I can understand how a reasonable person could come to hold these views, if that person was only reading "orthodox" material (or if the person just skimmed over some "dissident" material). If you read the material on this site, you will realize that there is a totally different view of "infectious disease" more generally (which is supported by evidence and not contradicted by any), and that the "HIV/AIDS" notion is simply impossible. I hope you take the time to read at least much of the information here, especially the essays and the threads on the "HIV/AIDS debate" and also the underlying cause of "disease."
As to "HIV/AIDS" specifically, I've been looking for someone to debate the "orthodox" side for a long time, so we can use this thread for that purpose (even though you are not "perfectly orthodox" yourself). First, it's your responsibility to explain how death by "HIV" occurs, specifically. Then, you need to cite the professional literature, and explain how the actual data generated supports your notion. I have my own explanations for "AIDS deaths," but they would vary from one person to another (since there are about 30 old "diseases" now classified as "AIDS" if the person "tests positive").
Now, why am I a "dissident" here. First, I read all the evidence with an open mind, and I also was thinking in terms of the scientific method. If I remember correctly, only 36% of the "AIDS patients" tested by Gallo in the early days were "HIV positive," so right there is a huge problem, in terms of the scientific method. It's also now known that reverse transcriptase activity is not unique to "retroviruses." It's also true, but never discussed among "orthodox" folks, that markers for "HIV" can be generated in anyone, if the correct stressors are applied.
For example, the "viral load" test should be nearly 100% accurate, correct? Yet if we use this test on "HIV negative" people whose bodies are under a great deal of stress (such as someone with acute flu symptoms) there are going to be a lot of "false positives." I am so sure of this that I'm willing to pay for the experiment to be done (the "orthodox" crowd won't do this experiment, because they fear refutation, which is the exact opposite of the way a true scientist should think in this context), if I am wrong. I ask you, what percentage should test "positive," and if your response is more than zero, how do you explain this?
I look forward to continuing this "debate." |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
