There is evidence for what is being said here & most of the people who make these judgments are educated or involved enough to ask these valid questions.
However, I am not interested in the credentials of a person who suggests a theory, I am interested in clear, logical reasoning or common sense.
Science is NEVER conclusive about anything, no good science would claim this, that being said, if there is only 1 scientist who disputes mainstream scientific findings it is the duty of science to investigate such possibilities, esp in the case of HIV/Aids where after 3 decades of research on which billions of dollars has been spent has brought us no closer to any of the promises made in the 80's & 90's re vaccinations & cures. If anything, more questions have been raised, but are still unanswered by mainstream medicine. Instead they rely on arguments of character assassination of the dissidents. Is it not time to consider the possibility that HIV doesn't = Aids and that for this reason we have not been able to cure it?
How is it that somebody with Aids, who has been sent home to die because he's so weak he can't eat/walk, can be completely healthy & back at work weeks after making lifestyle changes? I am South African and I can tell you that Aids in Africa is nothing new,certainly not something that has popped up during the past 30 years. It's malnourishment and lack of proper hygiene that has the so-called millions of Africans dying of 'Aids'. Of this we have more than enough proof, as we have assisted many back to health after having Aids with simple dietary adjustments. There is no funding for HIV tests in Africa, so I'm curious on what grounds these millions have been diagnosed? How can medicine prescribe drugs like AZT & Nevirapine when they are known to cause adverse side effects and health problems, amongst them liver failure, kidney failure, muscle deterioration, diabetes & many other health concerns, most of which define Aids? Is it possible to distinguish between a person that has Aids due to a killer virus & one who is experiencing side effects from Aids medication? AZT was an experimental drug for cancer treatment which was considered too toxic to be considered a viable treatment. What ever happened to the ethics of scientists who love to quote Hippocrates: "First do no harm"?
How can you treat immune deficiency with immune deteriorating medication? Does it make sense? How can one trust anything surrounding the HIV=Aids hypothesis if the solution suggested is no better than the disease?? Esp when it's a multi billion $ business and it's not hard to see motivation behind creating mass panic? Why is there still no explanation for persons who have Aids symptoms but do not test positive for HIV? Why is it that there are countless cases of people who have tested positive for HIV, but never develop Aids? How can babies test HIV+ while their mothers test neg? How are couples who have unprotected sex able to maintain 1 HIV- status and 1 HIV+, if it's sexually transmitted? Could it be that like with all viral infections once neutralized by the immune system it's no longer infectious, as the living virus is no longer in your system, but only antibodies? How can a virus take 15 years before producing symptoms? Actually I believe it now takes anything from 20-30 years, in which time you are told you will develop any one of 30+ known Aids diseases (but the list of Aids related diseases keeps growing, so ANY disease you develop within 20-30 years after known infection with HIV can be ascribed to HIV induced Aids - this is a bit like predicting the future by palm reading and being told that you will be faced with a major decision sometime in your future... who isn't at some stage??) I ask again, is it not perhaps time to finally venture alternative theories? Why is medical science so arrogant in believing they are right and refusing to fund research into these alternative theories? And this after they have had 30 years, billions of dollars and apparently irrefutable scientists on their team, who thus far seem to have been out-smarted by a virus!! If they really wished to cure Aids I would think that they would be prepared to try just about anything by now, esp in light of the fact that they have stooped to using drugs as toxic as AZT... which has not saved a single life to date.
Why not do the logical thing when confronted with the problem of immune deficiency, and focus on building the immune system up????
I will conclude by saying that I have first hand experience with HIV infection and it is a joke at best!!! I urge you to do your own research & think why would any of these scientists who refute the HIV=Aids hypothesis place their names & careers on line if the evidence doesn't warrant it? Think what would happen if it were confirmed that HIV doesn't cause Aids. The economy would suffer a dip, 100 000's of people will be jobless, some may face prison if it's proved they knowingly supported a hypothesis of no substance. And of course, inquiry won't end with HIV - cancer will be the next. It could mean the collapse of arguably the biggest industry in the world. Perhaps this is reason enough for mainstream science to argue so vehemently for the HIV=Aids hypothesis.
