Some doctor in Spain did try to infect himself with HIV positive blood. He was discredited by the media. I can try the same, but certainly I won't know what else comes along in that package! Like toxins, other viruses etc. And if I want to be infected, please infect me with pure HIV from a real AIDS patient, eh? But sorry, HIV hasn't been isolated into a pure form yet, so sorry if the challenge is not viable! Hey, it's not
my fault that scientists haven't been able to isolate HIV yet!
As for sexual transmission, it was a pure red herring thrown out by homosexual activists to deflect attention away from the fact practically ALL of the initial cases of AIDS were inflcted on homosexuals, and not heteros. I'm not saying I blame them for it, but some of them have since realized that it was a mistake.
Let's see what are the characteristics of a viral or bacteria disease, eh? This was taken from an article by Peter Duesberg, who incidentally was exocommunicated(a term used in religion) by bulk of the entire scientific community for challenging the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.
All of these viral and microbial epidemics have the following in common:
(i) They rise exponentially and then decline within weeks or months as originally described by William Farr in the early 19th century (Bregman & Langmuir, 1990). The rise reflects the exponential spread of contagion and the fall reflects the resulting natural vaccination or immunity of survivors.
(ii) The epidemics spread randomly ("heterosexually" in the words of AIDS researchers) in the population.
(iii) The resulting infectious diseases are highly specific reflecting the limited genetic information of the causative microbe. As a consequence the viral diseases are typically more specific than those caused by the more complex bacteria or fungi. It is for this reason that the viruses and microbes are typically named for the specific disease they cause. For example influenza virus is called after the flu, polio virus after the poliomyelitis, and hepatitis virus after the liver disease it causes
(iv) The microbial and particularly the viral epidemics are self-limiting and thus typically seasonal, because they induce anti-microbial and viral immunity and select also for genetically resistant hosts..
By contrast, the following are characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors:
(i) They follow no specific time course, but one that is determined by the dose and duration of exposure to the toxin.
(ii) They spread according to consumption or exposure to toxic agents, but not exponentially.
(iii) They spread either non-randomly with occupational or lifestyle factors, or randomly with environmental or nutritional factors.
(iv) They range from relatively specific to unspecific depending on the nature of the toxin.
(v) They are limited by discontinuation of intoxication, but not self-limiting because they do not generate immunity.
Likewise, the American and European AIDS epidemics:
(i) rose steadily, not exponentially,
(ii) were completely non-randomly biased 85% in favor of males,
(iii) have followed first the over-use of recreational drugs, and then the extensive use of anti-AIDS-viral drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998),
(iv) do not manifest in one or even just a few specific diseases typical of microbial epidemics,
(v) do not spread to the general non-drug using population.
So yeah, there is some evidence that it is not being caused by a virus
alone, or even that viruses are not involved at all. Of course, it could still be a virus, just that it's not HIV, and then activated by other factors. The thing is, there are alternative theories, but everybody is so fixated on the HIV=AIDS theory that everything else just gets shouted down.
For the initial cases of AIDS in the early 80s, we were talking about drug using homosexuals. So we can narrow it down to perhaps two possible reasons, for simplification's sake.
The first one, is that the disease was spread by a virus circulating around the community through sexual activity. This was the accepted hypothesis.
The second one, was that the extensive and prolonged taking of drugs causes AIDS.
Now, if we want to compare, we can take two other groups. Say... a group of drug takers who abstain from sex of any sort(impossible to find though!), and a group of homosexuals who do not take drugs. Let's be fair, and have a third group similar to the second one, except that they're heterosexuals.
If the virus theory is correct, then the 'clean' homos and heteros will get infected, while the drug taking monks(for lack of a better word), will be unaffected. The opposite occurs for the drug hypothesis.
