In science, one is not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about cause and effect. This has never been done for the HIV/AIDS relationship as Peter Duesberg and many others have pointed out. There are lots of false positives in the PCR and antibody tests for HIV. The fact is that …
In science, one is not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about cause and effect. This has never been done for the HIV/AIDS relationship as Peter Duesberg and many others have pointed out. There are lots of false positives in the PCR and antibody tests for HIV. The fact is that many people were put on a treatment protocol who had no symptoms or signs of immunological dysfunction at all. Many whose immunological systems went into decline might have become ill and died from the "treatment"---particularly those who were given AZT. Peter Duesberg's speculation about "lifestyle" causation is just that---a speculation based on the high correlation between AIDS and IV drug use and/or promiscuous homosexuality. He has no data to substantiate that theory and doesn't pretend to do so. I don't think anyone with common sense thinks there was a conspiracy to spread AIDS. Some have pointed out that many of the early cases might be traced to studies that were undertaken in a few large cities to evaluate an experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B in the late 1970s. These studies specifically recruited volunteers who engaged in homosexual relations with a multiplicity of partners as the Hepatitis B was a major health problem for that demographic group.
The lifestyle of promiscuity and heavy drug use, which was true of a small sliver of the gay community, was the prevailing thesis with regard to the appearance of strange manifestations like Karposi's sarcoma in very young men. It was largely politics that led to the "out" of finding an external cause to take attention away from the lifestyle thesis in large part due to the fact of real bigotry in the Reagan administration's base of evangelicals whose basic position was that these men deserved to die based on their sinful lifestyles. There was immense pressure for the administration to find a solution by 1984 due to continuous demonstrations in D.C. because of increased sickness and death.
A key part of the drug picture had little to do with IV drug use, but rather the use of nitrite inhalers, aka "poppers", being used in mass quantities as part of the relaxant the men used for anal sex. Again, this was the extreme hardcore young men partying all the time and they might literally have to 10-20 partners in a night or a weekend, doing poppers, maybe coke or amphetamines as well, and then coming down with STDs and getting on antibiotics and doing this week in and week out until they entirely decimated their immune systems due to living in this fast lane. I'm forgetting the other early prominent disease other than Karposi's sarcoma that was highly unusual in someone young, but I believe it related to lung cancer, or serious damage to the esophagus and lungs that could easily be hypothesized as connected with the extensive use of poppers. Many men in the gay community understood this over time as the illness and death increased and the use of poppers gradually declined as word got out within the communities in the big cities. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis became dogma so the lifestyle thesis turned into a fairly early example of a politically incorrect topic that couldn't be talked about by media but within these communities a lot of people got it and those particular illnesses declined.
You make it sound as if AIDS is no longer an issue. Poppers and hardcore lifestyles have never been shown to cause AIDS or any of the related syndromes. If I stop taking my AIDS medications my CD4 counts will plummet and my viral load counts go from undetectable to exponentially high numbers all without my doctor or lab techs having any way to know that I am presently off of my medications. There are 100,000s, if not millions, of people around the world whose blood work does the same. None of what you have said explains how this can possibly be. You are simply denying the lived experience of 100,000s of people.
You're just ignoring everything I've said and throwing out a strawman argument. If you aren't willing to do deep research and investigate then you'll be easily manipulated into what institutional authorities claim and you'll continue to believe it on faith. That is, if you're not a troll of some sort playing a part that just tosses out defamatory claims of "denialism" as you do here. Such statements are either very amateurish or just based on basic ignorance. Go watch "House of Numbers" and a host of many other documentaries and read books that don't affirm your position and biases so you can begin to face up to all the lies you've been told and begin to free your mind if you genuinely believe what you are saying. It's clear you've never genuinely taken in different viewpoints if you mean what you say here. Good luck.
A strawman fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.
I am not engaging in a strawman fallacy. I am arguing that HIV is the cause of AIDS and as evidence I am presenting myself as a case study that provides solid evidence in support of my argument. I have defamed no one. I think you are much closer to earning that accusation by claiming that I could be a troll. Everything that I have seen with my lab work, and my doctor supports the fact that HIV causes AIDS. I have simply asked for you to explain to me how it is when I stop my medication my CD4 counts plummet and my viral load explodes. Has my doctor misdiagnosed me?
