Einstein and many others talked in hypotheticals, but in this case, I
have the money to finance such an endeavor, but I am only willing to
pay if I am wrong.  Thus, if you think I am wrong, you can go ahead
and take me up on my offer.  We will put our money in escrow, have our
attorneys draw up an agreement, and let the scientific method decide
who is correct.

This still does not answer the question about where the abundance of
"HIV" particles are in those whom you claim have "high viral loads."
You know you cannot "win" on this issue, which is obvious even to many
non-scientists (who know about the actual evidence), and probably
explains the nasty responses to a simple, on-point, and crucial
scientific question about the "HIV/AIDS" claim (whatever it happens to
be today).  Everyone I talk to about this says things like, "no, that
can't be - there must be a lot of 'HIV' in people with high viral
loads."  When I tell them that I'm willing to pay for the experiment
if I am wrong, but that the apologists won't take me up on this offer,
then most realize that something is very wrong.  You can try to fight
basic common sense, but it will win out in the long term.

As to "expertise," you attack those who have it, like Duesberg, so
what would it matter what my credentials are?  But for those who don't
know that experts have pointed out such flaws long ago, we will turn
to an expert on EM:

"...It became acceptable to postulate that when viruses cannot be seen
by EM in cancer cells, biochemical or immunological methods supposedly
identifying viral "markers" were enough to demonstrate viral infection
of the cells under scrutiny. Such markers can be an enzyme (RT), an
antigen, various proteins, or some RNA sequences. Never seeing the
viral particles was conveniently explained by the integration of the
viral genome into the chromosomes of the alleged infected cells. To
accommodate such interpretations implied complete oblivion of all we
knew from previous research on cancer of experimental animals.
Admittedly, in these models EM was only showing terminal steps of
viral reduplication, initial phases being a series of molecular events
which escape ultrastructural recognition. Still, in all the classical
models such as murine and avian leukoses, visible terminal steps of
viral replication (i.e. "budding") were always observed and regarded
as essential for the spreading of infection from cell to cell.

Another shortcut with disastrous consequences has been the naive
notion that any material banding at 1.16gm/ml represented
retroviruses! Sure enough, true retroviruses band around that density.
But this does not mean that whatever material bands at 1.16gm/ml is
retroviral in nature! In the 1960s I was frequently asked to look at
such 1.16gm/ml bands by biochemists: "Look at this, it forms a sharp
band, it should be pure viruses!" Ultracentrifugation pellets obtained
from such "sharp bands" showed, in thin sections for EM, an extreme
variety of microvesicles and proteinaceous debris, but no
retroviruses! Still, this approach has been (and still is!) used to
identify virus "markers!" How sad it is to think that a simple EM
control of such "bands" (which takes about two days, and costs a few
hundred dollars, but has never been done before 1997) could have
prevented these highly misleading interpretations of "markers" on
which large budgets have been simply wasted..

Collecting viruses from the supernatant of cultures of virus infected
cells raises other questions. We all remember the discovery, by
Epstein (15) in 1964 of the EB virus in cultures derived from African
Burkitt's lymphomas. This was an EM finding and the virus was
immediately and properly classified as a member of the herpes group.
To identify this DNA virus in cultured cells it was necessary to look
into partially degenerating cells because, most obviously, the virus
had a marked cytolytic effect. By complete contrast, retrovirus-
carrying cells maintain excellent viability and released viruses can
be easily recovered in the culture supernatant without the need to
apply any lymphokine or growth factors stimulation to the cultures..."

By Etienne de Harven, an Emeritus Professor of Pathology and electron
microscopist.

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

The only question that is of major interest to me on this thread now
is the motivation of people like Noble and Carter.  Are they deluded,
are they industry shills, or are they posting such indefensible
nonsense for some other reason?

Think as you like; you are so incoherent as to be of no interest.  I
am only interested in the scientific method, not attempts to bypass
it.  But why don't you ask someone who believes in the KPs this
question?  I am under no obligation to respond to your irrelevant
questions.  However, if you decide to take me up on my experimental
offer, which will actually demonstrate whether a claim is valid or
not, you can let me know.

I will point out, for those who may not have noticed, that if rats are
living together, they are going to do more than breath the same air.
They are going to do the same kinds of things that humans do that may
spread "infectious disease."  If this kind of experiment is of no
interest to you, then you may do better posting your ideas on a
religious newsgroup, for instance.