NOAM CHOMSKY DEBATES AIDS
By Mike Chappelle
Z magazine Oct./Nov. '00
You point out the need to "do the work" in order to show that outcomes
of medical research are determined by the source of funding. It seems to
me this work has already been done. In fact the history of modern
medical research, medical education, and public health is one long tale
about how the source of funding (from the senior "Partners in Science" )
defined the field of inquiry for the scientists (the junior partners,)
thereby limiting the outcomes. The story is well-documented and
uncontroversial, although not generally known. To oversimplify: During
the so-called Progressive Era, US philanthropists and their foundations
acted to establish the medical model we now refer to as Western
medicine. They took this action in the context of a radical public
health movement taking place during the period. This movement was
calling for "the development of the social machinery which will ensure
to every individual in the community a standard of living adequate for
the maintenance of health." Radical public health was accurately
perceived by dominate elites as a threat to their interests. Thus, as an
alternative to it, philanthropists funded research institutes based on
the "German model." A model that was the least holistic or
socio-economically oriented of its day. Then, after wresting control of
medical education away from medical practitioners and transfering this
control to elite universities (which were being restructured with
foundation funding as well), they embedded the type of science developed
in the institutes into medical schools as the appropriate knowledge
base. Parallel to these developments the co-opting of the public health
movement proceeded, eliminating its radical elements as much as
possible, and removing it from local control. The US medical version of
the German model that resulted was exported to other parts of the world.
American foundations eventually transfered the bulk of the funding of
the US system to the federal goverment, again unknown but
uncontroversial (I would be happy to provide a brief bibliography upon
request. Also as to your personal experience, while it points to
problems in science, it is of a different kind than what's found in
medical science where corporate interests are off the scale).
Restricting medical research to an examination of what can be seen under
a microscope pushed consideration of the social causes of disease
(poverty, malnutrition, industrial poisoning of the environment and
workplace, etc.) as far to the background as possible. Today this can be
clearly seen in cancer research, where the agri-chemical-pharmaceutical
industry directs the field of inquiry in both public and private
research. The predictable result is that cancer research tries
desperately to pin cancer on a virus or gene. Meanwhile the enivronment
"keeps falling off the cancer screen." Industrial causes of cancer and
other diseases (as noted by Edward Herman) being obfuscated by
"corporate junk science."
Cancer research is especially relevent when talking about AIDS. In many
ways the war on AIDS can be seen as continuation of the war on cancer
-same viruses, same virologists, different decade. Cancer virologists,
after failing for years in their own specialty, were able to take over
control (from epidemiologists) of the AIDS epidemic . In other words,
the same researchers who had been alleging viruses cause cancer started
alleging a virus causes AIDS.
Why they were able to pin AIDS on a retrovirus but not cancer is a
longer discussion. For now I'll just mention that HIV was announced to
be the cause of AIDS at a press conference in 1984. The standard peer
review process, where the checks and correctives you mention should have
kicked in, was bypassed. A small minority of scientists at the top of
the NCI/NIH, by citing each others work, and with the support of medical
writers such as Lawrence Altman and Gina Kolata ("a faithful apologist
for corporate science") of the New York Times, were able to establish
the HIV hypothesis. For cancer researchers this was the start of their
second "gold rush."
You rightly point out the need to study the fundamental biology. I
think, however, you'd be suprised to find how much fundamental biology
is contradicted by AIDS (for instance the role of antibodies.) You also
point out the advantages to an understanding gained by immersion in the
field. Immersion in a field is, of course, usually a good thing, but
only if one is free to pursue all avenues of reasonable thought. If not
free to queston, immersion reinforces a narrow range of thinking
"encouraged" by outside constraints (the needs of the senior "partners.)
In such cicumstances an "uneducated" but independent mind will have a
better chance of seeing the reality of the situation. In fact we can
learn a lot just by remembering our own experience and trusting it. Do
you recall when we first talked about these things in the early 1990s? I
said that one reason I believed HIV does not cause AIDS was that AIDS
did not act like an infectious disease because it was not spreading
beyond the orginal risk groups in the United States. That, based on the
original definition of the disease, AIDS cases here had already peaked.
You replied that two of your doctor friends were predicting hospital
beds (in the Boston area?) would be overflowing with AIDS patients
within two years: a reasonable prediction if HIV was the cause of AIDS.
However the hospital beds did not overflow. Doesn't this suggest a
failure in the HIV model? Other dire predictions (without either cure or
vaccine being made available) have likewise failed to materialize. As
regards drugs and treatment, this also requires a full discussion, which
I hope can be pursued in this forum.
To understand what is going on in AIDS, we need to transcend the limits
of medical thinking put in place by robber barrons turned
philanthropists --the non-scientist, decision making, senior partners.
To do so I believe it helps to think in terms of the two major
categories of disease: diseases of wealth and diseases of poverty.
Diseases of wealth (cancers, coronary heart disease, arthritis etc.) are
rare or non-existant in lesser developed countries --until those
countries start to industrialize, pollute and otherwise poison their
inhabitants. Diseases of poverty are the infectious diseases
(tuberculosis, etc. ) which disappeared in the developed nations as the
living standards of their inhabitants rose. Diseases of poverty are not
merely linked to poverty -they are caused by poverty and cured by decent
living conditions. It is poverty that causes hunger and malnutrition,
which eventually weakens the immune system enough so that any one of an
approximately infinite number of microbes, which are and will always be
ubiquitous on the planet, begin to multiply in any individual. AIDS is
unique because it belongs to both categories. This is because AIDS is
not a disease but a syndrome. A syndrome is a collection of diseases. In
AIDS there are 30 diseases, all old diseases, some caused by poverty and
malnutrition, others through toxic poisons ie: drugs, both recreational
and medical. Hence the differences between Western AIDS and African
The question then, of which AIDS is but one example, comes down to this:
Do we want a "Star Wars" approach to health? Whereby microbes, be they
"returning," "mutating," or "emerging," are to be sought out and
terminated one by one by one by one in a never ending battle with
nature. Such an approach, as you noted, is historically irrelevant in
terms of public health. Shouldn't we instead be trying to think of a
more holistic-social approach -one along the lines of the radical public
health movement of the early 20th century? An approach which puts an end
to the poisoning and/or food depravation of the world's citizens and
instead "boosts the immunity" of communities "through the development of
the social machinery which will ensure to every individual in the
community a standard of living adequate for the maintenance of health."
As I said, all this oversimplifies. But these are the areas I believe to
be relevant and necessary for a serious discussion.
Reply from Noam Chomsky:
As Mike Chappelle notes, this is a continuation of a long discussion. It
gets nowhere because we are, plainly, not connecting. Let's try to
clarify what is at stake.
There is a fair measure of agreement. Specifically, we agree that there
is a serious moral issue about HIV-AIDS. Let's make it concrete,
referring to southern Africa.
South Africa's trade union confederation and human rights commission,
nurses and doctors from poor areas, and many others have bitterly
condemned the government's hesitation on HIV-AIDS and AIDS policy
generally, describing it as a symptom of the government's lack of
concern for the poor black majority, even threatening legal action to
force the government to provide drugs to HIV carriers.
This would imply to me that the Trade Union Confederation & Human Rights
Commission are playing what we usually call a 'sympathetic/race card' in
suggesting a "lack of concern for the poor black majority" placing the
responsibility of medical attention (i.e. cheap pharmaceuticals) for the
population, on the South African government. The 'suffering of the
masses' can only be relieved by loans from the IMF & western banking
institutions, which Mbeki is also critical of, AND the various South
African medical/trade establishments are being pressured to accept.
Suppose Mike succeeds in convincing them of his stand. If he turns out
to be right, then South Africans will save money (and incidentally, the
drug companies will be pleased to be relieved of the pressure, which
they have been strenuously resisting, to make drugs available well below
the cost they prefer). If he turns out to be wrong, millions of people
will be condemned to a hideous death and the country will be devastated.
So the moral issues are doubtless very real.
I would argue that pharmaceutical multinationals, which would directly
benefit from cheap African labor, would not be putting up much of a
struggle over a reduced profit margin when they HAVE weighed the
benefits of getting the patents on 1000's of indigenous plant & animal
organisms (stealing cultural medicine.)
There are other areas of agreement: source of funding can affect
outcomes, and for many reasons, the dominant "medical model" is highly
flawed. I gave a few examples: the lack of attention to public health,
the "90-10 rule" (90% of the research for the ailments of 10% of the
population), etc. Among the overwhelming majority of scientists who
regard the HIV-AIDS link as having been credibly established, and
therefore call for making drugs available to HIV carriers, many not only
agree with these general conclusions but have also dedicated much of
their lives to them. Doubtless issues of the highest importance, but not
The issues that actually are in dispute reduce to these:
(1) Is HIV a cause of AIDS?