Doctors are totally indoctrinated and yours likely is. "Viral load" indicates PCR which is not a diagnostic test and is utterly meaningless. CD4 may or may not have any meaning. I can ask "do you feel worse without the medication?" but the problem with that could be, and I don't know regarding such medications but I'd bet it could be true, is that you may have a dependency so it may not be wise to just go off without alternative naturopathic means of boosting immunity. It's mainly about healthy immune function-- wouldn't worry about all the hocus pocus of tests and numbers as opposed to internally measurements of health. Tons of people got off HIV meds and that's when they got better (famous example of Magic Johnson who's been alive more than 30 years-- shame he doesn't talk about it). You may be getting immune-oriented therapeutics that are far less toxic than stuff from 30-40 years ago, but that doesn't mean drugs have to be a lifelong treatment and that's our medical model-- sick people for life. There are better ways to boost immunity over time, but all I can say is do due diligence to research as I am not a practitioner or expert. I just know pharma controls medicine and their intent is profit by maintaining a constant supply of patients to profit off of.
Actually not at all true. I have seen the documentaries and I read the real Anthony Faucci. I have also pointed out that even RFK jr remains agnostic on the question of HIV causing AIDS. If it weren't for that I might not be so patient. All the things you are accusing I could say about you and more. You have not explained how my lab work shows a direct correlation between my medication compliance and my CD4 counts. It is the collapse of CD4 counts that leads to all of the syndromes related to AIDS that is a fact.
It seems to me you need to denounce anyone who does not affirm what you wish to believe is true without any actual evidence of anything but claims of truth that amount to the same ol' appeals to authority. Lab tests are proof of something? What? a lab test claims identification of a substance and that equals proof? Of what exactly? Nothing causal. CD4 counts? People can have regular CD4 counts and be sick with "AIDS", as in, one of the numerous conditions that are only AIDS with verification from an HIV 'test' that readily admits that the test itself does not confirm the presence of the virus and needs further confirmation. i.e., 'we think you have a piece or pieces of DNA that may be what we now call HIV but it's not conclusive of anything.' Or, a person can have low CD4 counts and actually be healthy. Those are facts that individuals have attested to. Proves nothing either way. Why is it that TB becomes AIDS when taking an unreliable diagnostic that is interpreted (yes, tests are interpreted) to exhibit HIV, but is only TB when there is no interpretation of HIV present? How is it that numerous people over the years take HIV tests and from one to the next in relatively short time frames they get both positive and negative results, or indeterminate results? It's illustrative about the testing and that results are unreliable.
Again, good luck, and perhaps look into the fraudulence of Robert Gallo and his HIV studies in "Fear of the Invisible." If you really wish to know you would investigate rather than demanding others conform to what I can only perceive as your indoctrinated line of thinking that act as shackles upon your consciousness. None but ourselves can free our minds.
The other disease common in AIDS is probably pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and was probably the major cause of death for those suffering from the disease. I first learned of the experimental Hepatitis B vaccine a few months ago when, in a related post, someone posted a video of Dr. Alan Cantwell and a link to his book "AIDS and the Doctors of Death". Dr. Cantwell was a dermatologist who had a special interest in Kaposi's sarcoma and was a lifelong member of the gay community in New York and Los Angeles. As a doctor and a gay man, he was well aware of what was going on in the gay communities in large urban cities and can speak with more knowledge and experience about it. His book was written in 1988 so it doesn't incorporate any further knowledge learned after that time. He has an entire chapter on the politics of AIDS.
In my opinion, the drugs and promiscuous sex had little or nothing to do with AIDS. It didn't explain the peculiar timing of the outbreak or the subsequent course of the disease over time. All those activities were going on both before and afterwards. Perhaps not with the intensity of the practices during the peak but it still is not a very satisfactory hypothesis. But the time course fits very well with the large outbreak coming soon after the introduction of the experimental vaccine in that very thin slice of the population that were selected to test the vaccine. Probably the later cases were largely due to AZT which was commonly prescribed and also available through black market sources in the gay community. As you are probably aware, AZT was developed in the 1960s as a drug to treat cancer and was taken off the market when it became evident that the toxicity to the bone marrow killed the experimental animals.
Yes, pneumocystis pneumonia was it. Thank you. That and Kaposi's sarcoma were the early diseases that were shocking to doctors in younger men. I don't think I heard about the Hep B vaccine though I have heard of the book but not familiar with it. There have been other hypotheses put out there as alternatives, beyond the more obvious extreme early cases, and one which comes to mind is the idea of funneling the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome cases under the AIDS umbrella as well because the growing issue of CFS was basically being ignored and/or dismissed as a psychological issue wherein the institutional establishment was essentially telling everyone there was nothing really wrong with them physically and it was all in their heads. Similar to their later tactics to a lot of vaccine injuries which was on steroids with the covid shots due to massive pressures to deny any wrong with those shots.
