While Duesberg may be the most vocal critic, he's not the only one. Kary Mullis (nobel prize winner) wrote the forward to his book and agrees (or at least agreed) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I still wouldn't risk it. I don't feel comfortable defending the actions of a person whose views I don't agree with.
If Duesberg disagrees with current research, what should he do? Should scientists state their opinions based on social consequences? I notice there doesn't appear to be much new on either his site or the virusmyth.org site. They're exactly as I remember them from years ago. Makes me wonder if he's even still active or if these are just vestigial pages expressing something even he no longer believes.
Let me ask you this: if doctors give advice to patients that turns out to be wrong, are they being criminal?
I think the urgency of his message (if he were correct) would be obvious. The importance of avoiding the use of certain drugs, like cocaine. That it's illegal doesn't mean that people aren't using it. Maybe if people recognized that it was so dangerous, they might not do it. (No more unreasonable than expecting that people would be more likely to use a condom if they thought not using one was dangerous.)
I'm getting a bit off the track. I'm not arguing that he's right. I'm only questioning whether one ought to apply the term 'bunk' to what he's saying, even if he's wrong.
k
Edit:
I was reviewing a little of his site just now and it's not clear he would view the view the situation as urgent. I retract that part of what I said (it was a guess anyway), but maintain the rest of what I said.
My main point has nothing to do with Duesberg (who was just an example), but with how we as lay people can be justified in using words like "bunk" to describe things that we (most of us) may not completely understand. (I wonder if there is a term for those of us who defend views that we don't competely understand.)
