Response to solarjerom & delaney

This is a response to the comment on my previous post.

I am not about to write a book which would be required to dispute all of Martin Delaneys lies and disinformation.  I will start at beginning and deconstruct the bullshit, but once it is evident that this isn't science I will not continue to waste my time on this.  You can take it from me, or you can go through it item by item yourself until you get tired of reading fiction masked as fact.  There are better things to with your time, believe me.

The fact that solarjerom & Delaney both use the term "denialist" is a giveaway that we are up against people who will denounce us, but never honestly address the issues we raise.  We are "dissidents" in that we dissent from the common beliefs, but far from "denialists."  It's the AIDS Orthodoxy that are in denial.  They deny the simple facts there is no evidence in all of published science to support the "HIV" theory of "AIDS."  They deny (or ignor) facts like Robert Gallo even admitted that the virus doesn't kill t-cells; T-cells are not a valid surrogate marker for health or disease progression; The testing has been shown to be completely invalid; and their treatments are killing people.  They insist their treatments are helping people to live longer.  Intelligent scientists should address us as "dissidents."  Calling us "denialists" is demeaning name-calling and very unprofessional.

After making a bunch of unsupported, anecdotal statements, which, if they were true, would be very easy to substantiate, Delaney's evidence that "HIV is the driving force in AIDS" (and that the drugs are effective) is the dramatic reduction in the death toll.  However, the dramatic reduction in deaths started BEFORE the introduction of the miracle cocktails, so, what then was the reason for this?  Another good question would be why weren't we told the dealth toll and number of new cases was going down annually?  Public perception is that it was worsening and worsening.

To understand why "AIDS" numbers started going down, one needs to understand why they rose so dramatically before the decline.  Several times since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of new cases per year was less than the previous year.  When this happened the CDC changed the definition of "AIDS," broadening it to make the numbers go up.  The new definition that went in effect on January 1,1993 added some female-only diseases dramatically increasing the percentage of female "AIDS" victims, and, for the first time included people with no disease but a lower than average t-cell count, were considered to have "AIDS."  This doubled the number of people with "AIDS" overnight.  When you put healthy people into the mix you can expect them to live longer than people who are sick at the time of diagnosis.  The truth is that no one is living longer or better than those of us who never touched the "HIV" medications, but doctors aren't looking at us. 

Each of Delaney's points can be deconstructed, but it takes at least 2 or 3 paragraphs to deconstruct one of his.  If you're not convinced his arguments are empty, comment on the particular point and it will be addressed.