Skip to comments.The Chemical Basis of AIDS
Posted on 01/24/2004 7:35:26 PM PST by Doc Savage
In 1981 I had returned from Alaska having spent two years doing field work on islands in the Bering Straits as a biologist. Then, working for Merck & Co., Inc., in New Jersey, I had the benefit of reading almost every scientific journal available.
I distinctly recall the 1981 NEJM article by Gottlieb et al initially describing an aquired immunodeficiency syndrome in the homosexual community which he, and others, attributed to the use of aphrodisiac nitrite inhalants (poppers) and other so-called "recreational" drugs.
It wasn't until much later that virologists became interested in a possible viral cause of AIDS, an action that eventually led to the "discovery" of a new retrovirus that was closely related to a "hypothetical" human leukemia virus. Human Immunodeficiency Virus was born.
Scientific research and discovery is based upon the principles of the scientific method. Additionally, when a scientific fact or breakthrough emerges in one laboratory, it is the ethical responsibility of other interested scientists to attempt to duplicate the results of the initial experiment. Neither the scientific method, not "peer-review" were followed in the "discovery" of HIV. To this day no original scientific study has ever been published to prove conclusively that HIV is the causative agent in AIDS. And since no such publication ever existed, the "results" could not be "reproduced" by other researchers.
For those of you who were not of sufficient age to either understand or comprehend the "epidemic crisis" that followed this viral hypothesis, it was dramatic, it was swift, and it was worldwide in it's impact. It quickly became evident that such a deadly virus, if easily transmittable, could infect and kill millions of people and ravage our nation's blood supplies.
Since I first visited FR there have been hundreds if not thousands of articles on AIDS posted. Normally questioning adults, the vast majority of Freepers have blindly accepted these articles on faith,...after all, how could so many scientists be wrong??,...how could the homosexual advocates be using AIDS as a propaganda tool in the political war on mainstream society??,...how could the government have spent 93 Billion dollars on AIDS since 1981 and been wrong about the actual cause of AIDS.
I recall the same lessons that every biology and science student has received to this day: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,...now proven false. One Gene - One Enzyme,...of course that is not so. Miller & Urey's experiment explains how life formed (not true) and we are the end result of a random evolutionary process,...except that no one can prove the theory and to this day it remains merely that,...a theory.
The point is that many times we blindly accept "truisms" that later turn out not to be so. So many Freepers have invested themselves in the HIV theory that they feel it is socially and scientifically responsible to ridicule anyone who even broaches a dissimilar explanation.
Since the vast majority of Freepers suffer from "The Smartest Guy In The Room" syndrome, I expect many of you will find the following points unsupportive and highly contestable:
Assumption: 1. Since HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, it must be abundant in AIDS patients based on exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases.
FACT: Only antibodies against HIV are found in most patients. Therefore, HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral isolation. But, HIV can only be isolated from rare, latently infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for weeks in vitro away from the antibodies of the human host. Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.
Assumption: 2. Since HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, there is no AIDS in HIV-free people.
FACT: The AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIV-free AIDS cases according to one survey irrespective of, or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for HIV-free AIDS cases.
Assumption: 3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing T-cells.
FACT: Retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA. Thus, T-cells infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diagnosis of AIDS are immortal.
Assumption: 4. Following exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace. Thus T-cells or CD4 lymphocytes . . . become depleted in people with AIDS.
FACT: Even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500 of the T-cells that become depleted are ever infected by HIV. This rate of infection is the hallmark of a latent passenger virus.
Assumption: 5. With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if it is a passenger.
FACT: HIV is said to be the sole cause of AIDS, or of 26 different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency diseases, all of which also occur without HIV. Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the definition of a passenger virus.
Assumption: 6. All viruses are most pathogenic prior to anti-viral immunity. Therefore, preemptive immunization with Jennerian vaccines is used to protect against all viral diseases since 1798.
FACT: AIDS is observed by definition only after anti- HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test. Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by the same criteria as conventional viruses.
Assumption 7. HIV needs 510 years from establishing antiviral immunity to cause AIDS.
FACT: HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs per cell. Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. biochemically most active, within weeks after infection. Thus, based on conventional criteria for other viral diseases, HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks if it could.
Assumption: 8. Most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 510 years the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with the DNA chain terminator AZT.
FACT: Of 34.3 million . . . with HIV worldwide only 1.4% [= 471,457 (obtained by substracting the WHOs cumulative total of 1999 from that of 2000)] developed AIDS in 2000, and similarly low percentages prevailed in all previous years. Likewise, in 1985, only 1.2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS. Since an annual incidence of 1.21.4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life expectancy of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus.
