<<His motivation for entering the debate? I have no idea.
His grasp of the important, fine details of medical science and
biochemistry (such as PCR and epidemiology)? Apparently weak.
I don't think he appreciated how fast the AIDS field was moving or
how unreliable a source Peter Duesberg can be.>>
I'm not sure where Tim gets his characterizations here, but when Charles A.
Thomas, Jr., the biochemist who is president of the Helicon Foundation; and
Kary Mullis, who is the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, join with Phil
to write a lengthy and detailed article which Reason not only published, but
characterized as a "strong case," I think Phil's grasp of the details must
have been just fine.