I’m getting mixed information from these comments. You say he failed to accomplish anything of note. Others have said that his work did leave the subjects immun

I’m getting mixed information from these comments. You say he failed to accomplish anything of note. Others have said that his work did leave the subjects immune to some HIV. You say the participants were ill informed, other comments (and his own claims) state that there was a high degree of understanding and communication with reasonably intelligent backgrounds. What’s going on here? This seems like a recurring phenomenon with unethical science - people shut it down wholesale while refusing to entertain the positives. I mean don’t get me wrong - this seems unethical on several levels, but if the work shows actual successful avoidance of HIV in the patients then that’s something we have tested and done that we hadn’t before. If the subjects really have that immunity, then saying he’s “failed to accomplish anything of note” is a pretty unethical claim itself.