(2) Has virtually the entire biological and medical community been so
totally taken over by drug companies that they are engaged in vast and
uniform falsification about (1), cutting off critics from funds,
publishing opportunities, etc.?
Mike tells us that he has done the required work and knows the answers
to these questions: Yes, Yes.
At this point, others have three choices:
(a) accept Mike's conclusions without further inquiry
(b) accept the very broad consensus of scientists
(c) seek to find the answers themselves.
As I mentioned, similar questions arise in many other areas, e.g.,
global warming (or taking my car to be fixed). The editors of the Wall
Street Journal, relying on the handful of scientists (some highly
respected in their fields) who reject the scientific consensus, urge
that the Kyoto protocols and other conservation efforts be rejected: as
in the case at hand, the alternatives raise very serious moral issues,
and the rest of us have the same three choices: (a) accept the
conclusions of the editors, (b) accept the scientific consensus, (c)
explore the fields seriously and reach our own conclusions.
I do not detect any controversy so far either. So what is at issue? Only
one thing, as far as I can see. Mike thinks the issue is resolved: we
should follow course (a), accepting his conclusions without further
inquiry, confidently proceeding to convince South Africans that they
should accept his conclusions as well, with the range of possible
consequences already outlined. I don't. There is no further issue that I
My October 31, 2000 response:
In your response to Greg Nigh you dismissed the possibility that HIV was
not the cause of AIDS, giving the following reason:
"If you believe that the source of funding of medical research may
determine its outcomes -- e.g., on global warming, HIV-AIDS, or anything
else, then its up to you to demonstrate it. It's of course possible, but
in my opinion, pretty unlikely."
In your response to me you say:
"There are other areas of agreement: source of funding can affect
outcomes, and for many reasons, the dominant "medical model" is highly
Thus your original argument to Greg has changed from:
We should accept HIV=AIDS because it is unlikely source of funding
affects outcomes. to:
We should accept HIV=AIDS in spite of the fact that source of funding
Naturally then you have offered other reasons for accepting HIV =AIDS
(the mainstream medical, scientific consensus) without further inquiry:
1. You imply that any alternative explanation for the majority of the
biomedical community supporting HIV=AIDS (other than it being true)
requires a vast and uniform conspiracy orchestrated by the
pharmaceutical industry. You put this in the form of a question:
"Has virtually the entire biological and medical community been so
totally taken over by drug companies that they are engaged in a vast and
uniform falsification about (HIV=AIDS), cutting off critics from funds,
publishing opportunities, etc.?"
Asking whether or not the pharmaceutical companies have taken over the
biological and medical community is, in my opinion, the wrong question.
It ignores the actual history, development, and organization of the
medical and biological disciplines. This, in turn, leads to an
inaccurate picture of the present structure of medical science and hence
is not a useful framework in which to either agree or disagree. As I
indicated in my first letter, we need to look at the hierarchical
medical scientific system that was established in the United States
during the so-called Progressive Era. At the top of the hierarchy were
the philanthropists and their foundations, the "senior partners" in
scientific medicine, who funded the system. This medical system remains
in place today. Pharmaceutical companies take advantage of this fact.
However, even if the pharmaceutical industry did not exist (and there
were free drugs for all) the system would continue pretty much the same.
Your question then, as I would put it, should read:
Have biologists and doctors received a type of education which has built
into it narrow ways of thinking about health and disease? Was this type
of education the one favored by the "senior partners" of science? Has
this education led the majority of biologists and doctors to internalize
the "senior partners'" medical system? Do pharmeceutical companies take
advantage of the medical system put in place by the "senior partners" to
make enormous profits?
To all of this I would say yes.
Such a system does not require a "vast and uniform falsification" on the
part of the biological and medical community. In fact many in the
biomedical community are critical of pharmaceutical companies as well as
the influence of pharmaceutical advertizing in medical journals, the
overprescribing of drugs etc. As you point out some are even in favor of
greater emphasis on the socio-economic factors of ill health. However
the more complete picture is akin to what you have written about the
media and the workings of the propaganda model: "...media news people,
frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to
convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news
'objectively' and on the basis of professional news values."
