They never had HIV to begin with.
You cannot be infected with a virus that does not exist.
"Aim... People are dying and you're suggesting it is because of something that doesn't exist?"
Fifty years ago, your immune system began failing.
What happened?
Small Pox took you, and you "died of small pox."
"Okay, but what does that have to do with any-"
We eradicated Small Pox - and not a decade later, people all over the place began dying of compromised immune systems.
Doctors rushed to find an explanation, biased in their assumption that an infectious agent was involved in the growing epidemic.
But there was a problem. No one could find a virus. No one could find a common route of infection. Naturally - the assumption began that it had to be sexually transmitted, since those activities are harder for epidemiologists to track and the cases were more prevalent among the 'sexually liberal' of the time.
But there was a problem. Not one virus has ever been found in the history of HIV research.
"Then how the hell did they-"
It was originally assumed that the virus was just too small to be effectively isolated using electron microscopes of the day. This is why those of us in our 20s and 30s are a bit confused by the change in tune regarding the effectiveness of condoms in blocking HIV. We were told the virus was small enough to pass through the mesh of latex fibers. Indeed - this would have been true if an electron microscope could not isolate the virus.
Why the change?
Because we found 'the HIV virus' through another means. By analyzing the blood of people who have compromised immune systems and attempting to isolate various proteins, lipids, etc from blood that has been effectively run through a very thorough blender, common proteins were found and used to develop an array of tests.
When you test positive for HIV - you test positive for the proteins other people with failing immune systems test positive for. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So, they developed a test, thinking that they had effectively found a way to track the epidemiology of the virus.
With those tests, they determined something like this:
You must be registered for see links
An STD with an infection rate of 1:700? An HIV infected female would have to have *** with a new partner each night of the year to have a 50% chance of passing HIV on to just ONE male. That one extra male would have to land a new girl every night for a year to have a 1.5:1 chance of passing HIV on to another female in that year.
And HIV became an epidemic in the human population? What kind of massive orgies are we having in the streets all across the planet?
Oh, and condoms block HIV infection, somehow. Despite the fact that there is not one electron microscope image of HIV, anywhere.
"Aim... you're talking crazy..."
Using electron microscopes to photograph infected tissues/cells and understand the viral reproduction cycle is a crucial part of viral research. Trying to create a treatment without it is ... well ... stupid.
To give you an idea of how basic this is, when Marburg first entered the books of modern scientific literature, there were electron microscope images of the virus (one of the most primitive known to man, yet highly lethal) within the first weeks of studying it. The first thing they did was put infected tissues and fluids under an electron microscope to see what all was going on in there.
And now we're being told that a virus with, at best, a 10% chance of infecting people during **** intercourse, is somehow a rampaging epidemic.
You must be registered for see links
So.
You have HIV.
What is the treatment? Immune suppressors.
A virus is killing your immune system, and you are assigned immune suppressors.
"Aim! They wouldn't intentionally kill people!"
No, they wouldn't.
What were they searching for? Proteins in failing immune systems. That is how they determine HIV infection.
If you issue someone immune suppressors, what is it going to do to your immune system? That's right - reduce the presence of your immune system. If they have determined that portions of your immune system indicate the presence of a virus... then reducing your immune system will reduce the indicators of a virus.
Which is precisely why AIDs, in the western world, has followed the more 'liberal' groups - the ones who experiment with drugs (often times combining them), eat poorly, and expose themselves to a wide range of pathogens in the process. It's enough to weaken and overwhelm any immune system, particularly if one already has a hereditary condition where the immune system will progressively fail.
"Now you're prattling about genetics, again..."
Think about it. We have all manner of hereditary diseases discovered that affect the nerves, muscle, bones, kidneys, lungs, heart, blood, etc - why not the immune system?
It would explain why HIV is extremely politically incorrect and has radically different infection rates across races and cultures.
Why didn't we know about it earlier?
Because we assumed Small Pox was the cause of their death. While I do not have the data to reference - I imagine there would be a disturbingly close match between HIV-positive test rates and smallpox re-infection rates across ethnic and cultural groups.
"Aim... I've done a little bit of reading, and the skeptics were wrong. People who refused treatment died."
So do the people who receive treatment.
The question is what is causing the progressive failure of immune systems. Generations ago - Small Pox would claim you before acute AIDs symptoms set in. Long before.
I don't believe there is a single common infectious agent. It's obviously a host of hereditary disorders (the common denominator of human-derived proteins that are claimed indicators of HIV infection are evidence of that - yes - the proteins that are supposedly HIV are very close matches to key proteins in our immune system) that compromise the immune system. Some AIDs/HIV cases could be induced by environment/lifestyle and the communication we do see is possibly due to a transfer and build-up of antibodies (which explains why some people have been HIV positive for nearly two decades and never shown signs of a compromised immune system).
"Aim..."
Just as an HIV-infected baby was 'cured:'
You must be registered for see links
One was magically infected.
Which makes more sense?
A virus with almost supernatural-like abilities to evade detection by electron microscopes, incubate for years before suddenly 'flaring up,' and miraculously infect newborns with absolutely no vectors for infection...
Or that we are seeing immune-degenerative disorders as a consequence of eradicating Small Pox with a bull-headed industry trying to sell a cure?
[video=youtube;hsOlVF_7bRc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsOlVF_7bRc#t=41[/video]
