"butt are you saying that you love HIV?"
"Not one of those studies proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS."
Yes they are. Separately, and combined, they show that HIV is almost certainly the cause of AIDS.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, shut your hate hole.
"People will continue to die of AIDS if they believe that it can be cured with a vaccine."
1: Vaccines don't cure disease, they prevent it.
2: There is no working vaccine for HIV. When a vaccine for HIV is discovered, then it will prevent AIDS.
3: AIDS is almost entirely preventable anyway, with safe sex practices (specifically condoms).
"What most all of the evidence really implies, is that AIDS is entirely preventable."
AIDS is entirely preventable, by using condoms to prevent HIV transmission.
"No, that is not a scientific study."
It's better. It's a summary of dozens, or even hundreds, of studies.
"You case isn't proven by a vote of doctors who get paid for trying to find a cure for a virus that causes no disease."
No, it's proved by the thirty years of research. Have you even bothered to read any of the things I've cited?
Again: "The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science. The data fulfil [sic] exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, such as polio, measles and smallpox:
* Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV.
* If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5–10 years. HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections.
* People who receive HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who receive untainted or screened blood do not.
* Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV-infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected.
* In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS.
* Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80% (ref. 9).
* Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS.
Further compelling data are available. HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives."
This is the closest to proof that we ever see in science. Each of the components have been proved repeatedly and independently, and the combination is tantamount to proof that HIV causes AIDS.
"The Durban Declaration is not a scientific study, and despite the rhetoric, it fails to cite one that proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS."
So, your entire position can be summed up as "Nuh uh!"
The Durban Declaration sums up twenty years of research, and cites plenty of sources. You're demanding more evidence for this than is normally required for any conclusion (and, again, orders of magnitude more than you've been willing to show to support yours).
"The Portland Mercury is a free service. No money is changing hands, here."
That doesn't make a difference. It's still copyright infringement. Besides, the Portland Mercury is earning money from this (from ads).
"Who else conducted the study to validate the results?"
What part of "survey paper" do you not understand? The paper is itself a summary of dozens of experiments.
By the way, nice job deleting your hateful comment: "If you want charitable support for HIV research, you aren't much of a salesman. Showing victims like in those gassed in Syria, is very emotional, but it doesn't prove who did it. Maybe they all died of HIV?"
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |