Re: Re: Re: Re: Analysis: the properness of the HIV hypothesis is a media hype 24 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
torsten engelbrecht,
journalist
20359 hamburg

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Analysis: the properness of the HIV hypothesis is a media hype

dear mr. bennet,

thanks again for your reply. please allow me to explain why you are mistaken again:

1. the question if the hiv hypothesis and its basis has been proven is the most important issue in aids science. so don't "coil up", just answer it aor admit that that there is no such proof!

2. the supporters of the hiv hypothesis seem to love putting the responsibilities upside down. in fact, those who make the claim that the hiv hypothesis has been proven/is correct bear the burden of proof. so again: don't "coil up", just deliver the clear-cut proofs (studies)!

3. again: don't "coil up", just deliver the clear-cut proofs (studies)!

4. the issue if the hiv hypothesis makes sense or not is not a quastion of originality!!! again and again: don't "coil up", just deliver the clear-cut proofs (studies)!

5. again and again and again: don't "coil up", just deliver the clear -cut proofs (studies)! just one single study for the 4 most important theses of the hiv hypothesis!

6. okay, here we are. obviously, we agree that there is no clear-cut proof for the hiv hypothesis. epidemiology is not such clear-cut proof because it's not causation it's just correlation. the problem: even the correlation of the hiv hypothesis is a very bad one!

6.again and again and again and again: don't "coil up", just deliver the clear-cut proofs (studies)!

7. there is not even one study that proves that hiv kills cd4 cells. or do you know one?

8. gall speaking at that nida-meeting was referring to oppers, not to hhv8! "it has been shown that llicit drugs may alter the normal immune functions", you can read even in the journal of aids a couple of months ago. so it's just fact that poppers, crystal meth or so suppress the immune system.

concerning your "pseudo-science"-attack. i think it makes no sense at all to shout. just let us stick with the facts. put them on the table and that's all.

concerning your claim "it is also odd that the use of anti- retrovirals DOES prolong life". there are many proofs to DISprove your statement. to make it short: the indispensiable precondition for this statement is just missing: placebo- controlled studies! so you just cannot say that haart or whatever anti- retroviral therapy prolong live(s). there is practically just one placebo study: the fischl trial in 1987. but this trial was totally flawed, or as the swiss newspaper "weltwoche" wrote: "the fischl trial was a gigantic botch". the only thing for sure is that's highly toxic and immune suppressive, and that it can kill and that it kills people - you can even read that on the package inserts. so instead of taking these toxins people should think about their lifestyle: did i take too many recreational and/or medical drugs for too much time? and/or what about my eating, sleeping etc. habits? of course, many poor people in poor countries don't have the choice: they have to stick with bad and few food. but in this case politicians and mighty poeple should think about their politics: e.g., why do we spend 900 billion $ a year worldwide for war "toys"? keeping also in mind that only a small part of that incredibly huge amount of money was needed to give all people on earth enough good food to eat.

best
torsten engelbrecht
www.torstenengelbrecht.com

Competing interests: None declared