What part of "there is no scientifically credible evidence that HIV causes or , in any way, is related to AIDS" didn't you understand? Peter Duesberg, the world's leading expert on retroviruses, explained in a number of articles and books why retroviruses could not cause disease.
You may not agree but leading "discredited" expert on retroviruses would be a more accurate description. The medical community as a whole no longer takes him seriously.
What part of my story did you not understand. When I stop my medications my CD4 counts plummet to dangerously low levels and my viral load explodes from non-detectable. And don't tell me about PCR testing. PCR testing may not be "diagnostic" but it is legitimate when used properly. It was not used properly during Covid.
That link is part extra material from the film "House of Numbers" which is a documentary I would highly recommend which is actually available on youtube. There have been several previous to that film that also expose the lack of a scientific basis for the thesis, though I do think 'House of Numbers' is likely the best one.
Excuse me for being blunt, but it seems to be you haven't really researched this topic in much depth. Robert Gallo is a scoundrel and a fraud and any historical research will bear that out. The man who was allowed to announce a 'viral cause' of AIDS (a syndrome, not a disease) in a famous press conference not only had failed to publish a single paper on the subject at the time, but it was later learned that his "discovery" was a culture sample that he stole from the rightful discoverer, Luc Montaigner, and it was not called "HIV" at the time. That moniker came later. Montaigner, who would later get credit and receive the Nobel prize, never made any claims of his discovery being a cause of AIDS though he was clearly excited about the possibility of a link. He would eventually admit publicly that he did not think that HIV was a direct cause of AIDS, and like many careful scientists who didn't wish to have their entire careers destroyed by the corrupted orthodoxy, he stated that their must be unknown "co-factors" that had yet to be discovered that had to be essential. Duesberg just had the guts early on to say retroviruses are dormant and they do not cause illness and just came out and stated the obvious that HIV basically doesn't do much of anything. Where did it come from? It, like many other micro-organisms in our system, was "discovered" because of improved technologies and because of the motivations of scientists to find things that happen to have always been present in our biology and then attribute new labels to them in hopes of becoming famous with a great discovery. That's merely my prevailing thesis.
"Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts is an excellent and fairly inexpensive work of investigative journalism that is a must read on the topic as well. She basically exposes the fact all of Gallo's (the faux discoverer of a viral cause) work was fraudulent. The foundations of the "science" which was announced to the world without a single paper being published was later proven to be fraudulent and Gallo was kicked out of his government position. Unfortunately, the numerous investigations into him and his work were eventually closed down as the great HIV-AIDS dogmatic behemoth had already been unleashed on the world as a major industry that could not be stopped.
So Gallo's reputation amidst actual scientists was destroyed, but there was no real media coverage of any of this and he was unceremoniously expelled after the damage was done-- pretty much par for the course. By the way, he also made a small fortune shortly after his announcement of "discovery" by immediately patenting a fraudulent HIV test (or whatever label at the time) and I believe he may have even done this prior to his AIDS papers being published.
Well, if you haven't research the topic then why are you saying, "Anyone who thinks AIDS is not associated with HIV is on shaky ground," when yo don't know what you're talking about?
I gave you plenty to follow up on and I'm not going to spoon-feed you a "take away." Watch "House of Numbers" on youtube. Good, fairly short documentary. You can learn plenty just starting there.
Yes exactly! We can claim that a theory has not been proven to our satisfaction but that hardly means the original question has somehow gone away. In the meantime for those who remain skeptical, I have provided a statistical means to prove that HIV does in fact cause AIDS. That offer has been ignored because there would seem to be an agenda to deny any argument that does not lead to an already given conclusion.
There is another writer on Substack, I have forgotten her name and no longer follow her, she recommended a fascinating book called Dr. Mary's Monkey that provides some interesting clues. It is possible that a retrovirus was made to be toxic with intent to be used against Fidel Castro in the early 60s. I had considered writing an article on the book but it has nothing to do with astrology and at any rate my stamina is in very short supply lately.
Are the cocktails of drugs truly anti-retroviral? Or do they perform immunotherapy as well? I ask because if HIV is the sole retrovirus to cause harm, could it be that a retrovirus is present because of AIDS, not because it causes AIDS?
The Cocktail of drugs causes the HIV retrovirus to become dormant in the body. This is demonstrated with viral load testing. If a patient has built up immunity to the drugs due to poor compliance the viral load will remain high. Tests can then be done to determine which cocktail of drugs will work. When the patient is switched to the new regimen the viral load will drop to non-detectable and the patient regains their health. All of this has been demonstrated in clinics across the world for the past 30 years and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV in fact causes AIDS.
I don't understand Ernest's reply at all.
As for your original comment, I enjoyed reading it and learning another explanation.
Anyone who thinks AIDS is not associated with HIV is on shaky ground.
So, but does this question remain? Where did HIV come from?
