And thank you for the 3 links you provided (I’m not sure I would call that an “abundance” of references, though.)

And, John, I don’t think you actually read the links that you posted because that’s where I read that the Koch’s Postulates are met, if you don’t use them strictly. It also poses that one of the postulates is met because in the entire history of HIV/AIDS, 2 people were shown to have more-than-likely contracted the virus through contact. Not only is there no evidence of this, but the only thing they used to determine this was a measure of their CD4 Counts, which can rise or fall due to any number of reasons. TWO people in the entire history of this disease? If if it were indisputable, that would show just how NOT contagious this disease really is, wouldn’t it? It would seem if this virus is contagious, it could not only be found in whomever is infected (which at this point, cannot be done except through tests for surrogates), and wouldn’t it have been easier to find more than 2 people in the all of these years?

Anyway, peace out. Sorry you are frustrated with all of this, but I’m still looking for someone to respond intelligently and with patience. That’s not your job, but I appreciate the effort.

The spurious Koch’s postulates argument you post is more than enough to make me stop. HIV happily fulfils all of the postulates. It would be highly unethical to inject people in a rigid, trial to “prove” what experiments of nature have proven for years.

HIV is the cause of AIDS. I’m glad you take your pills. They are keeping you healthy.

You have been provided with abundant references by me. You have repeated tired canards of the denialists, who have yet to produce a single paper in a peer reviewed journal, because their stuff is nonsense. It isn’t a question of dogma or fundamentalism, it’s the sum of years of papers in virology, pharmacology, and health.

I can’t add anything more. Good bye, and good health

The articles you posted were thought-provoking, but didn’t do much to debunk the dissenters. As I said in a different reply to you, just saying “because I said so” isn’t much of a debunking, and just the primary logic for applying Koch’s Postulates was comical in that they basically said that HIV meets all of the standards of the postulates… as long as you don’t use the postulates! LOL Come on.

I’ve not posted anything here as “truth.” I’ve qualified all of it with the context that I am just as confused and concerned as anyone and that the questions and facts posed here are not indisputable.

I’ve appreciated your feedback, but your reactions are consistent with every other faith-based religious zeal: hostility, insult, and then abandonment of the conversation.

Still, you are appreciated because I take it more to heart and more seriously than you realize.

I’m not sure how this applies at all, except as a means to further insult.

You wrote: “Likewise, the ideas of Deusberg and all are thoroughly discredited, and to perseverate in continuing them is not being provocative, it is risking the lives of others by perpetuating a cruel conspiracy theory, without merit.”

You would be wrong here. His ideas have not been discredited by independent researchers. Sure, he’s been discredited by those profiting from this, but it’s always best to go with independent sources in matters like this. I wouldn’t even trust Deusberg or any of the dissenters without independent blind research. So far, blind testing and research into the claims of Gallo and the mainstream understanding of HIV/AIDS still leaves HIV/AIDS in the Hypotheses category; not even strong enough to be Theories, yet!

And who said anything about a conspiracy? I don’t think this is a conspiracy. Just another bumbling medical blunder like the many that pepper our history. It was once promoted by these same official channels like CDC that Cancer was also contagious and spread by Black people and Gay people. Thank God Deusberg came along.

Eventually we’ll learn that that the medical gods and authorities aren’t infallible, and keep a healthy line of scrutiny in place.

People get tired of responding to these charges, which were sort of modestly interesting 20 years ago, but now just exasperating, and occasionally lethal.

I’ve posted links to some good articles debunking this garbage. If you want to keep posting this material, I can’t stop you, but I hope innocents looking for truth will go to those links, and realize that there is no “Truth” in the questions you pose.

Good bye, and good luck.

JB

Sometimes, people think a contact is “no risk,” when there is some, if small, risk, and they are unlucky. Oral sex can spread HIV.

Someone you have had sex with had HIV.

“Open minded” does not mean considering all ideas as “equal,” without evaluating them.

It is certainly not to continue to entertain as “new and controversial” tired, repetitious tirades, long ago proven false.

I don’t have to decide that the sun doesn’t orbit around the Earth before I go for a trip on an airplane. Gallelio was pretty convincing 400 years ago.

Likewise, the ideas of Deusberg and all are thoroughly discredited, and to perseverate in continuing them is not being provocative, it is risking the lives of others by perpetuating a cruel conspiracy theory, without merit.

1. Then why did 3 of my friends get tests that were positive, negative, and indeterminate at various places of testing? They aren’t unusual in that regard, especially if someone is aware enough to seek out second and third blind-testing. The results are often not consistent.

2. I know this isn’t the space to go into this, but I thought that the whole point of why they have to extract the RNA is because it’s not able to be found whole, and then those pieces have to be put together in a way that makes sense, which is a process that could piece together any number of ill-fitting RNA?

3. I was going by my friends who are doctors and in their course of studies found it quite surprising that we know little about the immune system, and certainly not enough to find a correlation between CD4 counts and Immunity.

4. Since I was diagnosed during my bout with pneumonia, I have met several others who fought the same illness… in fact, I’ve met more who were not HIV positive. Of course, they are all heterosexual, so the contextual interpretations still seem to have bearing. My point being that I just don’t understand how these classic illnesses that show up in all kinds of compromised immune systems (which is the very nature of any illness) are sometimes called AIDS and other times just a person getting sick.

And I really don’t know anyone who would trade world-wide positive notoriety, wealth, constant stream of support and funding, for a reputation as a quack and complete loss of funding and support.

I think the weight of the proof makes sense to be on the side of the HIV/AIDS enthusiasts. It’s hard to prove a virus DOESN’T exist, but it should be easy to prove a virus DOES exist. The fact that they couldn’t even do so for a court of law leaves me with a lot of questions.