I was trained as an academic historian, and historians almost always need to take "bits and pieces" of evidence and "tie them together" into a coherent "story." Indeed, this is where so many historians "go wrong," because it's so easy to simply see what you are looking for, rather than allowing the evidence to lead you towards the "truth." If you have seen evidence that is compelling, there is no reason for you to be unable to cite it here. If you say you can't at least cite some it, you are being disingenuous and you will only lose your intellectual credibility.
One important thing I learned in graduate school was to construct the best alternative case, and then see if it "held water." I've looked at all the evidence I could find (online) and there simply is no case to be made for "HIV/AIDS," even a "bad" one. True viral diseases are either going to kill you quickly (not 8, 10 or 20 years later), or else the virus is not the real issue, though it can cause problems and make matters worse (due to conditions in the body that could be avoided). The idea that there is a viral entity, "HIV," that originates outside the body, can "infect" the body (what does this actually mean?), and then do harm over a decade without an otherwise healthy body being able to adapt and deal with it effectively, is beyond science fiction. It is laughable.
I just hope you keep reading, because at one time I too would have dismissed the "dissidents" as a bunch of "quacks," and I'm certainly not proud to admit this fact. When I took the time to look at all the evidence (and having it available online was, of course, crucial) with an open mind, it was obvious a terrible mistake had been made, and the people in charge are clearly "conflicted" and there is little incentive for them to re-evaluate their notions. I'm more than willing to put up my own money (if I'm wrong) to do the kinds of refutation experiments that science is supposed to be based upon, and I've got this site that contains more than enough evidence for a much more likely explanation for "AIDS," but that is all I can do about it, realistically. I don't mind engaging people like yourself, so long as you present your evidence and make a clear, succinct case.
So far, you have yet to do that, so I'm asking you one last time to present your evidence and explain (as if you are talking to people who don't know about any of this) your case. There is no need to do this tomorrow. Don't rush, put together what you feel is a very strong argument, with supporting citations. Alternatively, we can take this one issue at a time. For example, what led you to believe that "HIV" had been isolated and was directly responsible for "AIDS"? Again, citations of actual data is required, or else this will not be a scientific discussion, and therefore, does not belong on this forum. I usually allow people to "go on rants" to some degree, hoping that I can persuade them to "stick to the evidence," but at some point I must "pull the plug on them" in order to keep this forum consistent with its "mission." |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
