Re: What does HIV+ mean?

 I do not believe that this journalist is a propagandist. He has done an excellent job of presenting his articles in an unbiased, intelligent manner.

Unbiased?  Intelligent?  Let's see, he is clearly targeting Duesberg by using misleading and outright incorrect information without presenting any real solid evidence to the contrary of what Duesberg said.  And he posted a negative statement made by Gallo against Duesberg without pointing out the fact that Gallo was busted for scientific fraud and then claimed HIV was the cause of AIDS with absolutely no evidence forcing the government to cover up Gallo's newest lie by changing the definition of AIDS to fit the HIV virus.  I would say that is HIGHLY biased reporting.  As far as intelligent this is way off from the truth as well.  The articles are full of flaws and based on weak evidence at best.  The author even made reference to AIDS being a disease, which even a lot of the so-called "AIDS experts" have done.  Problem is that AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome.  All someone has to do to figure this out is to understand what AIDS stands for.  It stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency SYNDROME (AIDS).  The fact that the author did not know the difference shows how little research was really done on the topic and how little the author understands what AIDS really is and thus what causes it.

And the author claims that the three lab workers being exposed to a version of the virus in the lab developing low CD4 counts and one developing pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) is proof of HIV causing AIDS.  ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!  This is not proof of anything.  In fact, if we went back to the original definition of AIDS, before the government changed the definition to cover up Gallo's newest fraudulent claim, two of the three of these researchers would not have AIDS by definition.  As far as the person developing PCP this means nothing.  Are you, or the author, aware than it is estimated that about 80% of the population harbors PCP?  Anything suppressing the immune system sufficiently including various diseases and many medications can suppress the immune system sufficiently for the PCP to become pathogenic.  The evidence that the Easter bunny is real is stronger than his evidence.

AIDS dissidents cite Peter Duesberg's theories over and over again. What I love about the articles I have presented is that they examine the Duesberg theories from the ground up. The Science is loose at best. But do not take my word for it. Read the articles I have linked and debate and prove those wrong.

Again the articles are full of holes.  About the only thing he really got right was that AZT is deadly and that it increased the death rates of "AIDS" patients undergoing the therapy.

The fact is that AZT will cause AIDS.  All it takes is an understanding of what AIDS is and how the side effects of AZT develop to understand this fact.  I recommend the author stops looking for biased information against Duesberg to present and start researching AZT's side effects and the definition of AIDS so he can figure it out.  I knew all about this over 20 years ago long before I even heard of Duesberg.  Again if someone understands what AIDS is and understands how the body works and therefore how AZT causes its side effects it is really simple to put together.  In fact I had a doctor and a nurse try to argue that HIV was the cause of AIDS as well.  When I showed them the evidence of how AZT caused AIDS they never said a peep again since they knew they could not argue against what has already been scientifically proven.  I suggest you also learn how the body works and how AZT's side effects occur so you will understand this simple concept as well.

Alert Webmaster & Moderators

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question