Replies

I believe the point of the study is to add further proof that the period of time after an initial infection with HIV is the point where a person is sluffing off vast quantities of the virus. Thus making them highly infectious to others.

Yes that is the point of the study but that is true of all viruses. The problem with all of the studies of HIV is that they are based on the false assumption that HIV is the cause of AIDS. This is the false postulate of the whole AIDS industry and it has never been and never will be proven because it just isn't so. I will offer again as I have so many times to read anything offered up that is contrary to this position. Where is the scientific article that shows that HIV causes AIDS? Who wrote it and when did they write it?

Please don't read a lack of sympathy for AIDS victims in what I write here. I happen to believe very deeply that AIDS victims are being lied to about the cause of their illness. You can't get well if the doctor is giving you bad advice and right now they are getting very bad advice. I just do my little bit to help reverse that.

And it is not spam.

Well Sir you are consistant with your point of view. No it is not spam. A few days after you joined FR you began to dissent to HIV=AIDS (on one of my posts) and you continue to this day.

Other than "We hold our different opinions", as I stated before - I never know what to say to those who hold this idea.

My life is a life of science and peer review - I know not what compass you employ to ensure that your views are accurate.

Hypotheses may be disproved by the right data with relative ease, and cases of HIV-free AIDS would disprove the idea that HIV causes AIDS, in proportion to how often these are found (i.e., if 10% of AIDS cases were HIV-free, this would prove that HIV is not the cause of at least 10% of AIDS). Thus, Duesberg and Root-Bernstein are not the only ones who have been looking for HIV-free people who are badly CD4+ lymphocyte immunosuppressed without reason (i.e., good candidates for HIV-free AIDS). Very recently the C.D.C. reported that after a massive search it had only been able to find less than 100 people without HIV infection across the country whose CD4+ counts were at one time less than 300 (not quite in the AIDS-class immunosuppression range of 200, but drawing close). This syndrome was named "ICL" (idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia), meaning "people with low CD4+ lymphocyte counts without a medically-defined disease."

At least one study (M.S.Ascher, Nature, 1993; 362:103) has been designed in response to his assertions that drug use was a major cause of AIDS associated immune suppression. In that study, cohorts of homosexual and heterosexual men were compared, matched for use of marijuana, cocaine or amphetamines. There was no association between the development of AIDS and use of these drugs. The homosexual cohort used more nitrites than did the heterosexual one, but development of AIDS was related to the presence of HIV infection and not to use of drugs (M.S. Ascher, Lancet, 1993; 341:1223).

Those who believe that HIV causes AIDS look to the cases associated with transfusion, congenital infection, or sexual transmission as coming as close to Koch's postulates as is likely to be possible in humans.