I believe a good case can be made for the CFS hypothesis in terms of immune deficiency and signs of auto-immune disorders that likely had varying causes regarding toxicity whatever the sources. That is after the initial wave and probably the latter half of the 80s. Certainly AZT killed a lot of people and I believe "Dallas Buyers Club" is largely about this in terms of gay men getting access to medications from Mexico that were being suppressed and denied in the U.S.
I completely disagree, however, that drugs and promiscuousness had little to do with what became labelled AIDS. First, keep in mind that AIDS is just a label, a "syndrome" that was initially attributed to something unknown until the magic virus was "discovered" by Gallo. It was initially pretty limited to those severe types of cases in young gay men and really wasn't a term referring to a large umbrella of issues until they needed to drum up new "AIDS" cases by adding a bunch of new diseases in a couple of different waves which wound up being, what?, 20-25 so-called diseases "caused" by HIV? By the time they were doing this it was all scare tactics and propaganda to boost the gravy train of the HIV=AIDS scam that was just beginning to drum up massive profits for the expensive therapeutics. The issue of extreme promiscuity isn't really about contagion through the acts of anal sex so much as it was about the contracting of STDs on a continual basis so that the men contracting an STD kept going on and off antibiotics, destroying their microbiome, continuing to party and take the drugs, with the poppers being the key factor for pneumocystis pneumonia, getting an STD again, going back on antibiotics, and so on until they had totally trashed their immune systems when they were still in their 20s. These men put the indulgences of 70s rock 'n' roll bands and their groupie parties to shame. So yes, that was primarily the early years and with awareness within the communities in the cities behaviors changed and it tapered off, but this was undoubtedly an important factor.
I think I did mention "House of Numbers" so if you haven't seen that I'd highly recommend it. Good doc. and they do touch on this issue.
While I appreciate your observation about the requirements of science, this does not change the fact that I, and countless others, will become ill with AIDS without the benefit of anti-retroviral medications. If this is not an argument against what Duesberg, Faber and others profess then I don't know what is. If you want to deny my reality that is fine, but it does not change the facts. Even though Faber assisted with RFK's book, there clearly was not enough evidence for RFK to come down on the side of not believing that HIV is the cause of AIDS. If you don't agree that HIV causes AIDS then do you think that it is not important that we have a viable alternative hypothesis? Street drugs and lifestyle choices have never been shown to cause AIDS. I am not asking Duesberg to prove a negative. I am asking him to prove an alternative theory that he himself proposed. Is there no desire to find an answer to such an important question? Or is it that once the theory does not align with one's preconceived notions then we can move on regardless of the human toll?
Last night, I watched David Brock's speech from the ARC conference in London. He claimed that Trump had cut the funding for anti-retroviral medications to African countries and that he (Brock) was already witnessing the fallout. I think it is a bit soon for all of that to already be happening, but if Trump has stopped the funding there could be serious consequences to follow that will result in a loss of confidence in any further initiatives on Trump's part.
For the record I am pulling for Trump and dislike Brock.
It is not an argument against what Duesberg et al profess because they don't profess anything except to point out that there is zero scientific evidence that a retrovirus called HIV causes AIDS. They are not obligated to present an alternative. Duesberg chooses to present an alternative but does not claim any true scientific validity for it---i.e. it is simply an alternative hypothesis. For the record, I don't agree with his hypothesis because the "lifestyle" factors he mentions are not limited to that period when AIDS was prevalent. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but an alternative that makes more sense was that the whole thing started with the experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B which was given to precisely the same small slice of the population that suffered the brunt of the AIDS breakout. In other words, this experimental vaccine may have caused immune system destruction in those given the vaccine and many subsequent deaths were caused by the extensive use of AZT as treatment for HIV positive people who had no signs or symptoms of clinical AIDS. I should repeat again that this is simply an alternative theory and would require some scientific corroboration in order to be accepted. That process would start with obtaining the records of the initial studies with the experimental vaccine and then obtain as much follow-up medical data on the participants as possible. It would be a difficult and time-consuming process but worthwhile if it could shed more light on the subject.
The reason AIDS is no longer heard about, and some here even seem to think has gone away, is that it is being successfully treated with HIV medications. I personally know someone who died in 2021 due to their immune system collapsing as a direct result of poor medication compliance. They did not use street drugs and they were under the care of doctor for the last 15 years of their life.
In science, one is not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about cause and effect. This has never been done for the HIV/AIDS relationship as Peter Duesberg and many others have pointed out. There are lots of false positives in the PCR and antibody tests for HIV. The fact is that many people were put on a treatment protocol who had no symptoms or signs of immunological dysfunction at all. Many whose immunological systems went into decline might have become ill and died from the "treatment"---particularly those who were given AZT. Peter Duesberg's speculation about "lifestyle" causation is just that---a speculation based on the high correlation between AIDS and IV drug use and/or promiscuous homosexuality. He has no data to substantiate that theory and doesn't pretend to do so. I don't think anyone with common sense thinks there was a conspiracy to spread AIDS. Some have pointed out that many of the early cases might be traced to studies that were undertaken in a few large cities to evaluate an experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B in the late 1970s. These studies specifically recruited volunteers who engaged in homosexual relations with a multiplicity of partners as the Hepatitis B was a major health problem for that demographic group.
The lifestyle of promiscuity and heavy drug use, which was true of a small sliver of the gay community, was the prevailing thesis with regard to the appearance of strange manifestations like Karposi's sarcoma in very young men. It was largely politics that led to the "out" of finding an external cause to take attention away from the lifestyle thesis in large part due to the fact of real bigotry in the Reagan administration's base of evangelicals whose basic position was that these men deserved to die based on their sinful lifestyles. There was immense pressure for the administration to find a solution by 1984 due to continuous demonstrations in D.C. because of increased sickness and death.
A key part of the drug picture had little to do with IV drug use, but rather the use of nitrite inhalers, aka "poppers", being used in mass quantities as part of the relaxant the men used for anal sex. Again, this was the extreme hardcore young men partying all the time and they might literally have to 10-20 partners in a night or a weekend, doing poppers, maybe coke or amphetamines as well, and then coming down with STDs and getting on antibiotics and doing this week in and week out until they entirely decimated their immune systems due to living in this fast lane. I'm forgetting the other early prominent disease other than Karposi's sarcoma that was highly unusual in someone young, but I believe it related to lung cancer, or serious damage to the esophagus and lungs that could easily be hypothesized as connected with the extensive use of poppers. Many men in the gay community understood this over time as the illness and death increased and the use of poppers gradually declined as word got out within the communities in the big cities. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis became dogma so the lifestyle thesis turned into a fairly early example of a politically incorrect topic that couldn't be talked about by media but within these communities a lot of people got it and those particular illnesses declined.
You make it sound as if AIDS is no longer an issue. Poppers and hardcore lifestyles have never been shown to cause AIDS or any of the related syndromes. If I stop taking my AIDS medications my CD4 counts will plummet and my viral load counts go from undetectable to exponentially high numbers all without my doctor or lab techs having any way to know that I am presently off of my medications. There are 100,000s, if not millions, of people around the world whose blood work does the same. None of what you have said explains how this can possibly be. You are simply denying the lived experience of 100,000s of people.
You're just ignoring everything I've said and throwing out a strawman argument. If you aren't willing to do deep research and investigate then you'll be easily manipulated into what institutional authorities claim and you'll continue to believe it on faith. That is, if you're not a troll of some sort playing a part that just tosses out defamatory claims of "denialism" as you do here. Such statements are either very amateurish or just based on basic ignorance. Go watch "House of Numbers" and a host of many other documentaries and read books that don't affirm your position and biases so you can begin to face up to all the lies you've been told and begin to free your mind if you genuinely believe what you are saying. It's clear you've never genuinely taken in different viewpoints if you mean what you say here. Good luck.
A strawman fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.
I am not engaging in a strawman fallacy. I am arguing that HIV is the cause of AIDS and as evidence I am presenting myself as a case study that provides solid evidence in support of my argument. I have defamed no one. I think you are much closer to earning that accusation by claiming that I could be a troll. Everything that I have seen with my lab work, and my doctor supports the fact that HIV causes AIDS. I have simply asked for you to explain to me how it is when I stop my medication my CD4 counts plummet and my viral load explodes. Has my doctor misdiagnosed me?