While it was said that clean homos did not exhibit AIDS in the early days(I don't know how much credence to lend to this), there was also said to be a research study where some scientists exposed several mice(please don't mention animal cruelty!) to nitrite containing inhalents for a study that the government wanted because it wanted to ban nitrite products. Not incidentally, the mice developed immune deficiency. Convincing proof? Perhaps not, but it does suggest something.
There have also been cases where AIDS was reported in HIV negative persons in the presence of extensive drug taking, for either recreational or medical reasons. So almost definitely, even if the present HIV=AIDS theory is accepted, it is also clear that HIV is by no means the
only causal agent. I personally think that HIV is a red herring, while drugs are the true cause.
The drug hypothesis can handle the present data pretty well, in fact, as long as we don't use the HIV +ve equals AIDS theory, and the data that results from this assumption. Most, if not all, of the present AIDS sufferers(I will not include those who are only diagnosed with HIV infection, only those with terminal stage AIDS), are on extensive drug therapy of one sort or another. AZT, protease inhibitors, chemicals of one acronym or another, you name it, they have it.
HIV positive people, as long as they live balanced lives with proper diets, stay away from drugs of any sort(even for AIDS), and remain positive, do not seem to be coming down with AIDS. In fact, the CDC kept on revising its estimates for the gestation period of AIDS as more and more HIV positive people started to live longer, which is sometimes attributed to the success of AIDS drugs.
As for transmission, I have to say that it is not even transmitted like a virus, or a sexually transmitted one! If it was, then why is it that STDs rates have been rising, while AIDS has not? AIDS has been unusually selective for a viral epidemic, infecting only a certain risk group(drug users and the like) and not the general population. The problem here is that questionaires for AIDS rarely ask about the person about the use of drugs(and people are generally unwilling to talk anyway).
Never has a virus been so selective in its victims! They have to be drug users, having sex with drug users, or have been injected with blood products. Picky, picky...
So there, I have explored the cause of AIDS without the involvement of a viral agent. Certainly, real research has to be done to confirm the drug=AIDS hypothesis(which has not been done), and less money thrown to the HIV proponents. But I have come up with a viable alternative hypothesis(drugs) that can explain away the facts and statistics just as well. What's more, is that it can be tested in a lab with mice(again!). And then later with chimps(I expect more hoohah from animal rights activists, but they won't complain when we do it with humans! Strange...
).
Meanwhile...
Nova Andromeda, I think Peter Duesberg was that immunology teacher of yours! He's a true scientist. He had the guts to debunk his own 'virus causes cancer' theory years back, and he had the guts to buck the present HIV establishment. A modern day Galileo? I wouldn't go that far though. Some of his statements on cancer did seem wacky to me. But he deserves a Nobel Prize, at least, for his role in identifying influenza mutation(which is why the damn flu goes around so often), isolation of the first cancer gene(oncogenes), and retroviral research.
Also, Gallo did not publish his paper on the HIV/AIDS theory in a journal to be reviewed by his peers. In fact, several years before the AIDS thing, he had tried to publish a paper that claimed that he had discovered a virus that caused cancer, which was shot down almost immediately. So he wised up, and went straight for the authorities. Then the grand announcement was made, and almost by bureaucratic dictat, HIV=AIDS.
And please don't bring religion into this. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with god punishing anyone(not that I believe there's a god at all). It's just like Falwell or some right wing nut syaing that 9/11 happened because of God. Part of the politically correct "AIDS affects everybody" message was a direct defense to the religious politically incorrect allegation that AIDS was a disease meant to punish homosexuals.
For the children, I think it's the drugs the clinics are forcing them to take that is killing them, not the presence of a mythical virus. In fact, there was a court case several years back when a HIV positive mom fought to have her baby boy protected from drugs when he was diagnosed as HIV positive. Her name was Valerie Emerson, and she did so only after her daughter died as a result of those drugs. They won, and now the kid is growing up fine, when he was on the verge of death with the AIS drugs.
So being HIV positive is hardly a death sentence. The death sentence comes when the doctors force AZT down your throat.
The Nice Guy
