Send response to journal:
To Peter and Nicholas,
You asked what I think .....
I'll state my position very clearly -- I have doubts that HIV is the cause of AIDS. I think there was a rush to judgement 25 years ago, ascribed to by so many of the experts, that it left little room for alternative explanations. It was quickly embraced by a community and world that was yearning for answers -- any answers.
I think there is a huge AIDS industry with so many now dependent on, they stand to lose a lot if it crumbles down. This provides a lot of the impetus for its sustainment.
Re: AIDS in Africa
James Chin himself, the former editor of the Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, has stated that the data coming from Africa is skewed considerably. Whenever the ranges are given in any data set, AIDS Inc virtually always quotes the top of the range.
I think the dollars that are being spent on AIDS in most developing countries, would be better spent on treating parasitic infections (like malaria, sleeping sickness and several others) and infections like TB. I think access to clean water and wholesome food and better overall health care would serve these people much better than downing tablets of the latest HIV cocktail.
I think that would save far, far more lives and create healthier people -- that IS what it is all about, isn' it?
As to what causes AIDS, why is it that when one says they disagree with the present paradigm, they are compelled to come up with an alternative by the opposing group. Is there some rule that says that must be the case. As to my opinion -- it is borne of thousands of hours of reading both sides of this debate -- lord knows that for a person who accepted the traditional viewpoint for many years, it was tough to believe that it just might not be right. I do keep an open mind though.
To continue .....
I have problems with dollars being spent on AIDS vaccines that have little if any hope of ever being successful. If the wild virus strains can not produce an immune response that is adequate to combat AIDS, then what does one think they will gain with a vaccine? Thus far this has been proven to be correct and I believe that it will remain that way.
The reality is that many predictions made by the experts, have proven to be wrong. There are countries in Africa now that should have nobody left standing, if the experts has been right. The reality -- their populations are healthy and rising quickly.
History is replete with examples of theories being accepted without being questioned critically and continually, and in doing so it has hampered real progress. Indeed many of those who were lone voices, turned out to be correct.
On a personal note - I watched a healthy, robust acquaintance of mine, who was dx with HIV and started AZT early on, become an emaciated skeleton and pass away within a few months of starting AZT. The connection between the timimg of his starting AZT and when he started to decline, was to close to be coincidental. AIDS did not kill him - AZT did.
In saying all the above, I am certainly not advocating unprotected sex. There are lots of other valid reason for practicing safer sex - so please do not suggest or imply that I am being irresponsible -- that tends to be the typical response from anyone who disagrees with your position. What protects people against hepatitis B, will protect them against AIDS, if in fact it is sexually transmitted.
As to "being disappointed" because I have not "looked beyond my borders" -- I have in fact done just that. And that is what I find most frightening -- as I indicated above, IMO AIDS dollars could be better spent dealing with much more fundamental issues, that will yield far better, long-term health outcomes.
Just remember, gentlemen ... in the end you may not be right ... and neither might I. But if I am wrong, I honestly believe that my dollars, spent on the issues I spoke about above, would still yield huge benefits.
Have a good day.
Competing interests: None declared