Doctors are totally indoctrinated and yours likely is. "Viral load" indicates PCR which is not a diagnostic test and is utterly meaningless. CD4 may or may not have any meaning. I can ask "do you feel worse without the medication?" but the problem with that could be, and I don't know regarding such medications but I'd bet it could be true, is that you may have a dependency so it may not be wise to just go off without alternative naturopathic means of boosting immunity. It's mainly about healthy immune function-- wouldn't worry about all the hocus pocus of tests and numbers as opposed to internally measurements of health. Tons of people got off HIV meds and that's when they got better (famous example of Magic Johnson who's been alive more than 30 years-- shame he doesn't talk about it). You may be getting immune-oriented therapeutics that are far less toxic than stuff from 30-40 years ago, but that doesn't mean drugs have to be a lifelong treatment and that's our medical model-- sick people for life. There are better ways to boost immunity over time, but all I can say is do due diligence to research as I am not a practitioner or expert. I just know pharma controls medicine and their intent is profit by maintaining a constant supply of patients to profit off of.
Actually not at all true. I have seen the documentaries and I read the real Anthony Faucci. I have also pointed out that even RFK jr remains agnostic on the question of HIV causing AIDS. If it weren't for that I might not be so patient. All the things you are accusing I could say about you and more. You have not explained how my lab work shows a direct correlation between my medication compliance and my CD4 counts. It is the collapse of CD4 counts that leads to all of the syndromes related to AIDS that is a fact.
It seems to me you need to denounce anyone who does not affirm what you wish to believe is true without any actual evidence of anything but claims of truth that amount to the same ol' appeals to authority. Lab tests are proof of something? What? a lab test claims identification of a substance and that equals proof? Of what exactly? Nothing causal. CD4 counts? People can have regular CD4 counts and be sick with "AIDS", as in, one of the numerous conditions that are only AIDS with verification from an HIV 'test' that readily admits that the test itself does not confirm the presence of the virus and needs further confirmation. i.e., 'we think you have a piece or pieces of DNA that may be what we now call HIV but it's not conclusive of anything.' Or, a person can have low CD4 counts and actually be healthy. Those are facts that individuals have attested to. Proves nothing either way. Why is it that TB becomes AIDS when taking an unreliable diagnostic that is interpreted (yes, tests are interpreted) to exhibit HIV, but is only TB when there is no interpretation of HIV present? How is it that numerous people over the years take HIV tests and from one to the next in relatively short time frames they get both positive and negative results, or indeterminate results? It's illustrative about the testing and that results are unreliable.
Again, good luck, and perhaps look into the fraudulence of Robert Gallo and his HIV studies in "Fear of the Invisible." If you really wish to know you would investigate rather than demanding others conform to what I can only perceive as your indoctrinated line of thinking that act as shackles upon your consciousness. None but ourselves can free our minds.
The other disease common in AIDS is probably pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and was probably the major cause of death for those suffering from the disease. I first learned of the experimental Hepatitis B vaccine a few months ago when, in a related post, someone posted a video of Dr. Alan Cantwell and a link to his book "AIDS and the Doctors of Death". Dr. Cantwell was a dermatologist who had a special interest in Kaposi's sarcoma and was a lifelong member of the gay community in New York and Los Angeles. As a doctor and a gay man, he was well aware of what was going on in the gay communities in large urban cities and can speak with more knowledge and experience about it. His book was written in 1988 so it doesn't incorporate any further knowledge learned after that time. He has an entire chapter on the politics of AIDS.
In my opinion, the drugs and promiscuous sex had little or nothing to do with AIDS. It didn't explain the peculiar timing of the outbreak or the subsequent course of the disease over time. All those activities were going on both before and afterwards. Perhaps not with the intensity of the practices during the peak but it still is not a very satisfactory hypothesis. But the time course fits very well with the large outbreak coming soon after the introduction of the experimental vaccine in that very thin slice of the population that were selected to test the vaccine. Probably the later cases were largely due to AZT which was commonly prescribed and also available through black market sources in the gay community. As you are probably aware, AZT was developed in the 1960s as a drug to treat cancer and was taken off the market when it became evident that the toxicity to the bone marrow killed the experimental animals.
AZT was used in the first cocktails to treat AIDS. It is still prescribed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zidovudine
Yes, pneumocystis pneumonia was it. Thank you. That and Kaposi's sarcoma were the early diseases that were shocking to doctors in younger men. I don't think I heard about the Hep B vaccine though I have heard of the book but not familiar with it. There have been other hypotheses put out there as alternatives, beyond the more obvious extreme early cases, and one which comes to mind is the idea of funneling the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome cases under the AIDS umbrella as well because the growing issue of CFS was basically being ignored and/or dismissed as a psychological issue wherein the institutional establishment was essentially telling everyone there was nothing really wrong with them physically and it was all in their heads. Similar to their later tactics to a lot of vaccine injuries which was on steroids with the covid shots due to massive pressures to deny any wrong with those shots.
