I'll admit it, my motive was to sell more skin creme. I thought, "What would make more people wear skin cream?" Sores, obviously. I didn't see then the obvious drawbacks to having it administered anally.
Originally posted by WhiteShark
That's nice but you misunderstood me. I meant there is not suffecient motive to invent HIV. There are far better ways for a scientist to spend his energy than inventing HIV. That is the kind of motive that conspiracy theorists like to ignore. For example if I was a prominent microbiologist and I wanted to rip off the world I would create a fake cure for the common cold or better yet a drug that puts Herpes into remission. Both would make more money than fake HIV cures. That is a Motive.
Good comment. Sorry I misunderstood.
However...Gallo has been hell bent on getting a Nobel-it is the only award that has eluded him. He has 2 Laskers among others.
He has tried the same thing before. He stole a leukemia virus from the Japanes in the mid 70"s that was to carry him to the land of Nobel-but that didn't work out. More on that and other Gallo shenanigans later.
However-Gallo did apply for and recieve a patent for the HIV antibody test on the same day that he had his infamous press conference, announcing to the world that the cause of AIDS was discovered in his lab.
He has made millions from this patent. That would be a pretty good motive.
Still does not make sense to test for antibodies. An antibody test, even if repeated a million times consecutively and found pos each time is not proof of a viral infection.
They don't test for the virus because quite simply, they can't find it.
In all honesty, I do believe that the powers that be are distancing themselves from the HIV as sole cause of AIDS hypothesis. Even the test kit manufactures are changing the wording on their kits to phrases like-HIV is thought to be a retrovirus that causes AIDS-, things like that.
The reason for this is class action lawsuits. There are some lawsuits in the making such as Kim Obannon of Kansas. She was diagnosed HIV pos in 1992 and told that she had 5-7 years to live. She got off of all the antivirals and has never had AIDS or AIDS related infections. She is suing over deceptive trade practices, and she has a helluva case. These test kits are not approved for diagnosing someone as HIV positive. They are only approved for blood screening and as an aid in diagnosing a peson as having HIV. They are not to be used on an asymptomatic person as a sole diagnostic tool. But docs do this all the time.
I think it is safe to say that in the near future -because of these lawsuits-it probably will not be possible for an asymptomatic person to get tested. These lawsuits are going to rock the HIV/AIDS world.
And , if a decent attorney gets ahold of some of the paperwork and gov't documents from the original FDA clinical trial with AZT, well some heads are going to roll. Later today I will post some of that info...these trials were the sloppiest in the history of the FDA. The trials were unblinded early on and stopped about 8 or 10 weeks short of the mandatory 26 weeks. The trial center in Boston was beyond fradulent.
And the CDC has readjusted the recommended CD-4 levels for retroviral treatment. It used to be a level of 500 cd-4's. Now it is 350.
And the dosage of AZT and other drugs has decreased dramatically over the years.
In the 80's a patient was given 1500mg/day of AZT with no "holidays". Now they are given 500mg/day with long holidays of no drugs.
As each adjustment occurs, the AIDS patients live longer