What part of "there is no scientifically credible evidence that HIV causes or , in any way, is related to AIDS" didn't you understand? Peter Duesberg, the world's leading expert on retroviruses, explained in a number of articles and books why retroviruses could not cause disease.
You may not agree but leading "discredited" expert on retroviruses would be a more accurate description. The medical community as a whole no longer takes him seriously.
What part of my story did you not understand. When I stop my medications my CD4 counts plummet to dangerously low levels and my viral load explodes from non-detectable. And don't tell me about PCR testing. PCR testing may not be "diagnostic" but it is legitimate when used properly. It was not used properly during Covid.
Kary Mullis discussing his coming to terms with the HIV- AIDS hypothesis as having no scientific backing, a position he affirmed for the rest of his life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJ_Sw0iwMI&ab_channel=DissociatedPress
That link is part extra material from the film "House of Numbers" which is a documentary I would highly recommend which is actually available on youtube. There have been several previous to that film that also expose the lack of a scientific basis for the thesis, though I do think 'House of Numbers' is likely the best one.
Excuse me for being blunt, but it seems to be you haven't really researched this topic in much depth. Robert Gallo is a scoundrel and a fraud and any historical research will bear that out. The man who was allowed to announce a 'viral cause' of AIDS (a syndrome, not a disease) in a famous press conference not only had failed to publish a single paper on the subject at the time, but it was later learned that his "discovery" was a culture sample that he stole from the rightful discoverer, Luc Montaigner, and it was not called "HIV" at the time. That moniker came later. Montaigner, who would later get credit and receive the Nobel prize, never made any claims of his discovery being a cause of AIDS though he was clearly excited about the possibility of a link. He would eventually admit publicly that he did not think that HIV was a direct cause of AIDS, and like many careful scientists who didn't wish to have their entire careers destroyed by the corrupted orthodoxy, he stated that their must be unknown "co-factors" that had yet to be discovered that had to be essential. Duesberg just had the guts early on to say retroviruses are dormant and they do not cause illness and just came out and stated the obvious that HIV basically doesn't do much of anything. Where did it come from? It, like many other micro-organisms in our system, was "discovered" because of improved technologies and because of the motivations of scientists to find things that happen to have always been present in our biology and then attribute new labels to them in hopes of becoming famous with a great discovery. That's merely my prevailing thesis.
"Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts is an excellent and fairly inexpensive work of investigative journalism that is a must read on the topic as well. She basically exposes the fact all of Gallo's (the faux discoverer of a viral cause) work was fraudulent. The foundations of the "science" which was announced to the world without a single paper being published was later proven to be fraudulent and Gallo was kicked out of his government position. Unfortunately, the numerous investigations into him and his work were eventually closed down as the great HIV-AIDS dogmatic behemoth had already been unleashed on the world as a major industry that could not be stopped.
So Gallo's reputation amidst actual scientists was destroyed, but there was no real media coverage of any of this and he was unceremoniously expelled after the damage was done-- pretty much par for the course. By the way, he also made a small fortune shortly after his announcement of "discovery" by immediately patenting a fraudulent HIV test (or whatever label at the time) and I believe he may have even done this prior to his AIDS papers being published.
I haven't researched this topic. All these words make my brain glaze over. What is the bottom line here? The take-away info please.
Well, if you haven't research the topic then why are you saying, "Anyone who thinks AIDS is not associated with HIV is on shaky ground," when yo don't know what you're talking about?
I gave you plenty to follow up on and I'm not going to spoon-feed you a "take away." Watch "House of Numbers" on youtube. Good, fairly short documentary. You can learn plenty just starting there.
Yes exactly! We can claim that a theory has not been proven to our satisfaction but that hardly means the original question has somehow gone away. In the meantime for those who remain skeptical, I have provided a statistical means to prove that HIV does in fact cause AIDS. That offer has been ignored because there would seem to be an agenda to deny any argument that does not lead to an already given conclusion.
There is another writer on Substack, I have forgotten her name and no longer follow her, she recommended a fascinating book called Dr. Mary's Monkey that provides some interesting clues. It is possible that a retrovirus was made to be toxic with intent to be used against Fidel Castro in the early 60s. I had considered writing an article on the book but it has nothing to do with astrology and at any rate my stamina is in very short supply lately.
Are the cocktails of drugs truly anti-retroviral? Or do they perform immunotherapy as well? I ask because if HIV is the sole retrovirus to cause harm, could it be that a retrovirus is present because of AIDS, not because it causes AIDS?
The Cocktail of drugs causes the HIV retrovirus to become dormant in the body. This is demonstrated with viral load testing. If a patient has built up immunity to the drugs due to poor compliance the viral load will remain high. Tests can then be done to determine which cocktail of drugs will work. When the patient is switched to the new regimen the viral load will drop to non-detectable and the patient regains their health. All of this has been demonstrated in clinics across the world for the past 30 years and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV in fact causes AIDS.