[YeGoblynQueenne]

I think I understand that retroviruses can cause disease, contrary to what Peter Duesberg seems to be claiming. What I'm wondering about is his claim that they should be harmless in order to survive. Is that something commonly accepted? If so, should it cause surprise that they aren't harmless, and still surviving? Is there an interesting scientific question somewhere in there?

That's the question I couldn't answer by reading the wikipedia article. But I think thanks to some of the comments here my question is at least partly answered: at least some retroviruses -including HIV- seem to not kill off their host immediately, which I guess gives them time to reproduce and infect more hosts.