>- If you were actually infected with HIV for that long then you would be a walking miracle
This would only be true for those taking anti-retrovirals. It is the drugs that kill most of the sufferers of AIDS. These drugs stop the process of replication which is how old defective cells are replaced by new ones. Basically, those who take anti-retrovirals die of early old age.
>- Why do you think CD4 counts go down?”
Not from HIV as an active HIV infection that destroyed T-cells would kill in a matter of days or weeks, not years.
>- Now, you apparently agree with Parazapper that there is no evidence that anyone who has tested HIV-positive has an active HIV infection (I would suggest that his “extensive” search is a little lacking!)
My research is thorough, it is just your criteria do not meet Koch's postulates. I have not found any research that has identified actual active viral infection through microscopic observation. This is a part of Koch's postulates (Isolate and identify the causative infectious agent, not just pieces that might be suspect).
>- HIV causes cancer,
Actually, it was Robert Gallo who tried to prove this assumption but upon failing tried to prove that it caused AIDS.
>- Why do you believe that the controls used on every PCR test (i.e. the samples of known copy-number run at the same time) are insufficient to allow for a good (not perfect) estimation of the number of virions in a given sample?
Because these are not proof of a cause-effect relationship. Heck, even the FDA does not approve of the PCR as an indication of anything. Normally, I would jump on the bandwagon and say "If the FDA does not believe it it must work" but in the case, Naaahhh!
>- - Why do you believe that copying whole genes or the entire genome would provide any greater accuracy than the “segments” of a couple hundred nucleotides that are currently used?
Because there are segments that are shared in common by many different viri, some of them are also present in some human DNA. But sorry, unless the complete virus is actually isolated and verified ...
>- - Why do you believe that quantifying the level of viral replication requires only the counting of infectious particles?
Because they are only that! particles. Unless you can take those purified particles, inject them into a subject successfully causing the disease, then successfully recover identicle particles from the newly infected host, you have failed Koch's postulates.
>- - If you believe that the nucleic acid detected by HIV PCR tests does not in fact belong to HIV, why do effective anti-HIV drug regimens result in a 10,000 – 100,000-fold decrease in said nucleic acids?
Because these chemicals are non-specific, most of them blocking all or many RNA-DNA/DNA-RNA conversions which result in malfunction at the cellular level and on a macrobial level represented by a general wasting away and aging.
>- - If the RNA that is ultimately detected by PCR does not come from HIV, where do you believe it comes from?
Many of these so-called viral sequences are present in parts of the human genome. Proof of this is the false positives created by pregnancy.
>- - Do you oppose only the use of PCR, or other methods for quantifying viral load (e.g. bDNA)?
All of these unless a 100 percent 1:1 mapping of the method against positively identified actual viri occurs.
>- - If it is shown that a pathogen can be cultured from near 100% of people who are seropositive by immunoassay followed by Western Blot, and 0% of people who are seronegative, why are antibody tests insufficient to establish the presence of the pathogen to a high degree of certainty?
Let me know when this actually happens in a case where they can actually isolate and prove the existance of a specific virus actively involved in the infection.
Cut the smoke and mirrors routing and show me the virus!
1) Of the people who die each year of "AIDS related illness", less than half are HIV positive. Many do not even have one of the several specified fractions identified by the PCR test.
2) Those who do not take anti-retroviral drugs live longer than those who do. Anti-retrovirals cause premature aging and early death.
3) In every other viral illness in existance, it is required that the actual virus must be isolated and identified before a cause-effect relationship can be claimed. Why is the so called HIV problem allowed an exception? Why can they not do this? There is no direct relationship.
4) HHV-6 is found to be present and active at the time of death in almost every AIDS related death when and where it is looked for. And, Yes, I have read this from more than one source. The problem is that no one wants to look because it would kill the goose that layed the golden egg. The scientists who do look are black-balled, defamed, and denied funding. Pure political blackmail.
5) Retro-virus is fast acting and the infection spreads rapidly. HIV (if the claim were valid) would eliminate all of the T-4 cells from the body in a matter of days or weeks, not years.
6) Many people who are HIV positive never get ill from it and live long productive lives without negative effects, not even realizing that they were HIV positive.
7) Getting pregnant can make a womans PCR results show up as HIV positive only to have the numbers drop after pregnancy. Pregnancy can be a false positive!