Go ahead and cite the relevant passages from the studies you think are so crucial. Saying "nail in the coffin" is not appropriate in science, because refutation is always possible. This is why in science the term "theory" is used. The best any claim can be is a theory, and that is only if there is no evidence against it, which is not the case with "HIV/AIDS." The problem with claiming that only those who "test positive for HIV" go on to develop "AIDS" is that it is also consistent with alternative notions. That is, in my view (which is consistent with the evidence as a whole), "testing positive" means that there has already been excessive antigenic exposure and/or extreme cellular-levels stress, which would indeed predispose one to one or more of the diseases that are considered "AIDS" if one "tests positive for HIV." It's circular reasoning that became institutionalized, and is not a valid way to do science. It is, however, a good way to start a cult.
Dugas died of kidney failure - I'm not sure what you are trying to use him as an example of - again, it's likely that all his partners shared his lifestyle, which again, involved excessive antigenic exposure as well as extreme cellular-level stressors. "HIgh rates of AIDS" would mean that there has been a raging epidemic for many years, and if this was the case, there would be many more dead, even with the lax standards in some nations.
Epidemiology is only useful as supporting evidence for a claim, because it does not follow the scientific method. Furthermore, any epidemiologist will tell you that if the underlying assumptions are wrong, the results need to be put aside, or discarded, which is the case for these kinds of "HIV/AIDS" studies.
Now I'm going to ask this question of you, and if you don't respond directly and appropriately, I'm not going to allow you to post here any more: If I do my experiment, and I test 500 "HIV negative" people for "viral loads of HIV" when they have acute flu symptoms, and half of them have "high viral loads," but when they recover from the flu, go back to having no viral loads of "HIV" (though some might still have some level of "viral load of HIV" !), do you understand that these results would directly refute the "HIV/AIDS" claim? If you don't understand, explain what it is that confuses you and we can continue. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
