• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hiv

Good4Nothin

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
13,183
Reaction score
2,896
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
HIV does not cause AIDS. The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.

AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.

The ARV drugs are like cancer drugs -- they kill everything, but hopefully kill pathogens or cancer cells before killing healthy cells. Actually, the ARV drugs prevent or slow cell reproduction. In ALL cells, but more so in supposed HIV DNA.

If you are on ARV drugs, you are constantly taking a strong antibiotic and cancer chemotherapy drug. So yeah, you won't be as vulnerable to infections or cancer. But you are taking poison, every day. That is not so good.

The drug companies are doing very well with these drugs. Now there is an drug to prevent HIV transmission. So healthy gay men are supposed to take it.

Long term use of these drugs causes heart disease, liver disease, dementia, premature aging, etc.

It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.

I have read all about how they arrived at the HIV hypothesis, and how they supposedly proved AZT kills HIV and prevents AIDS. Extreme BS.

No one knows whether more deaths were caused by AIDS or by AZT.

Now they have better drugs that aren't as toxic as AZT. There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs. Only comparing new drugs to AZT and other older drugs.

It is not ethical to not give HIV patients ARV drugs. But it is ethical to give them drugs that have NOT been proven to work, or to be safe.

The drug companies have won. The whole world agrees with their propaganda.

If you are HIV positive, are you more likely to die from AIDS if you get ARV drugs, or if you don't? NO ONE KNOWS.
 
There are a couple dozen FDA approved retrovirals. Which particular combination is prescribed largely depends on the physician prescribing them.
 
Drawdown said:
There are a couple dozen FDA approved retrovirals. Which particular combination is prescribed largely depends on the physician prescribing them.
Click to expand...

That has no relevance to my post.
 
Drawdown said:
But unlike your post it has relevance to reality.
Click to expand...

If you think my post doesn't have relevance to reality, why not explain the reason? Instead of posting something that has nothing to do with the topic.
 
Good4Nothin said:
HIV does not cause AIDS. The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.

AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.

The ARV drugs are like cancer drugs -- they kill everything, but hopefully kill pathogens or cancer cells before killing healthy cells. Actually, the ARV drugs prevent or slow cell reproduction. In ALL cells, but more so in supposed HIV DNA.

If you are on ARV drugs, you are constantly taking a strong antibiotic and cancer chemotherapy drug. So yeah, you won't be as vulnerable to infections or cancer. But you are taking poison, every day. That is not so good.

The drug companies are doing very well with these drugs. Now there is an drug to prevent HIV transmission. So healthy gay men are supposed to take it.

Long term use of these drugs causes heart disease, liver disease, dementia, premature aging, etc.

It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.

I have read all about how they arrived at the HIV hypothesis, and how they supposedly proved AZT kills HIV and prevents AIDS. Extreme BS.

No one knows whether more deaths were caused by AIDS or by AZT.

Now they have better drugs that aren't as toxic as AZT. There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs. Only comparing new drugs to AZT and other older drugs.

It is not ethical to not give HIV patients ARV drugs. But it is ethical to give them drugs that have NOT been proven to work, or to be safe.

The drug companies have won. The whole world agrees with their propaganda.

If you are HIV positive, are you more likely to die from AIDS if you get ARV drugs, or if you don't? NO ONE KNOWS.
Click to expand...

Your post is opinion and lacks any evidence
 
Good4Nothin said:
HIV does not cause AIDS. The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.

AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.

The ARV drugs are like cancer drugs -- they kill everything, but hopefully kill pathogens or cancer cells before killing healthy cells. Actually, the ARV drugs prevent or slow cell reproduction. In ALL cells, but more so in supposed HIV DNA.

If you are on ARV drugs, you are constantly taking a strong antibiotic and cancer chemotherapy drug. So yeah, you won't be as vulnerable to infections or cancer. But you are taking poison, every day. That is not so good.

The drug companies are doing very well with these drugs. Now there is an drug to prevent HIV transmission. So healthy gay men are supposed to take it.

