Let's assume, hypothetically, you're a reasonably bright fellow, reasonably well-adjusted, reasonably well-versed in the sciences, and then stumble across some interesting papers by a famed member of the National Academy of Science, who has offered a provocative new interpretation on some existing data.
Let's further assume, hypothetically of course, that you are curious to explore and investigate these interpretations because you, hypothetically, have an interest in doggedly pursuing scientific truth wherever it leads, and would like some of the highly-credentialed members of the scientific establishment to address some of these critiques which, if proven, will impact the lives of many patients.
Well, if you do this in the field of AIDS, you will be confronted with, what I henceforth now deem: The Triple Play.
1. Ad Hom attack: "You are a Denialist!!!"
2. Appeal to Authority: Haven't you read the NIH sponsored web-site which explains it all?
3. Tu Quoque: Well, Why don't you inject yourself with HIV and see what happens?
So, when 1 of these three responses occur, (and invariably they will) here is a quick, handy guide to respond:
1. No, I am not a "Denialist," and I resent being compared to a Holocaust Denier. I don't know whether or not HIV is the cause of AIDS. But, I think Dr. Duesberg has offered a thoughtful, provocative theory that greatly undermines the conventional cant on this important issue, and should be further investigated.
2. Since when does an anonymous, gov't website trump the peer-review ed literature? Who authored this piece of crap? In what journal will I find it? Did you bother to read this fine rebuttal by Dr. Matt Irwin et al?
3. Well, since hundreds of chimpanzees have been injected with HIV and not one has died, I doubt anything will happen to me. By the way, you do understand that it is nearly impossible to find and culture any infectious HIV from an AIDS patient, don't you? Hence, the controversy.
Hank,
You should devise a counterpart response to "Denialist". Like "Viral Creationist" or "Virationist" or something like that.
Posted by: Bobby Baum | March 10, 2006 at 08:11 PM
BB,
That is an excellent idea! "Virationist" ain't bad; it's close, but not quite there.
Lemme think about. Anyone else out there, feel free to contribute.
Hank
Posted by: Hank | March 10, 2006 at 08:12 PM
"Deadly retrovirolist"?
OK, I'm not good at this game.
Posted by: John | March 29, 2006 at 02:48 PM