Assumption: 9. A vaccine against HIV should (is hoped to) prevent AIDS the reason why AIDS researchers try to develop an AIDS vaccine since 1984.
FACT: Despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to this day. Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV, and since natural antibodies are so effective that no HIV is detectable in AIDS patients, even the hopes for a vaccine are irrational.
Assumption: 10. HIV, like other viruses, survives by transmission from host to host, which is said to be mediated through sexual contact.
FACT: Only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV, and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected. Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random sexual contacts to get infected and spread HIV an unlikely basis for an epidemic.
Assumption: 11. AIDS spreads by infection of HIV.
FACT: Contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no spread of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now. By contrast, AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has declined ever since.
Assu,ptions: 12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood transfusions in the US for life-threatening diseases, should have developed AIDS from HIV-infected blood donors prior to the elimination of HIV from the blood supply in 1985.
FACT: There was no increase in AIDS-defining diseases in HIV-positive transfusion recipients in the AIDS era, and no AIDS-defining Kaposis sarcoma has ever been observed in millions of transfusion recipients.
Assumptions: 13. Doctors are at high risk to contract AIDS from patients, HIV researchers from virus preparations, wives of HIV-positive hemophiliacs from husbands, and prostitutes from clients particularly since there is no HIV vaccine.
FACT: In the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years. Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS. And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes. Thus AIDS is not contagious.
Assumptions: 14. Viral AIDS like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past should spread randomly in a population.
FACT: In the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981 to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male homosexual drug users.
Assumption: 15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped chronological curve, rising exponentially via virus spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity, within months.
FACT: AIDS has been increasing slowly since 1981 for 12 years and is now declining since 1993, just like a lifestyle epidemic, as for example lung cancer from smoking.
Assumption: 16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is transmitted from mother to infant at rates of 2550%, and because 34.3 million people worldwide were already infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal transmission rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth.
Fact: Less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric. Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in newborns.
Assumption: 17. HIV recognizes no social, political or geographic borders just like all other viruses.
FACT: The presumably HIV-caused AIDS epidemics of Africa and of the US and Europe differ both clinically and epidemiologically. The US/European epidemic is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is random.
The cause of AIDS is or are: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. HIV does NOT cause AIDS, and AIDS is NOT a sexually transmitted disease. To believe otherwise in the face of fact and logic is incomprehensible to me.
2) The cause of AIDS is or are: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. HIV does NOT cause AIDS, and AIDS is NOT a sexually transmitted disease. To believe otherwise in the face of fact and logic is incomprehensible to me.
So, is AIDS "NOT a sexually transmitted disease," or is it a fact that "Only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV"? Rather Contradictory.
Also, regarding the "275,000 random sexual contacts to get infected and spread HIV an unlikely basis for an epidemic." First, the sexual contacts are not RANDOM if gay men tend to have sex with gay men, and heroin users tend to associate with and have sex with other heroin users. Second, the 1 in 1000 odds, even if true of vaginal intercourse with no other STDs or lesions, are way too low for vaginal intercourse for people with STDs or other lesions, and way too low for anal intercourse. As I imply here, I'm sure AIDS is more transmissible in the face of other social and health problems; that does not defeat the conventional paradigm, that AIDS is a virus-caused STD.
In short, your post is absurd.
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Since only a tiny minority of already confused souls could ever be influenced by this nonsense, I won't waste my time pointing out all the fallacies.
From the Miami Herald - Saturday, December 22, 1990
"Today, clotting factor for the nation's 20,000 hemophiliacs is said to be cleansed by new laboratory processes. But great numbers of men who took it during those years are infected."
"A study of 100 in Miami found 95 percent HIV positive, and nearly 20 percent of their wives, and 2 to 3 percent of their newborn children."
This contradicts every report I've heard for 20 years. Not that the media can be trusted with regards to this issue, but do you have any studies you can cite to back up this statement?
E-Journal Publishers/Packages subscribed to by the U of C Science Libraries:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
- Safety Science
- Sbornik: Mathematics
- Scandinavian Actuarial Journal
- Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal
- Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation
- Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
- Scandinavian Journal of Immunology
- Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery
- Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
- Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology
- Scandinavian Journal of Statistics
- Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology
- Schizophrenia Research
- Schmerz, Der
- Science --recent years via Science
- Science --via OVID. (1993-current, one month lag time for current issues.) Research articles only, not all journal sections are online via this vendor. SGML versions of articles only, reprint/PDF versions are not available.
- Science -- backfile years from JSTOR
- Science and Technology of Advanced Materials
- Science and Technology Studies backfile via JSTOR
- Science Education
- Science & Education
- Science & Sports
- Science of Computer Programming
- Science of the Total Environment
- Science, Technology and Human Values backfile via JSTOR
- Sciences of Soils
- Scientia Horticulturae
- Scientific American
- Scientific American Medicine
- Scottish Journal of Geology
- Security Journal
- Sedimentary Geology
- Selecta Mathematica, New Series
- Semiconductor Science and Technology
- Semigroup Forum
- Seminars in Cancer Biology
- Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology
- Seminars in Cell Biology
- Seminars in Dialysis
- Seminars in Hearing
- Seminars in Immunology
- Seminars in Interventional Radiology
- Seminars in Liver Disease
- Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology
- Seminars in the Neurosciences
- Seminars in Neurology
- Seminars in Neurosurgery
- Seminars in Oncology
- Seminars in Plastic Surgery (formerly Perspectives in Plastic Surgery)
- Seminars in Reproductive Medicine
- Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Seminars in Speech and Language
- Seminars in Surgical Oncology
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
- Seminars in Vascular Medicine
- Seminars in Virology
- Sensors and Actuators A: Physical
- Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical
- Sensors Update
- Set-Valued Analysis
- Sex Roles
- Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment
- Sexual Dysfunction
- Sexual Plant Reproduction
- Sexuality and Disability
- Sexually Transmitted Infections -- via Ingenta
- Sexually Transmitted Infections -- via Ovid
- Shock Waves
- SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems
- SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics - current
- SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics - via JSTOR (1966-1997)
- SIAM Journal on Computing
- SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization
- SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics
- SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis
- SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications
- SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis - current
- SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis - via JSTOR (1966-1997)
- SIAM Journal on Optimization
- SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing
- SIAM Review - current
- SIAM Review - via JSTOR (1959-1997)
- Siberian Mathematical Journal
- Signal Processing
- Signal Processing: Image Communication
- Signal Transduction
- Silicon Chemistry
- Simulation Practice and Theory
- Single Molecules
- Skeletal Radiology
- Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology
- Skull Base Surgery
- Sleep And Breathing
- Sleep Medicine
- Small Ruminant Research
- Smart Materials Bulletin
- Smart Materials and Structures
- Social Choice and Welfare
- Social History of Medicine
- Social Indicators Research
- Social Networks
- Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
- Social Science & Medicine
- The Society of Wetland Scientists Bulletin
- Sociology of Health & Illness
- Soft Computing-A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications
- Software and Systems Modeling
- Software-Concepts & Tools
- Software Focus
- Software: Practice & Experience
- Software Process: Improvement and Practice
- Software Quality Journal
- Software Testing, Verification and Reliability
- Soil and Tillage Research
- Soil Biology and Biochemistry
- Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
- Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
- Soil Technology
- Soil Science Society of America Journal
- Solar Energy
- Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
- Solar Physics
- Solar System Research
- Solid State Communications
- Solid State Electronics
- Solid State Ionics
- Solid State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
- Somatic Cell and Molecular Genetics
- Southeast Asian Bulletin of Mathematics
- Southeastern Naturalist
- Southern Medical Journal
- Space Debris
- Space Policy
- Space Science Reviews
- Spatial Cognition and Computation
- Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
- Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy
- Spectrochimica Acta Electronica (supplement to Spectrochimica Acta)
- Spectroscopy Letters
- Spectrum (Society for Applied Spectroscopy)
- Speech Communication
- Sportverletzung Sportschaden
- Sports Engineering
- Sprache, Stimme, Gehör
- Springer Seminars in Immunopathology
- Springer-Verlag LINK
- Starch / Starke für angewandte Geographie
- Statistica Neerlandica
- Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes
- Statistical Papers
- Statistical Science - via JSTOR (1986-1997)
- Statistician. SEE: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D
- Statistics and Computing
- Statistics & Probability Letters
- Statistics in Medicine
- Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (2001)
- Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
- Stochastic Processes and their Applications
- Strahlentherapie und Onkologie
- Strength of Materials
- Stress and Health : Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress
- Stress Medicine
- Stroke -- via AHA
- Stroke -- via Ovid
- Structural Change and Economic Dynamics
- Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
- Structural Chemistry
- The Structural Design of Tall Buildings
- Structural Safety
- Structure -- via cell.com
- Structure -- via ScienceDirect
- STTT - International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer
- Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica
- Studia Logica
- Studies in Applied Mathematics
- Studies in Family Planning
- Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A
- Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
- Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C:Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
- Substance Abuse
- Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications
- Superconductor Science and Technology
- Superlattices and Microstructures
- Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - via JSTOR (1934-1947)
- Supportive Care in Cancer
- Supramolecular Science
- Surface and Coatings Technology
- Surface and Interface Analysis
- Surface Science
- Surface Science Reports
- Surgery Today - The Japanese Journal of Surgery
- Surgical Endoscopy
- Surgical Infections
- Surgical Neurology
- Surgical Oncology
- Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy
- Survey of Opthamology
- Surveys in Geophysics
- Sustainable Development
- Synthesis & Reactivity in Inorganic and Metal-Organic Chemistry
- Synthetic Communications
- Synthetic Metals
- System Dynamics Review
- System Familie
- Systematic Biology -- via JSTOR
- Systematic Biology -- via Catchword 1998-
- Systematic Botany -- via BioOne
- Systematic Botany -- via JSTOR
- Systematic Entomology
- Systematic Parasitology
- Systemic Practice and Action Research
- Systems and Computers in Japan
- Systems & Control Letters
- Systems Engineering
- Systems Research and Behavioral Science
Pseudocolored transmission electron micrograph of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) on infected human lymphocyte. Observe the daughter hiv cells leave the infected t-cell for a new host.
From: email@example.com(Steven B. Harris) Subject: Re: Viral Isolation: Pasteur Institute Rules Need Revision (fwd) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,misc.health.alternative In <Pine.BSF.3.95.971010092504.26439Cfirstname.lastname@example.org> Greg Nigh <email@example.com> writes: >I would like to pose an open question: > >How were the proteins that are considered HIV proteins derived? IOW, how >was it determined that the HIV proteins *are* HIV proteins? From what >material were those proteins derived? How was it *confirmed* that they >were in fact produced by the retrovirus? The retrovirus has been cloned. You take RNA from the sucrose gradient and turn it into DNA with reverse transcriptase. You get a roughly 10 kB piece of DNA. That DNA has pretty much the same sequence whenever you do the experiment, so it's not some random piece of RNA. It's a special piece. It has the genes of a retrovirus, with common sequences found in other lentiviruses. It codes for a number of proteins. You can clone the DNA into bacteria and they MAKE the proteins. SDS-PAGE and various immune blot methods tell you that these are the same proteins that infected cells secrete, and which are in the sucrose gradient along with the RNA. Thus, they must be viral proteins. You can raise antibodies to them, label these with gold, and see with EM what they stick to. Yep, they stick to those particles that look like retroviruses from the sucrose gradient. Also they stick to the particles which look like retrovirus which bud from cells WHEN you infect with the cloned set of DNA genes. What the heck more do you need? Steve Harris, M.D.Search for Google's copy of this article
From: firstname.lastname@example.org(Steven B. Harris) Subject: Re: How Know You Have a Virus in Culture (was Re: Chemo (Ultrastructure of HIV)) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,misc.health.alternative,sci.med,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med.pharmacy In <Pine.BSF.3.95.970821191742.11757Aemail@example.com> Greg Nigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >This is not accurate. It is accurate to say that particles have been >pictured which bud from cells and even that may (or may not) have the >characteristic features of retroviruses. However, particles budding >does not necessarily mean that they are what we think they are. Comment: Let me try again. There is this family of proteins which are known as "HIV proteins," but which we can call "X-proteins" for he sake of discussion, here. There isn't any question of their identificat- ion or their structure or their "isolation." We know their sequences exactly, and we produce them routinely by genetic engineering. For example, in the 3rd generation ELISA tests for >HIV-antibodies, the proteins for use in the tests are actually made by recombinant techniques in microbes, using genes for the "X-proteins." We know what these proteins, are, okay? We have given these "X proteins" names like HIVp24, HIVp17, and HIVgp160. This is not misidentification, because these proteins are called these names by definition. Ultimately the name does not matter, so long as we can agree as to the nature of these proteins, and the fact that they aren't a part of normal cells, and must come from elsewhere. Do you have any problem with this? Now, these X proteins are viral proteins, and they are not endogenous viral proteins. We know this because the genes that code for the proteins are NOT present in normal cells as those of an endogenous virus would of course be. There isn't any where they can hide from a cell DNA digest and Southern blot. Or from PCR techniques targetted to find them. However, these genes can be transferred to normal cells in a filtered, cell-free extract, and this transfer causes cultured cells to suddenly start actively making all these X proteins, which can then be collected, sequenced, and/or identified by various means (SDS-PAGE, for instance). So the ability of cells to make these proteins is infectious, and can be transferred from culture to culture. Moreover, such cultures secrete the genes to make these proteins, contained in lipid particles of a characteristic density, just like those secreted particles that contain the proteins themselves. Addition of a cell-free extract containing these particles to cells in culture, causes the cells to incorporate the genes, and to make more of the particles. A virus, by definition, is a package of genes and proteins secreted by cells, which causes other cells to make more of the same such packages. Our X-proteins and the genes that code for them fit this definition, and X-proteins are thus viral proteins, and the genes that code for them are viral genes. Moreover, limiting dilution assay shows that only one virus type is involved with this protein family, since dilution of cell-free extracts of X-proteins and their genes reaches the point where the extract either transforms a culture into making the whole family of X-proteins and genes, or else does nothing. If more than one virus was involved, dilution would eventually reach the point that cultures might be induced to only make some of the viral X proteins in question, and not others. But all these X-proteins we're talking about go together, always. They are the proteins of one virus species, clearly. That's really all that is necessary. We are talking about a new virus species, defined by the family of viral proteins it causes cells to make in culture. Science has given this virus the name "HIV." That's the end of that story. That's what HIV is. You'll notice that I haven't talked about antibodies or electron microscopes. They are not needed to tell if you have captured a particular virus in culture. However, we have used such things to see what "HIV" looks like. The HIV proteins can be used to make antibodies that react with HIV proteins, but not other proteins in cells. These antibodies can be stuck to heavy metal atoms so that they can be seen on electron micrographs. If they are added to cell in cultures where HIV proteins are not made, the antibodies don't stick to anything, and we see nothing special about the cells. However, in cultures where virus has been added, the cells are budding small particles into the culture media fluid, and HIV-protein antibodies are seen to stick heavily to these structures. It is thus eminently reasonable (and to decide otherwise would be perverse) that these structures are where the HIV-proteins are, and are thus the HIV virus. It helps that they look like virus particles. Now, remember, we have shown that have a virus (self-propagating collection of proteins and genes) in HIV cultures, which we call HIV. It's always possible that what we see on electron microscopy isn't the virus which we know we're growing, and is some other virus--- but it's rather unlikely. If it's some other virus, how come it has such an affinity for antibodies which we carefully made to HIV-proteins, which are the viral proteins we're interested in? You tell me. Steve Harris, M.D.Search for Google's copy of this article
You won't get an answer.
I've been asking that question for over ten years and all I get is a run around from the HIV=AIDS people. They will laugh at you for asking the question but they will never ever give you a reference to any technical work that proves the connection. They can't give it to you because it doesn't exist - and they know it. Unfortunately there are now too many careers and too much business at stake for them to give up the myth and so it persists.
Now with kids in middle school and high school, I find myself periodically re-educating them about politics and the homosexual agenda. Public schools: sheesh!
Do you have any recommended current reading? Some new references would be useful.
Thanks again for the excellent post--I've saved it for my oldest kid.
I do have one question however. Even IF HIV was not the transmitting factor, and there is no such thing as heterosexual aids, then how would the rampant infections in Africa and Asia be explained. I know the article alluded to 'poor nutrition' as one of the 'causes' (pardon the quotation marks please), however you cannot tell me all the cases are due to nutrition. Some of the infected cases are among segments of the population that do not fall under the whole 'poor starving African' stereotype. For example one of the hotspots of infection is South Africa, and you cannot say all those cases (some say up to 25%) are due to poor nutrition. S.Africa is not the Gambia.
And anyways, i guess my most important question is this: if not HIV what then?
But it is a visceral subject.
In 100 years when it is less political and emotional it will be an interesting episode of how scientific rigor broke down.
Your cynicism in quite unfounded.
"While evidence from one chimpanzee may not seem compelling to the lay person, in the scientific arena and in conjunction with other, cumulative data, it is considered persuasive"
Your one chimpanzee "proof" of Koch's 3rd postulate just isn't good enough for me. It is junk science and nothing else. The HIV=AIDS hypothesis does NOT satisfy Koch's 3rd postulate. Period. It doesn't even satisfy his 1st. HIV is not found in all AIDS patients. All means all. Not 90%, Not 99% but 100%.