Unconfined lunatic Bryan Fischer says gay people should be happy that he’s pushing the idea that the HIV virus doesn’t cause AIDS. Why? Because that would take away one of his reasons for wanting them to be put in prison. But not all the others. Yes, he seriously makes that argument:
But get this. If Duesberg is right, that HIV does not cause AIDS, then I am the best friend the gay community has.
Why? Because if HIV is a harmless passenger virus, there is no reason to lock people up for transmitting it.
(This does not, of course, mean that homosexual behavior itself should be endorsed or sanctioned by society, only that it should be contrary to public policy for other reasons. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control state flatly that men who have sex with men “have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups,” and are at “elevated risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases [STDs], including Hepatits A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.”)
According to Wikipedia, 34 states have prosecuted HIV positive individuals for the criminal transmission of HIV to sexual partners, usually through the failure to disclose HIV positive status.
So people are being sent to prison in nearly three dozen states for infecting others with a microbe that can’t hurt them.
Homosexual activists ought to love Duesberg’s theory, and love me for publicizing it.
This has gone well past the point of being delusional, don’t you think? Oh, and he says Duesberg must be right because he has degrees:
Gays around the world have been all atwitter over my reporting on Peter Duesberg’s theory that HIV does not cause AIDS. Duesberg, who is a molecular biologist at UC Berkeley and one of the leading virologists in the world, argues, persuasively in my view, that HIV is a harmless passenger virus. (His credentials are impeccable: he isolated the first cancer gene in 1970, and was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986.)
I’m always amused when wingnuts cite someone’s credentials as evidence, because they always do so when referring to someone whose views are rejected by almost every other person with similar credentials. If one person with a PhD out of 10,000 PhDs supports their view, his PhD is proof that he must be right — the other 9,999 people with PhDs are irrelevant.