Is it bunk or controversial science?
I'm not saying his science is "bunk", TFF. I'm saying his mission, the evangelization of his theory, is bunk. If Duesberg's arrogant appropriation of the mantle of certainty endangered only himself, no-one would care ... and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Is Duesberg making a meaningful contribution to the fight against crack-cocaine? Considering the billions that are already being spent on that crusade, it does seem unlikely, doesn't it?

Is Duesberg still active in the crusade? The French publication "Sciences et Avenir" reported that he and his fellow "HIV-refuseniks" gathered for a media event in January 2002.

Should doctors be liable for prescribing a course of medication which turns out to be wrong? You know the answer to that one, TFF. Not if the doctor, having examined his or her patient thoroughly, is acting responsibly in accordance with the weight of current medical practice and opinion. How can we compare this with Duesberg's crusade?

Again, its the mission which is bunk, TFF, not the theory.

Unfortunately, there is no necessary correlation between celebrity and social responsibility, nor between genius and social responsibility.