- Joined
- Nov 24, 2018
- Messages
- 13,157
- Reaction score
- 2,895
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
It is your opinion the mainstream AIDS researchers are biased. Not all share that opinion. Not all are "sheep" that accept whatever is presented by the mainstream.
You have yet to prove your statement in the OP. You have been shown that when a person has a compromised immune system lots of things can go wrong. HIV weakens the body enough that a person can come down with bacterial infections.
The only one with binders on is you. If you can provide cases where a person did not have HIV but developed AIDS because of X and the paper says X causes AIDS, I will gladly change my mind. Till then I will stick with the known medical science of HIV causes AIDS in some cases.
I NEVER said that all mainstream AIDS researchers are biased! I posted a link to a mainstream journal article that opposed the mainstream theory. PROVING that they are NOT ALL BIASED.
There are obviously many cases of AIDS without HIV -- that is a known scientific fact. There was AIDS long before HIV was infecting humans. But if you define AIDS as an HIV infection plus AIDS-defining diseases, well then obviously there cannot be AIDS without HIV.
I doubt you are following any of this.
What is not known is whether an HIV infection alone is enough to cause AIDS. It is also not known how often HIV does NOT eventually cause AIDS. It is also not known whether killing HIV with ARV drugs actually helps more than it harms. This CANNOT be tested, for ethical reasons. NO ONE KNOWS!!
Yes it's hard to believe that medical science can be this crazy. So naturally you don't want to investigate, you don't want to be curious.
Wishful thinking can be very powerful, and so can the desire to make billions. The drugs are provided all over the world, and American taxpayers are paying for a lot of it.