Of course, there are diseases of which people die.
Of course, screening for HIV did essentially eliminate the transmission of this virus by transfusions.
Roughly speaking, this hypothesis asks whether drug use causes some of the diseases officially associated with AIDS, such as immunodeficiency and Kaposi's sarcoma.
Aside from all that, we recall that antibodies to malaria and other diseases prevalent in Africa show up as HIV-positive on tests.
What standards are upheld by the scientific community affect the community internally, and also affect its relations with society at large, including Congress.
To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.
They cannot count on the press and they cannot count on Congressional committees to bring the problems of the scientific community to their own attention, or to police the scientific community.
I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.
Questions have arisen about the policing of science. Who is responsible for the policing? My answer is: all of us.
I object to a legal approach when settling questions of science or scientific behavior.
Originally, in the early eighties, the drug hypothesis was among the first which occurred to scientists.