Thanks, Ernest, you have a long view of things in medicine that I don't have. And I don't mean to minimize the threat to doctors of losing their licences and livelihoods. This was brutal bullying like I've never seen in my 70 years. For me the benefit is to be able to see the monetary connection betweeen government agencies and pharma, a…
Thanks, Ernest, you have a long view of things in medicine that I don't have. And I don't mean to minimize the threat to doctors of losing their licences and livelihoods. This was brutal bullying like I've never seen in my 70 years. For me the benefit is to be able to see the monetary connection betweeen government agencies and pharma, and stinking corruption.
You mention flu shots. That was another thing that baffled me. We all know most years the wisdom is: don't count too heavily on a jab for a virus that will already have mutated out of its reach by the time you're infected. So the announcement of a jab for what is essentially a cold virus that will mutate at least as rapidly, also seemed crazy. I asked my primary doc about that when she was excitedly telling me about the marvelous COVID jabs coming soon, and, not for the last time, there was a 3 second silence on her part. Really? This is the first time anyone challenged you on that? We're all in trouble.
One question: is there any treatment for any "viral" illness that you know of? I think Peter Duesberg is correct in deducing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. The balance of evidence weights in his favor. Are there any cases where some treatment cures a "viral" illness?
No treatment that I know of. Some claim that there are monoclonal antibodies that work for some supposedly viral illness. I haven't really looked into it and so can't speak to the question with any degree of certainty. The fly in the ointment of virology is that no virus had ever been physically isolated or cultured. Peter Duesberg has been shown to have been correct and had what was a brilliant career ruined because he opposed the narrative. The whole AIDS business was a scam to win a "turf" war within the National Institute of Health. Improved living conditions and antibiotics had essentially taken care of previously common infectious diseases and threatened to reduce the specialty of infectious disease to a condition of irrelevance. The cluster of disorders that suggested an immunodeficient cause were initially the province of the division of the NIH that dealt with cancer. The reason was that one of the common components was an unusual type of skin cancer. But the bureaucrats in the division of infectious disease recognized this as an opportunity to avoid being defunded or even eliminated completely. Fortunately they had a bureaucrat that was skilled in manipulating the system to their advantage---Anthony Fauci. This whole episode was beautifully described in Peter Duesberg's book titled Inventing the AIDS Virus. Robert Kennedy also did a reasonable job in his recent book The Real Anthony Fauci.
Thanks, Ernest, you have a long view of things in medicine that I don't have. And I don't mean to minimize the threat to doctors of losing their licences and livelihoods. This was brutal bullying like I've never seen in my 70 years. For me the benefit is to be able to see the monetary connection betweeen government agencies and pharma, and stinking corruption.
You mention flu shots. That was another thing that baffled me. We all know most years the wisdom is: don't count too heavily on a jab for a virus that will already have mutated out of its reach by the time you're infected. So the announcement of a jab for what is essentially a cold virus that will mutate at least as rapidly, also seemed crazy. I asked my primary doc about that when she was excitedly telling me about the marvelous COVID jabs coming soon, and, not for the last time, there was a 3 second silence on her part. Really? This is the first time anyone challenged you on that? We're all in trouble.
One question: is there any treatment for any "viral" illness that you know of? I think Peter Duesberg is correct in deducing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. The balance of evidence weights in his favor. Are there any cases where some treatment cures a "viral" illness?
No treatment that I know of. Some claim that there are monoclonal antibodies that work for some supposedly viral illness. I haven't really looked into it and so can't speak to the question with any degree of certainty. The fly in the ointment of virology is that no virus had ever been physically isolated or cultured. Peter Duesberg has been shown to have been correct and had what was a brilliant career ruined because he opposed the narrative. The whole AIDS business was a scam to win a "turf" war within the National Institute of Health. Improved living conditions and antibiotics had essentially taken care of previously common infectious diseases and threatened to reduce the specialty of infectious disease to a condition of irrelevance. The cluster of disorders that suggested an immunodeficient cause were initially the province of the division of the NIH that dealt with cancer. The reason was that one of the common components was an unusual type of skin cancer. But the bureaucrats in the division of infectious disease recognized this as an opportunity to avoid being defunded or even eliminated completely. Fortunately they had a bureaucrat that was skilled in manipulating the system to their advantage---Anthony Fauci. This whole episode was beautifully described in Peter Duesberg's book titled Inventing the AIDS Virus. Robert Kennedy also did a reasonable job in his recent book The Real Anthony Fauci.