> It's been my experience that when the personal integrity of the opponent
> is questioned then it's a bad sign for the side doing the questioning.
> It makes me wonder how strong their case is.
That's often the case. It might also be, however, that the insult is justified. You'll have to judge that by looking at the actual content of the arguments.
I often admire iconoclasts; I usually admire skeptics. There is no doubt that the simple HIV=AIDS theory has a few loose ends, and some studies should be done to tie them up. But the folks at virusmyth go a lot further than mere skepticism and thoroughness; they claim outright that "HIV is harmless and AIDS is not contagious". That claim is _way_ beyond what any reasonable responsible scientist could possibly believe. The claim is outrageous, irresponsible, even dangerous. Do they believe that the thousands of AIDS deaths of hemophiliacs before HIV testing of blood and the near elimination of those deaths after testing are all coincidence?
HIV may not be a 100% perfect explanation for AIDS, but it is 98%, and all of the other possible explanations fall below 5%. To suggest that is is simply false _does_ reflect upon the personal integrity and motives of anyone making such a claim.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC