Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Paradox

Apparently, this controversy is news to you, no? Article is just as valid today as it was then--TTS


7 posted on 05/04/2005 10:48:24 AM PDT by TapTheSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: TapTheSource
Not news to me, it had been debated to death in the mid 90's, it got some legs here on FR in the late 90's, early 00's.

In that other thread, someone challenged you to have an aids victims blood injected into you regularly, you claimed no, they are sick from other infections. Ok, lets change that, would you allow yourself to be injected by nothing else other than the HIV virus over a period of time?

11 posted on 05/04/2005 10:50:33 AM PDT by Paradox ("It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."- Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: TapTheSource

What has happened in the past decade bears out the reasonableness of the article. AIDS has become more of a female disease in America, but the emergence was truly quite slow. It has never leapt into the general population. In Africa, it would be false to say that the majority of cases are in women, as the author suspected, but it is very much more in the general female population than elsewhere. Supposed time bombs have not erupted. And the search for cofactors continues. Plus, The confounding factors mentionned in the article are mostly true (I can't think of one of them to refute).

Is AIDS caused by HIV? It is certainly a prominent factor. Can HIV alone cause AIDS? It still looks doubtful. I would love to read anyone else with any more to add.


48 posted on 05/04/2005 11:25:06 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson