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 reali…
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.
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.