However, I am not interested in the credentials of a person who suggests a theory, I am interested in clear, logical reasoning or common sense.
Science is NEVER conclusive about anything, no good science would claim this, that being said, if there is only 1 scientist who disputes mainstream scientific findings it is the duty of science to investigate such possibilities, esp in the case of HIV/Aids where after 3 decades of research on which billions of dollars has been spent has brought us no closer to any of the promises made in the 80's & 90's re vaccinations & cures. If anything, more questions have been raised, but are still unanswered by mainstream medicine. Instead they rely on arguments of character assassination of the dissidents. Is it not time to consider the possibility that HIV doesn't = Aids and that for this reason we have not been able to cure it?
How is it that somebody with Aids, who has been sent home to die because he's so weak he can't eat/walk, can be completely healthy & back at work weeks after making lifestyle changes? I am South African and I can tell you that Aids in Africa is nothing new,certainly not something that has popped up during the past 30 years. It's malnourishment and lack of proper hygiene that has the so-called millions of Africans dying of 'Aids'. Of this we have more than enough proof, as we have assisted many back to health after having Aids with simple dietary adjustments. There is no funding for HIV tests in Africa, so I'm curious on what grounds these millions have been diagnosed? How can medicine prescribe drugs like AZT & Nevirapine when they are known to cause adverse side effects and health problems, amongst them liver failure, kidney failure, muscle deterioration, diabetes & many other health concerns, most of which define Aids? Is it possible to distinguish between a person that has Aids due to a killer virus & one who is experiencing side effects from Aids medication? AZT was an experimental drug for cancer treatment which was considered too toxic to be considered a viable treatment. What ever happened to the ethics of scientists who love to quote Hippocrates: "First do no harm"?
How can you treat immune deficiency with immune deteriorating medication? Does it make sense? How can one trust anything surrounding the HIV=Aids hypothesis if the solution suggested is no better than the disease?? Esp when it's a multi billion $ business and it's not hard to see motivation behind creating mass panic? Why is there still no explanation for persons who have Aids symptoms but do not test positive for HIV? Why is it that there are countless cases of people who have tested positive for HIV, but never develop Aids? How can babies test HIV+ while their mothers test neg? How are couples who have unprotected sex able to maintain 1 HIV- status and 1 HIV+, if it's sexually transmitted? Could it be that like with all viral infections once neutralized by the immune system it's no longer infectious, as the living virus is no longer in your system, but only antibodies? How can a virus take 15 years before producing symptoms? Actually I believe it now takes anything from 20-30 years, in which time you are told you will develop any one of 30+ known Aids diseases (but the list of Aids related diseases keeps growing, so ANY disease you develop within 20-30 years after known infection with HIV can be ascribed to HIV induced Aids - this is a bit like predicting the future by palm reading and being told that you will be faced with a major decision sometime in your future... who isn't at some stage??) I ask again, is it not perhaps time to finally venture alternative theories? Why is medical science so arrogant in believing they are right and refusing to fund research into these alternative theories? And this after they have had 30 years, billions of dollars and apparently irrefutable scientists on their team, who thus far seem to have been out-smarted by a virus!! If they really wished to cure Aids I would think that they would be prepared to try just about anything by now, esp in light of the fact that they have stooped to using drugs as toxic as AZT... which has not saved a single life to date.
Why not do the logical thing when confronted with the problem of immune deficiency, and focus on building the immune system up????
I will conclude by saying that I have first hand experience with HIV infection and it is a joke at best!!! I urge you to do your own research & think why would any of these scientists who refute the HIV=Aids hypothesis place their names & careers on line if the evidence doesn't warrant it? Think what would happen if it were confirmed that HIV doesn't cause Aids. The economy would suffer a dip, 100 000's of people will be jobless, some may face prison if it's proved they knowingly supported a hypothesis of no substance. And of course, inquiry won't end with HIV - cancer will be the next. It could mean the collapse of arguably the biggest industry in the world. Perhaps this is reason enough for mainstream science to argue so vehemently for the HIV=Aids hypothesis.