as for the pope i fail to see anything wrong with what he says about condomns:... that is the catholic and not the christian church. also, sex is a "gift from god" (quoting christians here), so i take it they mean it's recreational and not simply procreational.

also, sex is a "gift from god" (quoting christians here), so i take it they mean it's recreational and not simply procreational >>no if you read the Bible it is very clear, check out the Corinthians... (1 Corinthians 7 has some intersing bits...). But i'd agree if you say that people seem to "forget" about the bits they don't like too much!!Re Duesberg, interesting to follow what academics say but it'd be interesting to hear from the professionals (doctors who work in hospitals...) surely theu must have a forum somewhere....

>so they will contribute to excess population.I am always eager to discuss Paul Erlich's population bomb that never happened. In fact, in Western Economies we now have the problem of an aging demographic and not enough new kids.>The church never had any objections to compounding the sins of medieval sinners by selling 'indulgences' I always hear this discussed, but strangely its part of the landscape without precise terms of reference.Clearly the practice of selling indulgences is offside, but I'm unclear as to who authorized it. I"m alsounclear as to what an indulgence is.

Diceman said "no if you read the Bible very clearly...."While I can't state what position the 28,000 or so protestant denominations hold, the Catholic Churches' position is covered in the encyclical Humanae Vitae written around 1968. Its also fair to mention the Orthodox churches of Byzantium who are also under the Christian banner....I do not believe that their stance is much diff from the C.C.

Onuk >> excess populationAgreed, excess population was not exactly what I meant. What I meant was whatever bad consequences would follow. Actually in East Africa population growth is a serious problem, but more generally so are STDs and AIDs.Hamilton >> unclear as to what an indulgence isIndulgences are open to interpretation, and I suspect redefinition. The church now maintains (somewhat in the line of policiticians implicated with 'interesting' donations) that there was no direct link implied between payment and forgiveness. Nevertheless I believe the concept, certainly as understood by Luther, was that sinners would make specified donations to receive special forgiveness.

East Africa:Africa has a long history this century of military dictatorships murdering their own citizens. As well, heavy Ag subsidies in America and the EU, mean that any farmers trying to feed their families will never make it tryingto compete on free trade.Nevertheless, you will find many folks arguing passionately that what "Africa" needs is more prophylactics and"planned parenthood". Interestingly, I don't believe the Africans themselves are quite so enthusiasticabout international priorities.

>IndulgencesActually indulgences were related to purgatory and the temporal remission of sins. The teaching still exists today. The selling of those indulgences, which was clearly an abusive practice, doesn't have an affect on whether the doctrine itself was bogus.

Hamilton << I agree that condoms certainly aren't the most significant problem in Africa, and hypocrisy is certainly present in more Western institutions besides the Catholic church. Regarding indulgences I agree that the doctrine is not shown to be bogus; but I don't really care about the doctrine. Personally I have no problems with any religious belief, even though I have no particular leanings. What I have a problem with is with hypocritical and childish establishments. The central point is that the church has no problem with pragmatism if it is a question of saving its own butt, only when it is someone else's butt. I don't think this is what is meant by "turn the other cheek".

Back to the original topic.This is a NIH site which responds to Duesberg's views.

Although I think the NIH is probably right and Duesberg wrong, I did not find the NIH site convincing. Instead of presenting the evidence, it starts by asserting the conclusion, and justifying it with regard to Koch's postulates, which in turn are supported because they have been used for more than a century. This arrogance, giving primacy to the length of time doctors have believed something rather than any direct evidence, is what makes people hope Duesberg is right.Koch had three postulates, the first two of which are not disputed by anyone in the case of AIDS. Number three, "Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host" is the key. After all the words to introduce and explain Koch's postulates and defend #1 and #2, we get "Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory." Three workers? Maybe some of them had unreported risk factors? Maybe something else in the lab caused the immunosuppression? Maybe people were looking for immunosuppression? Did they take the AIDS drugs like AZT that Duesberg thinks cause AIDS?The evidence is summarized in a sloppy fashion. Results from different times are juxtaposed in misleading ways, also anecdotes are mixed with studies. Almost all the evidence speaks only to the undisputed fact that AIDS and HIV are associated, and both are associated with certain behaviors. No consideration is given to the charges that medical researchers choose their designs and censor their data to support conventional wisdom; and journals and funding agencies do a additional filters. This is particularly hard to swallow when some of the evidence is stuff like "Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS." How about the ones that didn't? How about adjusting for publication bias? How about considering things many studies agreed about that later turned out to be false? I would prefer to see something like, "the evidence for HIV causing AIDS is three times as strong as the evidence that stress causes peptic ulcers."Or here's another example of the things I dislike: "MYTH: HIV antibody testing is unreliable. FACT: Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine." Note that the FACT does not address the MYTH, and in any case, seems to assume that "well-established in medicine" means "true." It is true that modern, expensive tests are 98% consistent, they give the same results for the same people, that doesn't mean they are correct. And the vast majority of AIDS studies, including all those before 1998 and virtually all outside a few major research centers in the US and Europe, used tests that were far less consistent.Or "MYTH: The distribution of AIDS cases casts doubt on HIV as the cause. Viruses are not gender-specific, yet only a small proportion of AIDS cases are among women. FACT: The distribution of AIDS cases, whether in the United States or elsewhere in the world, invariably mirrors the prevalence of HIV in a population." Again, the FACT does not address the MYTH. It does indicate that AIDS and HIV are related, but does not explain the sexual difference in incidence.Still, when you strip all that away, there are some pretty solid reasons to believe HIV causes AIDS. I hate the arrogant tone and poor arguments, but that doesn't mean the NIH is wrong.