I should also point out here that critics of HIV, including emeritus
professors and members of the National Academy of Sciences (who have
published on other topics for years), HAVE been cut off from funds,
publishing opportunities, etc. This is simply a fact and one which is
easily verified. (How much of this censorship is attributable to control
of the journals through advertizing by pharmaceutical companies, and how
much by the bias in the overarching system, is difficult to separate
Another reason you give for accepting the HIV=AIDS hypothesis without
"Suppose Mike succeeds in convincing them (South Africa's trade union
confederation and human rights commission, nurses and doctors from poor
areas, and many others...) of his stand. If he turns out to be right,
then South Africans will save money (and incidentally, the drug
companies will be pleased to be relieved of the pressure, which they
have been strenuously resisting, to make drugs available well below the
cost they prefer). If he turns out to be wrong, millions of people will
be condemned to a hideous death and the country will be devastated. So
the moral issues are doubtless very real."
We agree the moral issues are very real. We also agree drug companies
want to maximize their profits and make strenuous efforts to do so at
the level they prefer. And, as you went on to say, they seek to steal
cultural medicine and they value cheap African labor. However I don't
think pharmaceutical companies will be pleased if South Africans cease
to believe in HIV as the cause of AIDS, and therefore logically refuse
to buy "antivirals" from the pharmaceutical companies, no matter how
much the price comes down. Drug companies also would not be happy with
"the threat of a good example" which South Africa, if allowed to improve
health by improving living conditions, would represent to the poorer
countries and people of the world. However the main problem I have with
this paragraph is that you reduce the issue to one of saving money
versus the risk of condeming millions of people to a hideous death. If
this were an accurate description of the alternatives it might
constitute a legitimate argument. However I think a fairer way of
framing the issue is:
If HIV causes AIDS, if the numbers of people reported to be infected
with HIV in Africa are accurate, if having HIV always leads to AIDS, and
if medical drugs are the only way to treat AIDS then without these drugs
millions of South Africans will be condemned to a hideous death.
However, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS and if Africans take the drugs
anyway, then even more people will die (than in the first scenerio).
They will die the hideous deaths from the causes of poverty and
malnutrition, they will die from the additional loans they have to repay
to the World Bank, IMF, etc. for the purchase of the drugs (which will
increase their debt and poverty), and they will die from the toxic
effects of the drugs themselves.
Three other reasons you have given for accepting the mainstream medical
scientific consensus without further inquiry:
1. You compare the working of medical science in the area of AIDS to the
working of science in global warming. However global warming lies
outside of medical research. To gain insight on how the medical system
has operated and continues to operate far more relevant comparisons are
pellagra, SMON, the swine flu epidemic, and cancer.
2. In past postings you have pointed out that further inquiry is
significantly more demanding than an unexamined acceptance of mainstream
science. I agree. But, given that we have already agreed funding
influences outcomes and that the moral consequences of our beliefs and
actions in this case are serious, I argue it is necessary.
3. You point out that the corporate media is against the mainstream
scientific consensus on global warming, which, it seems you imply, is a
reason to accept global warming. However the corporate media is with the
mainstream postition on AIDS. So rather than arguing against further
inquiry wouldn't this in fact argue in favor of it? Or, to put it
another way, the corporate media is against the position you agree with
on global warming and with the position you agree with on AIDS, while,
for what it's worth, the corporate media is against positions I agree
with on both counts.
You concluded your arguments for accepting the position of mainstream
science without inquiry by saying:
"Mike thinks... we should follow course (a), accepting his conclusions
without further inquiry, confidently proceeding to convince South
Africans that they should accept his conclusions as well, with the range
of possible consequences already outlined. I don't."
Actually I never said or meant to suggest we follow course (a). So we
both agree here as well -- no one should accept my conclusions without
The choice then comes down to:
(A) making an inquiry that will take some time and energy.
(B) accepting the mainstream consensus which has been influenced by
I argue for (A), and suggest that we do so in this forum, taking no
one's word for anything. To accomplish such an inquiry as efficiently as
possible and in a manner accessible to non-scientists, I propose:
1. A medical propaganda model.
2. A socio-economic model of public health.
3. That (1) and (2) fit, explain and predict the following phenomena
better than the HIV hypothesis:
In the 1970s a number of cultural and socio-economic changes were
underway, many related to the US aggression in Vietnam.