I believe a good case can be made for the CFS hypothesis in terms of immune deficiency and signs of auto-immune disorders that likely had varying causes regarding toxicity whatever the sources. That is after the initial wave and probably the latter half of the 80s. Certainly AZT killed a lot of people and I believe "Dallas Buyers Club" is largely about this in terms of gay men getting access to medications from Mexico that were being suppressed and denied in the U.S.
I completely disagree, however, that drugs and promiscuousness had little to do with what became labelled AIDS. First, keep in mind that AIDS is just a label, a "syndrome" that was initially attributed to something unknown until the magic virus was "discovered" by Gallo. It was initially pretty limited to those severe types of cases in young gay men and really wasn't a term referring to a large umbrella of issues until they needed to drum up new "AIDS" cases by adding a bunch of new diseases in a couple of different waves which wound up being, what?, 20-25 so-called diseases "caused" by HIV? By the time they were doing this it was all scare tactics and propaganda to boost the gravy train of the HIV=AIDS scam that was just beginning to drum up massive profits for the expensive therapeutics. The issue of extreme promiscuity isn't really about contagion through the acts of anal sex so much as it was about the contracting of STDs on a continual basis so that the men contracting an STD kept going on and off antibiotics, destroying their microbiome, continuing to party and take the drugs, with the poppers being the key factor for pneumocystis pneumonia, getting an STD again, going back on antibiotics, and so on until they had totally trashed their immune systems when they were still in their 20s. These men put the indulgences of 70s rock 'n' roll bands and their groupie parties to shame. So yes, that was primarily the early years and with awareness within the communities in the cities behaviors changed and it tapered off, but this was undoubtedly an important factor.
I think I did mention "House of Numbers" so if you haven't seen that I'd highly recommend it. Good doc. and they do touch on this issue.
While I appreciate your observation about the requirements of science, this does not change the fact that I, and countless others, will become ill with AIDS without the benefit of anti-retroviral medications. If this is not an argument against what Duesberg, Faber and others profess then I don't know what is. If you want to deny my reality that is fine, but it does not change the facts. Even though Faber assisted with RFK's book, there clearly was not enough evidence for RFK to come down on the side of not believing that HIV is the cause of AIDS. If you don't agree that HIV causes AIDS then do you think that it is not important that we have a viable alternative hypothesis? Street drugs and lifestyle choices have never been shown to cause AIDS. I am not asking Duesberg to prove a negative. I am asking him to prove an alternative theory that he himself proposed. Is there no desire to find an answer to such an important question? Or is it that once the theory does not align with one's preconceived notions then we can move on regardless of the human toll?
Last night, I watched David Brock's speech from the ARC conference in London. He claimed that Trump had cut the funding for anti-retroviral medications to African countries and that he (Brock) was already witnessing the fallout. I think it is a bit soon for all of that to already be happening, but if Trump has stopped the funding there could be serious consequences to follow that will result in a loss of confidence in any further initiatives on Trump's part.
For the record I am pulling for Trump and dislike Brock.
It is not an argument against what Duesberg et al profess because they don't profess anything except to point out that there is zero scientific evidence that a retrovirus called HIV causes AIDS. They are not obligated to present an alternative. Duesberg chooses to present an alternative but does not claim any true scientific validity for it---i.e. it is simply an alternative hypothesis. For the record, I don't agree with his hypothesis because the "lifestyle" factors he mentions are not limited to that period when AIDS was prevalent. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but an alternative that makes more sense was that the whole thing started with the experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B which was given to precisely the same small slice of the population that suffered the brunt of the AIDS breakout. In other words, this experimental vaccine may have caused immune system destruction in those given the vaccine and many subsequent deaths were caused by the extensive use of AZT as treatment for HIV positive people who had no signs or symptoms of clinical AIDS. I should repeat again that this is simply an alternative theory and would require some scientific corroboration in order to be accepted. That process would start with obtaining the records of the initial studies with the experimental vaccine and then obtain as much follow-up medical data on the participants as possible. It would be a difficult and time-consuming process but worthwhile if it could shed more light on the subject.
The reason AIDS is no longer heard about, and some here even seem to think has gone away, is that it is being successfully treated with HIV medications. I personally know someone who died in 2021 due to their immune system collapsing as a direct result of poor medication compliance. They did not use street drugs and they were under the care of doctor for the last 15 years of their life.