The New York Times is on the case. (no registration required if you get it through Drudge like I did...)
[S]ome research scientists said the appearance of a possible drug-resistant and virulent strain of the virus in one 46-year-old man meant little. The man's immune system might have been compromised by the crystal methamphetamine he had taken, they said...
It is highly interesting that prominent, mainstream scientists can admit that the man's immune system might have been compromised by the crystal meth to hasten AIDS, but when the man who proved retro-viruses exist says that AIDS is itself merely caused by drug use, that's an unacceptable answer.
Longstanding rivalries among top AIDS researchers resurfaced, and one of the researchers who discovered the possible strain was accused of using a test developed by a company to which he had close ties.
Also very interesting, no? It is still acceptable to point out a possible conflict of interest for the person who provided the test that identified this possible new strain...but it is not acceptable to the AIDS industry to point out the same situation applies to the HIV testing kits that helped propel the idea that HIV causes AIDS in the first place...
There is much to consider in all this, if you have the wit...and the courage.
Prev | List | Random | Next Powered by RingSurf! |
Pagerank |
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |