Originally Posted by
Mac the Knife
Indeed, the thousands of electron-microscope photos from labs all over the world COULD have been faked, but it does sound just a little improbable. Again, presnce of the virus COULD be just a coincidence, but it's a very large coincidence indeed, so one has to ask oneself just how likely it is.
First, thank you for a very sober statement of your position.
Second, I'm not a conspiracy nut (and I'm not saying that's what you suggested) so I don't necessarily believe that results were FAKED. I'm pretty cynical (and skeptical) but I'm not that bad yet.
However, I do think there is sloppy science and good science.
Once again, I have no position on this issue except that I do think pharmaceutical companies are driven more by profit than any humanitarian motivation--there's that cynicism again.
When you made the list of possible transmissible agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa) you didn't mention the drug itself.
Isn't it possible that these patients are, in fact, infected with HIV and they are, in fact, sick, BUT the drug is making them SICKER?
That's my question.
Is it such a stretch of the imagination to think that the old cliche' has come true in the AIDS battle: The cure is worse than the disease!
Thanks in advance for another sober response.