1. Dominant elites began a restructuring of the world economy which
negatively affected the gap between the have's and have not's, both
between and within countries.
2. There was an increase in cultural freedoms, the result of the 60s,
which meant more sexual freedoms. One of the consequences of this
increase in sexual freedom was that some sectors of the population began
taking prophylactic doses of medical drugs at rates previously unknown.
3. There was an increase in the availability of and demand for street
drugs, both old drugs and newly synthesised "designer drugs". There was
also a new level of acceptance for the taking of these drugs. These
factors led to historically high levels of drug abuse among certain
segments of the population.
4. 2 and 3 overlapped, creating a mix of medical and street drugs in
individual bodies that had never before occurred.
5. As the years went by 1-4 had predictible results in terms of public
(a) In wealthy countries, old "conquered" diseases, such as tuberculosis
began returning. Also groups of young adults, normally the healthiest
sector of a society, began showing up ill with diseases "new" to young
(b) In the poorer countries the old diseases of course had never been
conquered. But as these countries grew poorer there was a predictable
increase in morbidity and mortality. The only question was whether this
predictable increase would be attributed to an increase in cases of the
old diseases, or a "new" disease, or both.
A medical propaganda socio-economic model predicts that the search for
causes and treatments of both these "new" and returning diseases would
be limited to the microscopic level. Cultural and socio-economic factors
would be pushed to the background as far as possible, both in terms of
cause and remedies. A medical propaganda model predicts that critics,
both scientists and non-scientists, who pursue a line of questioning
that leads to socio-economic causality would be marginalized, thus
serving notice to the medical scientific community about what happens to
those who step too far outside the mainstream medical model.
Thus to summarize an increase in IMMUNE DEFICIENCIES, due to both an
increase of drug taking (medical and street drugs) and an increase in
poverty, would be predicted by the socio-economic model. (Other causes
of immune deficiency such as being the recipient of large blood
transfusions, the effects of drug taking by pregnant women on their
babies, etc. need to be included in a broader discussion.) The way this
increase in cases of immune deficiency was perceived and interpreted as
a new disease called AIDS is predicted by the medical-propaganda model.
There are any number of ways to begin a comparison of the medical
propaganda socio-economic model to the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. One is that
we inquire into the treatments that came out of the HIV hypothesis,
focusing on the drug AZT. AZT has been the drug of choice for the
treatment of AIDS. A consideration of the history of this drug would not
be overly technical or time consuming. If then, when we look into this
drug (its development, approval, rationalization, case histories of
people who took it, never took it, or quit taking it, its "side
effects," types of birth defects caused by AZT, etc.) we don't find out
things which raise serious doubts about what is going on in AIDS, we
could end the inquiry right there. If what we find turns out to be eye
opening, we move on to more fundamental aspects of the HIV hypothesis
and the medical propaganda-socio-economic model.
Let me close by re-emphasizing that no one should take my word for any
of this. And, to repeat the offer I made in my first posting, I would be
happy to provide on request a short bibliography. (See also my
article/book review in the Oct. 1990 issue of Z.)
* You follow this sentence with:
"I gave a few examples: the lack of attention to public health, the
"90-10 rule" (90% of the research for the ailments of 10% of the
I presume you give these examples to point out the medical model is
flawed (because when you first gave these examples you were arguing
money does NOT influence medical outcomes). If so I agree the medical
model is flawed. The point I would add is that the flaw was built into
the medical model. The model was designed to function first and foremost
as a propaganda tool by the senior partners in science.
**Other reasons you have given in past postings for not making further
inquiry, such as the example of trusting your mechanic, deserve further
discussion. Also your point about the "90-10 rule," while true, needs to
be put in the historical context. However I believe what I've written so
far (in my previous posting as well as this one) makes the argument that
it is worth the effort to begin a serious inquiry.
Reply from Noam Chomsky:
Please re-read the last response, which you did not understand. I'll
repeat the main points briefly, but for the last time, unless someone
has something new to say. There are much better ways to spend our time.
On HIV-AIDS (global warming, the truth of quantum theory,... and other
cases where there is an overwhelming consensus among specialists who
have worked hard on the topic), we have the following options:
(1) Do the required research ourselves and find the answers.
(2) Assume the consensus to be accurate
(3) Assume that our guess to the contrary is right even though we
haven't done the work
We can exclude (1): neither you, your friend, nor I have done the
required work. That leaves (2) and (3).