Long term use of these drugs causes heart disease, liver disease, dementia, premature aging, etc.

It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.

I have read all about how they arrived at the HIV hypothesis, and how they supposedly proved AZT kills HIV and prevents AIDS. Extreme BS.

No one knows whether more deaths were caused by AIDS or by AZT.

Now they have better drugs that aren't as toxic as AZT. There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs. Only comparing new drugs to AZT and other older drugs.

It is not ethical to not give HIV patients ARV drugs. But it is ethical to give them drugs that have NOT been proven to work, or to be safe.

The drug companies have won. The whole world agrees with their propaganda.

If you are HIV positive, are you more likely to die from AIDS if you get ARV drugs, or if you don't? NO ONE KNOWS.
Click to expand...

Ludicrous and idiotic, contradicted by history. AIDS was a death sentence. Tremendous advances have been made.


Movies lie: the shunned old man in a hut somewhere is shunned because he's a loony, not because he knows The Secret Truth.
 
Good4Nothin said:
HIV does not cause AIDS. The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.

AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.

The ARV drugs are like cancer drugs -- they kill everything, but hopefully kill pathogens or cancer cells before killing healthy cells. Actually, the ARV drugs prevent or slow cell reproduction. In ALL cells, but more so in supposed HIV DNA.

If you are on ARV drugs, you are constantly taking a strong antibiotic and cancer chemotherapy drug. So yeah, you won't be as vulnerable to infections or cancer. But you are taking poison, every day. That is not so good.

The drug companies are doing very well with these drugs. Now there is an drug to prevent HIV transmission. So healthy gay men are supposed to take it.

Long term use of these drugs causes heart disease, liver disease, dementia, premature aging, etc.

It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.

I have read all about how they arrived at the HIV hypothesis, and how they supposedly proved AZT kills HIV and prevents AIDS. Extreme BS.

No one knows whether more deaths were caused by AIDS or by AZT.

Now they have better drugs that aren't as toxic as AZT. There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs. Only comparing new drugs to AZT and other older drugs.

It is not ethical to not give HIV patients ARV drugs. But it is ethical to give them drugs that have NOT been proven to work, or to be safe.

The drug companies have won. The whole world agrees with their propaganda.

If you are HIV positive, are you more likely to die from AIDS if you get ARV drugs, or if you don't? NO ONE KNOWS.
Click to expand...

Please provide links to the sources you used to come to your conclusion.

It is up to you to prove, "It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really!" is true. It is not up to us to disprove.
 
mike2810 said:
Please provide links to the sources you used to come to your conclusion.

It is up to you to prove, "It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really!" is true. It is not up to us to disprove.
Click to expand...

I know, I don't expect you to believe me just because I say it. My OP was an introduction to the topic. I did a lot of reading and searching, although it was a while ago. There is a lot more censorship now, and questioning the HIV theory is taboo.

The whole story is extremely confusing. It isn't really a conspiracy theory, because no one is trying to fool us. The medical experts and the drug companies, probably, believe the HIV drugs are effective and have changed AIDS from a fatal disease to a chronic disease.

There are many tangled branches to the story, can't be spit out all at once in a short post.

In the 1980s, there were suddenly many AIDS deaths among gay men and IV drug users. Medical researchers found signs of what they call HIV in the blood of all the victims. Aha! That means HIV causes AIDS, right? Not so fast. The cause could be something else, and the signs of HIV might just go along with the real cause. There are actually many reasons for a positive HIV test -- this is well known and acknowledged by medical science.

After they decided HIV causes AIDS, they searched for a drug that would kill HIV, and they chose AZT. It was a highly toxic cancer drug. A clinical trial began, comparing AIDS patients treated with AZT vs placebo. Within a fairly short time, the AZT group had lower mortality. The trial was stopped, because they felt it had confirmed their theory, that AZT kills HIV, and HIV causes AIDS.

However, no one knows if this effect would have continue over a longer period. And some doubt that it would have. Still, that ONE clinical trial is the entire basis for the AIDS/HIV/AZT theory.

New, less toxic HIV drugs were developed. They were NEVER tested against placebos -- that would be "unethical," since it was "known" that AZT works. The less toxic drugs resulted in lower mortality. It was assumed that they were better at killing HIV. It was NOT assumed that they were simply less toxic and less likely to cause death.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic criteria for AIDS changed. Previously, patients were diagnosed with AIDS because of the "opportunistic infections" that AIDS leads to. But after the HIV theory was accepted, patients were diagnosed based on having a positive HIV test. As I said before, HIV tests can be positive for many reasons, including pregnancy. Also, Africans are more likely to be HIV positive, without necessarily having AIDS.

So now that people could be diagnosed with AIDS just because they were HIV positive, they were not necessarily sick when diagnosed. AIDS stopped being a "death sentence," but maybe that was because people diagnosed with AIDS were not necessarily as sick as those who were diagnosed in the 1980s.

But why, you ask, do AIDS patients improve when taking ARV (anti-retroviral) drugs? No one really knows. But it is known that ARV drugs are antibiotic -- they can kill bacteria, viruses and cancer cells. They are similar to cancer chemotherapy, after all. So the opportunistic infections caused by AIDS can be killed with ARV drugs, leading to the impression that they are curing HIV/AIDS.

But that's good, right? You want to kill those infections. Well yeah, but for one thing they never completely cure AIDS so patients take them for life. Would you want to be on cancer chemotherapy FOR LIFE. Also, the ARV drugs are taken to be proof of the HIV theory. But if they work by killing opportunistic infections, that would NOT support the HIV theory.

So much is still not known about HIV and AIDS. But the publicity tells us it's all under control. All an HIV positive person has to do is take the drugs, and they will live an almost normal life. That is BS -- no one has any idea if it's true.

And now they are giving preventative ARV drugs, to healthy gay men. The drugs are literally poison. They interfere with the reproduction of DNA in ALL CELLS. Not just in HIV. They destroy health, in many ways.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I know, I don't expect you to believe me just because I say it. My OP was an introduction to the topic. I did a lot of reading and searching, although it was a while ago. There is a lot more censorship now, and questioning the HIV theory is taboo.

The whole story is extremely confusing. It isn't really a conspiracy theory, because no one is trying to fool us. The medical experts and the drug companies, probably, believe the HIV drugs are effective and have changed AIDS from a fatal disease to a chronic disease.

There are many tangled branches to the story, can't be spit out all at once in a short post.

In the 1980s, there were suddenly many AIDS deaths among gay men and IV drug users. Medical researchers found signs of what they call HIV in the blood of all the victims. Aha! That means HIV causes AIDS, right? Not so fast. The cause could be something else, and the signs of HIV might just go along with the real cause. There are actually many reasons for a positive HIV test -- this is well known and acknowledged by medical science.

After they decided HIV causes AIDS, they searched for a drug that would kill HIV, and they chose AZT. It was a highly toxic cancer drug. A clinical trial began, comparing AIDS patients treated with AZT vs placebo. Within a fairly short time, the AZT group had lower mortality. The trial was stopped, because they felt it had confirmed their theory, that AZT kills HIV, and HIV causes AIDS.

However, no one knows if this effect would have continue over a longer period. And some doubt that it would have. Still, that ONE clinical trial is the entire basis for the AIDS/HIV/AZT theory.

New, less toxic HIV drugs were developed. They were NEVER tested against placebos -- that would be "unethical," since it was "known" that AZT works. The less toxic drugs resulted in lower mortality. It was assumed that they were better at killing HIV. It was NOT assumed that they were simply less toxic and less likely to cause death.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic criteria for AIDS changed. Previously, patients were diagnosed with AIDS because of the "opportunistic infections" that AIDS leads to. But after the HIV theory was accepted, patients were diagnosed based on having a positive HIV test. As I said before, HIV tests can be positive for many reasons, including pregnancy. Also, Africans are more likely to be HIV positive, without necessarily having AIDS.

So now that people could be diagnosed with AIDS just because they were HIV positive, they were not necessarily sick when diagnosed. AIDS stopped being a "death sentence," but maybe that was because people diagnosed with AIDS were not necessarily as sick as those who were diagnosed in the 1980s.

But why, you ask, do AIDS patients improve when taking ARV (anti-retroviral) drugs? No one really knows. But it is known that ARV drugs are antibiotic -- they can kill bacteria, viruses and cancer cells. They are similar to cancer chemotherapy, after all. So the opportunistic infections caused by AIDS can be killed with ARV drugs, leading to the impression that they are curing HIV/AIDS.

But that's good, right? You want to kill those infections. Well yeah, but for one thing they never completely cure AIDS so patients take them for life. Would you want to be on cancer chemotherapy FOR LIFE. Also, the ARV drugs are taken to be proof of the HIV theory. But if they work by killing opportunistic infections, that would NOT support the HIV theory.

So much is still not known about HIV and AIDS. But the publicity tells us it's all under control. All an HIV positive person has to do is take the drugs, and they will live an almost normal life. That is BS -- no one has any idea if it's true.

And now they are giving preventative ARV drugs, to healthy gay men. The drugs are literally poison. They interfere with the reproduction of DNA in ALL CELLS. Not just in HIV. They destroy health, in many ways.
Click to expand...

Your thesis has no evidence to support it
 
Good4Nothin said:
I know, I don't expect you to believe me just because I say it. My OP was an introduction to the topic. I did a lot of reading and searching, although it was a while ago. There is a lot more censorship now, and questioning the HIV theory is taboo.

The whole story is extremely confusing. It isn't really a conspiracy theory, because no one is trying to fool us. The medical experts and the drug companies, probably, believe the HIV drugs are effective and have changed AIDS from a fatal disease to a chronic disease.

There are many tangled branches to the story, can't be spit out all at once in a short post.

In the 1980s, there were suddenly many AIDS deaths among gay men and IV drug users. Medical researchers found signs of what they call HIV in the blood of all the victims. Aha! That means HIV causes AIDS, right? Not so fast. The cause could be something else, and the signs of HIV might just go along with the real cause. There are actually many reasons for a positive HIV test -- this is well known and acknowledged by medical science.

After they decided HIV causes AIDS, they searched for a drug that would kill HIV, and they chose AZT. It was a highly toxic cancer drug. A clinical trial began, comparing AIDS patients treated with AZT vs placebo. Within a fairly short time, the AZT group had lower mortality. The trial was stopped, because they felt it had confirmed their theory, that AZT kills HIV, and HIV causes AIDS.

However, no one knows if this effect would have continue over a longer period. And some doubt that it would have. Still, that ONE clinical trial is the entire basis for the AIDS/HIV/AZT theory.

New, less toxic HIV drugs were developed. They were NEVER tested against placebos -- that would be "unethical," since it was "known" that AZT works. The less toxic drugs resulted in lower mortality. It was assumed that they were better at killing HIV. It was NOT assumed that they were simply less toxic and less likely to cause death.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic criteria for AIDS changed. Previously, patients were diagnosed with AIDS because of the "opportunistic infections" that AIDS leads to. But after the HIV theory was accepted, patients were diagnosed based on having a positive HIV test. As I said before, HIV tests can be positive for many reasons, including pregnancy. Also, Africans are more likely to be HIV positive, without necessarily having AIDS.

So now that people could be diagnosed with AIDS just because they were HIV positive, they were not necessarily sick when diagnosed. AIDS stopped being a "death sentence," but maybe that was because people diagnosed with AIDS were not necessarily as sick as those who were diagnosed in the 1980s.

