This is what really irritates me about "orthodox" folks (and not just "HIV/AIDS" either), and that is that they don't state their position as a formal hypothesis, and so if you point out how it is impossible (what you think it is, in any case), with experimental refutation citations , they just change it and claim that you misunderstood something. This is what might be best phrased "sham science."
As to "HIV/AIDS," the idea (as best I can tell) is that particular cells are destroyed by "HIV" over time, though it's not clear if this destruction takes place gradually (which is silly, since the body has tremendous adaptive abilities) or after a long "latency" period. In the latter case, whatever brings "HIV" out of latency and makes it much more virulent than when the initial "infection" occurred should be considered the actual cause, and a great deal of research money should be spent on this, instead of worrying about "HIV." I'll bet if you ask ten different "AIDS experts" you will get several different explanations.
With regard to "inflammation," I may have seen some mention of it on an "orthodox" site, but nothing comes to mind, so if you could cite one that makes the claim that "HIV" causes a dangerous inflammatory response, I'd be interested to read how they phrase it. In the "early days," some called it "autoimmune deficiency syndrome," and of course that is laughable - why wouldn't you want to be "deficient" in autoimmune reactions, which can be very dangerous. One has to question human reason after doing scholarly research on "HIV/AIDS" and other "diseases," the "cholesterol hypothesis," and "essential fatty acids," and that's "just for starters."
What seems to happen is that in a "civilized" society, people learn from an early age to trust "experts" and many don't have time to do their own research, even if they wanted to, though "cognitive dissonance" seems to prevent many from even considering alternative possibilities. "Experts" learn from their teachers, and often what starts out as a working hypothesis becomes dogma over the course of a few generations of scientists. Moreover, in the biology-related fields, there seems to be a strong anti-scientific quality, in that many will say things like, "oh that's an old study" (even if it is on-point) or "it's all been settled, so there's no reason to waste time on that stuff." They don't seem to realize the importance of doing experiments to verify existing preconceptions, and this is especially egregious with something like "HIV/AIDS," where they have clearly failed, over and over again. It's too bad our society doesn't have a good concept for this phenomenon (i.e., not considering alternatives in the wake of repeated failure) - "group insanity" is one possibility, but then people will think of cults. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