Your stance is (3). Who can you hope to convince? Not people with a
degree of privilege, who have the opportunity for serious choices. Of
course they will not pay the slightest attention to you. But it is
conceivable that desperate people in poor countries might do so: in
Africa, South Asia, and other areas of destitution (including parts of
What then are you offering those people? One possibility is that your
guess is wrong and the overwhelming consensus among people who have done
the work is right. Then you are consigning tens of millions of suffering
people to a hideous death. Suppose your guess turns out to be right.
Then funding agencies, governments, and others will save money -- and
the drug companies will award you the grandest prizes they can conjure
up, since they will not be dragged kicking and screaming, under intense
public pressure in the third world and the West, to sell drugs well
below the price they want. It takes a good deal of self-confidence, to
put it mildly, to adopt the former course. At least this much is
transparent: don't pretend to be adopting a moral stance. I'm trying to
say this as politely as I can. An appropriate answer would be
The rest of what you say is hopelessly irrelevant, mostly pushing open
doors and ignoring the issues.
My response sent 11/12/00.
You have effectively banned further discussion on the AIDS controversy
as well as any dissent from mainstream scientific opinions in general in
this forum. However, for reasons of fairness, I hope you will allow me
the courtesy of a final response to your last comments.
1. Your position is that:
a) the overwhelming consensus of mainstream biology medical science,
b) your experience in the sciences and knowledge of the workings and
history of science,
c) your assessment of the time required to "do the work," and the amount
of time available,
2. You have decided to accept, with skepticism, HIV as the cause of
To repeat my position:
a) my experience as a layman with the epidemic and my assessments of the
predictions, expectations, and reality of AIDS,
b) my reading on the history and developement of the structure medicine,
c)my reading on the war on cancer, infectious disease and biology in
d) my reading on AIDS: studies, drug trials, dissident opinions, etc.,
e) my work as a journalist which includes: interviews with both sides of
the controversy including Nobel prize winners, members of the National
Academy of Sciences, emeritus professors, journalists, HIV positive
people, people with AIDS, people who take or have taken the medical
drugs, never taken them, or taken them and come off them, AIDS
researchers, historians of medicine and public health; as well as
attending conferences and lectures,
I have decided that:
3. The minority opinion is, at the minimum, worth a serious look.
We agree 2 is a reasonable and moral position.
4. We disagree on 3:
a) You argue that 3 is an unreasonable, arrogant, irrelevant and immoral
position to hold, and one has to be either a dupe of the pharmaceutical
companies, overconfident to the point of being irrational, desperate or
all of the above to advocate this position.
b) I say that whatever the cause of AIDS turns out to be, 3 is as moral,
reasonable, etc. a position to maintain as 2.
Based on 1, 2, and 4a you have decided not to discuss the issue further
at this time. I must point out however that you were discussing these
issues before I made any comments. It seemed only fair to try to present
what the dissident position actually is and make it part of the
Based on 1, 2, 4a, you have decided not to respond to any of my
I, in response to 1c, proposed that, rather than trying to master the
whole subject all at once, we try to get a handle on things by examining
one particular aspect of AIDS, the medical treatment AZT, saying if in
examining the history of this drug, we discover there are in fact
serious problems surrounding its use and approval, we could proceed.
Based on 1, 2, 4a, you decided not to respond to this suggestion as
Your characterization of the minority opinion and me personally, as I'm
sure you intend, leaves me little else to say at the present time in
this forum. However, as you may know, President Mbeki of South Africa
has convened a panel composed of orthodox and dissident scientists to
devise a means to test the HIV hypothesis. Should anything come of this,
or from any other source --such as world events (more poor countries
follow the example of South Africa, a significant increase in the
numbers of high ranking scientists turning dissident, etc.) you might
find it worth the effort to resume the discussion and begin a serious
inquiry. If such an opportunity should arise in the future I will send
my comments to you directly and you can decide if they are worth posting
in this forum.
P.S. I will forward our exchanges to Walter Gilbert, (Nobel laureate,
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Harvard, Human Genome
project ) in hopes that he will contact you on this issue. When I
interviewed Gilbert for an article I wrote in the Ithaca Times he told
me there was no good scientific evidence that demonstrates HIV to be the
cause AIDS. This is not to argue anyone should take Walter Gilbert's
word for things either but only to suggest that the minority opinion is
at the least a respectable position.