Surely if someone says you are stupid, you want to prove them wrong. I can't think of any better reason now to continue with what I set out to achieve.
"HIV sceptics beyond stupid" Robert Gallo
The Supreme Court of South Australia is examining the case of a man accused of infecting partners with HIV. The man's line of defense consists in saying that "HIV does not exist."
It is an interesting line of defence to say the least and I am curious to hear what comes out of court. Although I share the views that maybe HIV is not exactly what Gallo 'et al.' think it is which makes me somewhat of a HIV sceptics... I'm also a HIV-sceptic sceptic! After all, I still need a satisfying explanation for the deaths of thousands of people over the past 25+ years... Surely, they weren't all just lifestyle-related deaths, were they?
Anyway, Gallo gave his testimony. Is Gallo the best person to talk about HIV objectively. Sure, he has the experience... But he and his team defined HIV in their own terms which I understand they had to bend the traditional definition of viruses (Koch's postulates) to make it fit 'their' virus.
In other words, Gallo 'et al.' have too much to lose to be able to look at HIV in any new way. Besides, if HIV was not what they said it is, then they would have to live with the deaths of thousands, the waste of billions of dollars in research, the mobilisation of people around the world over what may have been the wrong virus.
No comments:
Post a Comment