But why, you ask, do AIDS patients improve when taking ARV (anti-retroviral) drugs? No one really knows. But it is known that ARV drugs are antibiotic -- they can kill bacteria, viruses and cancer cells. They are similar to cancer chemotherapy, after all. So the opportunistic infections caused by AIDS can be killed with ARV drugs, leading to the impression that they are curing HIV/AIDS.

But that's good, right? You want to kill those infections. Well yeah, but for one thing they never completely cure AIDS so patients take them for life. Would you want to be on cancer chemotherapy FOR LIFE. Also, the ARV drugs are taken to be proof of the HIV theory. But if they work by killing opportunistic infections, that would NOT support the HIV theory.

So much is still not known about HIV and AIDS. But the publicity tells us it's all under control. All an HIV positive person has to do is take the drugs, and they will live an almost normal life. That is BS -- no one has any idea if it's true.

And now they are giving preventative ARV drugs, to healthy gay men. The drugs are literally poison. They interfere with the reproduction of DNA in ALL CELLS. Not just in HIV. They destroy health, in many ways.
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of believing you or not. When someone makes a statement such as you did it is up to you to provide links that support the statement. You have failed to do so. It also helps in the discussion if the one commenting is reading the same material as you.
 
Good4Nothin said:
HIV does not cause AIDS.
Click to expand...
On what are you basing this definitive and unconditional statement? Note that you’re not saying might not, you’re saying “does not!”.

Good4Nothin said:
The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.
Click to expand...
Pretty much anything can be a poison, it largely depends on dose. Like a lot of medical drugs, the various types of anti-retroviral can have all sorts of significant side effects which need to be managed on a patient-by-patient basis and ultimately balanced on a risk-benefit bases by the patient and their doctors.

Good4Nothin said:
AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.
Click to expand...
AIDS describes a set of symptoms. The cause of that specific set of symptoms is clearly contagious, which brings us back to your outright dismissal of HIV as that cause.

Good4Nothin said:
It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.
Click to expand...
Prove what wrong? Nobody claims these treatments don’t have major risks and side-effects and few would deny that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs by emphasising the benefits and minimising the side-effects and risks. I fail to see what any of this has to do with your assertions about HIV and AIDS specifically though.

Good4Nothin said:
There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs.
Click to expand...
Just because ethical reasons prevent contemporary human testing doesn’t mean there is no research in to the effectiveness of new treatments. They can assess the underlying mechanisms, test in the lab, test in animals (not withstanding separate ethical issues there) and compare with historic records of HIV/AIDS patients from before any of these treatments were commonly available. It isn’t perfect (though lots of medical research isn’t for similar reasons) but combined it can give a decent level of confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of any given treatment.
 
mike2810 said:
It is not a matter of believing you or not. When someone makes a statement such as you did it is up to you to provide links that support the statement. You have failed to do so. It also helps in the discussion if the one commenting is reading the same material as you.
Click to expand...

I didn't "FAIL" to provide links. I just haven't done that yet. I provided some background.
 
HonestJoe said:
Just because ethical reasons prevent contemporary human testing doesn’t mean there is no research in to the effectiveness of new treatments. They can assess the underlying mechanisms, test in the lab, test in animals (not withstanding separate ethical issues there) and compare with historic records of HIV/AIDS patients from before any of these treatments were commonly available. It isn’t perfect (though lots of medical research isn’t for similar reasons) but combined it can give a decent level of confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of any given treatment.
Click to expand...

Because of the supposed ethical restrictions, scientific testing has not been done. The underlying mechanisms are not understood.

It can all be explained away by wishful thinking. Exactly what science is supposed to avoid.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Because of the supposed ethical restrictions, scientific testing has not been done. The underlying mechanisms are not understood.

It can all be explained away by wishful thinking. Exactly what science is supposed to avoid.
Click to expand...

All you have expressed is opinion not fact
 
HonestJoe said:
AIDS describes a set of symptoms. The cause of that specific set of symptoms is clearly contagious, which brings us back to your outright dismissal of HIV as that cause.
Click to expand...


It is a fact that AIDS is contagious. I do NOT agree with the HIV deniers who say that AIDS is caused by the gay lifestyle, etc.

