http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPejT6-pAwY&lc=9rlVqpqbonfftchr8QtFYeU2W5U1PpG-di4d2EfVbjg&context=G231acc7FAAAAAAAAKAA&feature=g-all-c
Here is an example of a person who is skeptical that HIV causes AIDS. They believe many other things as well.

This illustrates how cherry picking data, confirmation bias, and sloppy reasoning lead a man to the wrong conclusion and a combination of faith/bias keeps it strong.

Bushidobillyclub,

You would do well to try to be more open minded instead of simply smearing Professor Duesberg's theory on AIDS. Have you seen that his theory on cancer is getting a lot of attention and is now one of the leading theories on cancer?

He gave up on AIDS, because he was attacked so viciously, like you did in your post.

His theory isn't that immoral behavior gives you AIDS. His theory is that drugs and foreign proteins weaken the immune system. If you don't agree with him, that's fine. But could you just be honest about his theory? Is that too hard?

Bushidobillyclub,

You would do well to try to be more open minded instead of simply smearing Professor Duesberg's theory on AIDS. Have you seen that his theory on cancer is getting a lot of attention and is now one of the leading theories on cancer?

He gave up on AIDS, because he was attacked so viciously, like you did in your post.

His theory isn't that immoral behavior gives you AIDS. His theory is that drugs and foreign proteins weaken the immune system. If you don't agree with him, that's fine. But could you just be honest about his theory? Is that too hard?

Really? I do not only disagree with him, I see him as one of the worst kinds of dishonest intellects, who uses credentials, a piece of paper on the wall and association to a very prestigious university to try to prop up his bias.

My mind is open, just not so much it falls out.

This vid goes into his deceptions a little deeper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShCZTbHEhk

Watch the whole series if you can stomach it.

SpiderCMB the AIDS denialist.

This is probably equally good in this thread as well as in the conspiracy theory thread.

Clearly Duesberg believes the reason he is not taken seriously is becuase of a massive conspiracy.

AIDS
Main article: Duesberg hypothesis

In his 1996 book Inventing the AIDS Virus and in numerous journal articles and letters to the editor, Duesberg asserts that HIV is harmless and that recreational and pharmaceutical drug use, especially of zidovudine (AZT, a drug used in the treatment of AIDS) are the causes of AIDS outside Africa (the so-called Duesberg hypothesis). He considers AIDS diseases as markers for drug use, e.g. use of poppers (alkyl nitrites) among some homosexuals, asserting a correlation between AIDS and recreational drug use.[29] This correlation hypothesis has been disproven by evidence showing that only HIV infection, not homosexuality nor recreational/pharmaceutical drug use, predicts who will develop AIDS.[6][8][30][31][32]

Duesberg asserts that AIDS in Africa is misdiagnosed and the epidemic a "myth", claiming incorrectly[33] that the diagnostic criteria for AIDS are different in Africa than elsewhere[34][35] and that the breakdown of the immune system in African AIDS patients can be explained exclusively by factors such as malnutrition, tainted drinking water, and various infections that he presumes are common to AIDS patients in Africa.[35] Duesberg also argues that retroviruses like HIV must be harmless to survive, and that the normal mode of retroviral propagation is mother-to-child transmission by infection in utero.[36]

Since Duesberg published his first paper on the subject in 1987, scientists have examined and criticized the accuracy of his hypotheses on AIDS causation. Duesberg sustained a long dispute with John Maddox, then-editor of the scientific journal Nature, demanding the right to rebut articles that HIV caused AIDS. For several years Maddox consented to this demand[10] but ultimately refused to continue to publish Duesberg's criticisms:

[Duesberg] forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside...Duesberg will not be alone in protesting that this is merely a recipe for suppressing challenges to received wisdom. So it can be. But Nature will not so use it. Instead, what Duesberg continues to say about the causation of AIDS will be reported in the general interest. When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published.
—Maddox, 1993[12]

A number of scientific criticisms of Duesberg's hypothesis were summarized in a review article in the journal Science in 1994, which presented the results of a 3-month scientific investigation into some of Duesberg's claims. In the Science article, science writer Jon Cohen interviewed both HIV researchers and AIDS denialists (including Duesberg himself) and examined the AIDS literature in addition to review articles written by Duesberg. The article stated:

...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.
—Jon Cohen.[11]

The article also stated that although Duesberg and the AIDS denialist movement have garnered support from some prominent scientists, including Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, most of this support is related to Duesberg’s right to hold a dissenting opinion, rather than support of his specific claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.[11] Duesberg has been described as "the individual who has done the most damage" regarding denialism, due to the apparent scientific legitimacy his scientific credentials give to his statements.[7]

In a 2010 article on conspiracy theories in science, Ted Goertzel highlights Duesberg's opposition to the HIV/AIDS connection as an example in which scientific findings are disputed on irrational grounds, relying on rhetoric, appeal to fairness and the right to a dissenting opinion rather than on evidence. Goertzel stated that Duesberg, along with many other denialists frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei.[10] Regarding this comparison, Goertzel stated:

...being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist.
— Goertzel, 2010[10]

Duesberg's advocacy of AIDS denialism has, by all accounts, effectively blackballed him from the worldwide scientific community.[4]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=20578674&dopt=abstractplus

Perhaps surprisingly, the risks in South Africa also seem to be much less than might be anticipated on the basis of the conventional wisdom. One reason for this counter-intuitive conclusion is that estimates of HIV prevalence and of AIDS deaths issued by international bodies are significantly overblown, with some estimates being 20 times or more greater than locally recorded numbers. A second basis for the unexpected conclusion is that the possibility of false-positive HIV tests has been ignored despite the considerable range of evidence that false-positives can be a significant part, perhaps even a major part, of positive tests in certain groups or certain regions, saliently among people of African ancestry.

...rather humorous watching you two duke it out with links.

..just saying. >.>

Just honestly putting stuff out there. Show it all, then come to conclusions, that is what my daddy always said . . .

Only one of us has talked science or provided links (other than to YouTube videos), keep that in mind while you mull this issue over in your head.

EDIT: Have to admit that Bushidobillyclub did provide links to some YouTube videos, one which points out how HIV violates Koch's Postulates, so that was a bit of him shooting himself in the foot.

Right now I am reading some science blog entries on this fellow. Figured Id share.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/pity_poor_peter_duesberg_even_medical_hy.php

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/deusberg_strikes_a_blow_for_hi.php

I figure professionals closer to the topic can better explain why his position is nonsense than I can . . .

Edit: Its all about the preponderance of evidence, people who challenge his position claim he selectively reads the evidence so its important to click the links to the papers which do not support his claims and look at ALL of the evidence.