre-conceptions and a forum for finding out about all the options and
opinions that were around.  First thing the organiser told us at the
beginning of the session was that he was on HIV+ medication and what a
huge beneficial change it had made to his life.

As you can probably image the rest of the meeting consisted of people
swapping notes about the drugs there were taking and the awful
side-affects they suffered from.

I recall one gentleman proudly telling the meeting about how he'd
traveled all around the UK to take part in various HIV drug trials.
He'd tried everything going and was quite angry that he'd come to the
end of the line and there was nothing else for him to try.