But the fact that AIDS is contagious does not mean that therefore HIV is the cause!

Any medical research who dared to deny that HIV causes AIDS has been discredited. No matter how highly qualified they might be. Anyone who doubts the theory gets beaten into oblivion. That alone should make you wonder.
 
Good4Nothin said:
It is a fact that AIDS is contagious. I do NOT agree with the HIV deniers who say that AIDS is caused by the gay lifestyle, etc.

But the fact that AIDS is contagious does not mean that therefore HIV is the cause!

Any medical research who dared to deny that HIV causes AIDS has been discredited. No matter how highly qualified they might be. Anyone who doubts the theory gets beaten into oblivion. That alone should make you wonder.
Click to expand...
None of this is evidence that supports your claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

This is the standard conspiracy theory tactic - instead of supporting your claim, you are just attempting to discredit contrary claims. That's not how it works.

You attack medical researchers claiming that correlation does not imply causation - and then turn around and argue that something that "makes you wonder" is evidence to support your claim.
 
Last edited:
Good4Nothin said:
I didn't "FAIL" to provide links. I just haven't done that yet. I provided some background.
Click to expand...

A few posts and no links. When can we expect them from you?:mrgreen:
 
Good4Nothin said:
HIV does not cause AIDS. The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.

AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.

The ARV drugs are like cancer drugs -- they kill everything, but hopefully kill pathogens or cancer cells before killing healthy cells. Actually, the ARV drugs prevent or slow cell reproduction. In ALL cells, but more so in supposed HIV DNA.

If you are on ARV drugs, you are constantly taking a strong antibiotic and cancer chemotherapy drug. So yeah, you won't be as vulnerable to infections or cancer. But you are taking poison, every day. That is not so good.

The drug companies are doing very well with these drugs. Now there is an drug to prevent HIV transmission. So healthy gay men are supposed to take it.

Long term use of these drugs causes heart disease, liver disease, dementia, premature aging, etc.

It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.

I have read all about how they arrived at the HIV hypothesis, and how they supposedly proved AZT kills HIV and prevents AIDS. Extreme BS.

No one knows whether more deaths were caused by AIDS or by AZT.

Now they have better drugs that aren't as toxic as AZT. There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs. Only comparing new drugs to AZT and other older drugs.

It is not ethical to not give HIV patients ARV drugs. But it is ethical to give them drugs that have NOT been proven to work, or to be safe.

The drug companies have won. The whole world agrees with their propaganda.

If you are HIV positive, are you more likely to die from AIDS if you get ARV drugs, or if you don't? NO ONE KNOWS.
Click to expand...

Did you know that autism causes vaccines?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
None of this is evidence that supports your claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

This is the standard conspiracy theory tactic - instead of supporting your claim, you are just attempting to discredit contrary claims. That's not how it works.

You attack medical researchers claiming that correlation does not imply causation - and then turn around and argue that something that "makes you wonder" is evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...

I am expressing doubt about the current theory. There are good reasons for doubting it.

The ONLY reason you believe it, probably, is that experts agree on it. But any expert who dares to disagree, is discredited, automatically. So of course all the experts agree -- in order to be considered an AIDS expert, you MUST agree.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I am expressing doubt about the current theory. There are good reasons for doubting it.

The ONLY reason you believe it, probably, is that experts agree on it. But any expert who dares to disagree, is discredited, automatically. So of course all the experts agree -- in order to be considered an AIDS expert, you MUST agree.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what you did. You made an affirmative claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

What are these "good reasons" to believe that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, that's not what you did. You made an affirmative claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

What are these "good reasons" to believe that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus?
Click to expand...

You could read what I wrote so far. Instead of just the first sentence.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You could read what I wrote so far. Instead of just the first sentence.
Click to expand...

I have. I've read every word you've posted in this thread.

At no point have you provided any evidence to suggest that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

You made the claim, and now you are refusing to back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom