[staterightsfirst]

Actually, I had read each of these papers long ago and found each of them misleading and esentially dishonest as to their titling.

I still have the papers. Do you recall any specific problems did you have with their reasoning?

As for the paper you posted, it's awfully questionable itself. For example, it's clear the authors have absolutely no knowledge of virology (kind of important if you're going to be discussing HIV). For example, at one point they say:

Despite its spectacular birthday, the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has remained entirely unproductive to this date: there is as yet no anti-HIV-AIDS vaccine, no effective prevention, and not a single AIDS patient has ever been cured.

Well, that's because:
1) The HIV vaccine is difficult to develop; animal models are poor, the virus is highly mutagenic, and the receptor-binding portion actually conceals itself in the envelope.
2) Antivirals have been shown to be effective at preventing AIDS from developing in HIV-positive individuals provided they do not continue to engage in high-risk behavior
3) Because AIDS only develops after the supply of CD4+ T cells has been depleted it makes absolutely no sense to claim that an inability to cure AIDS somehow means that HIV isn't causing it - (and their 1 in 500 infected/depleted T cell argument is specious at best)

And when it comes down to it, the best predictor for the development of AIDS is STILL HIV infection, a point noticeably absent from this paper - even though they go into a great deal of detail analyzing and attempting to draw their conclusions from looking pretty much exclusively at sub-groups (such as HIV-positive non-drug users versus drug users, which is another fallacious point: how much more likely is it for a drug user to engage in risky behavior and have a compromised immune system that itself increases the odds of developing AIDS?)

...and if you're so sure, why not volunteer for one of the HIV vaccine trials? I mean, you won't get AIDS anyway, right?

[staterightsfirst]

OK, considering that the guy who wrote it is purportedly a PhD in Molecular & Cell Biology, I guess "no knowledge of virology" is a little bit harsh.

:P

[John Valentine]

it's clear the authors have absolutely no knowledge of virology

It's kind of hard to make that sort of accusation stick to Peter Duesberg if you have a look at his CV.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"why not volunteer for one of the HIV vaccine trials? I mean, you won't get AIDS anyway, right?"

I disagree. We all agree there is a correlation between HIV and AIDs. I just don't believe it is the cause of AIDs.