Tweet
Manarak,
I appreciate your effort in providing thought out questions and evidence to counter opinions and information I have provided here.
In addressing your 4 questions, I think the best way is to state the 3 positions of AIDS dissidents as posed by Jad Adams here: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jatalk.htm
"There are three fundamental arguments which characterise AIDS dissidents, though not all of them have necessarily been held by those who called themselves dissident.
One is that the predicted spread of the AIDS epidemic has been vastly exaggerated;
secondly that the drug AZT at best brings no benefit and at worst poisons those who take it; and
thirdly, that the cause of AIDS has been misidentified as a virus now known as HIV, and that we should be looking elsewhere for the cause."
As to which camp of dissidents I belong, I'm unsure, but I think all avenues ought to be investigated.
In regard to the studies you provided, while I looked into several of them, I would be arrogant in the extreme to pretend to have the adequate knowledge to investigate them all.
When making such opinions we usually have to rely on prefering the opinions of one expert over another, and so my opinions tend to be formed by arguments presented by those who do have the skills to interpret the relevance of those studies.
Interestingly however, the Nobel Prizewinner, as purported discoverer of the HIV virus, Luc Montagnier, is one person who has provided opinions that give support to an earlier dissident position, in that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and he has done research on finding causal co-factors.
So, with this backgroud in mind, I'll answer your questions directly -
Q1. acknowledge yes or no that there is a virus called HIV
A. I'm not sure, but I suspect that any particle that has been discovered as such, is not the active virus that is said to cause AIDS, but possibly a sypmton of AIDS like conditions. As stated above, different dissidents have different opinions on this.
Q2. tell me if the people who showed symptoms of AIDS (I'm not talking about a reality here, I am talking about symptoms) were not all infected by HIV
A. Definitely not. Many AIDS symptoms are typical of other diseases. In fact, the contraindications of AZT reads like a list of AIDS symptoms.
Q3. tell me if people showing symptoms of AIDS tend to die or not
A. Definitely. The question is, how many died as a result of the medications they were given.
Q4. and finally, tell me how likely people infected by HIV are to develop symptoms sooner or later if not treated?
A. I didn't have time to find reliable studies on this, but it is often believed that the presence of HIV is an indication of poor health, and poor health often degenerates, leading to symptoms that also fit within the spectrum of AIDS symptoms. It's similar to seeing a person who's face is jaundiced and skin blotchy and then tracking their health in coming years. Stats would show a degeneration greater than that of average people.
I appreciate your effort in providing thought out questions and evidence to counter opinions and information I have provided here.
In addressing your 4 questions, I think the best way is to state the 3 positions of AIDS dissidents as posed by Jad Adams here: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jatalk.htm
"There are three fundamental arguments which characterise AIDS dissidents, though not all of them have necessarily been held by those who called themselves dissident.
One is that the predicted spread of the AIDS epidemic has been vastly exaggerated;
secondly that the drug AZT at best brings no benefit and at worst poisons those who take it; and
thirdly, that the cause of AIDS has been misidentified as a virus now known as HIV, and that we should be looking elsewhere for the cause."
As to which camp of dissidents I belong, I'm unsure, but I think all avenues ought to be investigated.
In regard to the studies you provided, while I looked into several of them, I would be arrogant in the extreme to pretend to have the adequate knowledge to investigate them all.
When making such opinions we usually have to rely on prefering the opinions of one expert over another, and so my opinions tend to be formed by arguments presented by those who do have the skills to interpret the relevance of those studies.
Interestingly however, the Nobel Prizewinner, as purported discoverer of the HIV virus, Luc Montagnier, is one person who has provided opinions that give support to an earlier dissident position, in that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and he has done research on finding causal co-factors.
So, with this backgroud in mind, I'll answer your questions directly -
Q1. acknowledge yes or no that there is a virus called HIV
A. I'm not sure, but I suspect that any particle that has been discovered as such, is not the active virus that is said to cause AIDS, but possibly a sypmton of AIDS like conditions. As stated above, different dissidents have different opinions on this.
Q2. tell me if the people who showed symptoms of AIDS (I'm not talking about a reality here, I am talking about symptoms) were not all infected by HIV
A. Definitely not. Many AIDS symptoms are typical of other diseases. In fact, the contraindications of AZT reads like a list of AIDS symptoms.
Q3. tell me if people showing symptoms of AIDS tend to die or not
A. Definitely. The question is, how many died as a result of the medications they were given.
Q4. and finally, tell me how likely people infected by HIV are to develop symptoms sooner or later if not treated?
A. I didn't have time to find reliable studies on this, but it is often believed that the presence of HIV is an indication of poor health, and poor health often degenerates, leading to symptoms that also fit within the spectrum of AIDS symptoms. It's similar to seeing a person who's face is jaundiced and skin blotchy and then tracking their health in coming years. Stats would show a degeneration greater than that of average people.
New nick again Tommy? 
Comment