How is AIDS research to progress when the premise of science is questioning but the premise of questioning HIV is considered so dangerous that even venturing into the facts is too great a risk?

I bought my first bass because I wanted to be in a Band, and heard that it was the easiest instrument to play. A friend told me that it was the sexiest instrument.

I have full confidence in the ability of Foo Fighters' audiences to distinguish between questioning HIV and the obvious value of safe-sex practices.

Popular ideas about AIDS are based on a hypothesis that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

How do you be a 45-year-old man in a rock band, do it well, keep your dignity and not become a parody of yourself? I don't think it will be simple.

When a person tests positive for HIV, it is not a test for the virus itself but for antibodies to the virus, and the test is not able to distinguish between HIV antibodies and a multitude of other antibodies. Many conditions can lead to a false positive result, including flu shots, hepatitis, and pregnancy.

How is AIDS research to progress when the premise of science is questioning but the premise of questioning HIV is considered so dangerous that even venturing into the facts is too great a risk?