>>501015
I understand. That's the standard line of thinking, I know. However, there are many problems with that line of thinking, particularly given the low levels of alleged virus presence even in dying patients and the reproduction rates of HIV (so-called) and T cells. It's been a loooong time since I pored over the documents stored at www. virusmyth.com, but I recommend it if you have an inclination. Deprogramming from the standard theory is hard work, however. The programming went very deep - in all of us - and the mind keeps snapping back to the standard theory even as one understands that it doesn't add up for many different reasons.
FWIW, Kaposi's Sarcoma - the first of the so-called AIDS-defining diseases - was quietly dropped from the list of AIDS-defining diseases a couple of decades ago. It was, they discovered, the result of amyl nitrate abuse, not a sexually transmitted virus. Unfortunately, studies on drug use and immunodeficiency, called for by one of fathers of retrovirology at the time in which the virus theory became dogma, have NEVER been carried out. The dogma was asserted, and all funding took for granted that the original claim that HIV was the cause of AIDS as valid. Yet the original studies do not prove that point at all, as Kary Mullis discovered when he set out to find the papers in which it had been 'proven'. They simply don't exist. We need red pills. This psyop killed a lot of people, and caused many others to live lives full of anxiety. Gallo to the gallows, I say.
PS there are around 70 different conditions that have been documented in the scientific literature as capable of giving rise to 'false positives' on the so-called HIV antibody tests (that are not approved by the FDA for diagnosis of the presence of a virus). These include flu vaccinations, flu, pregnancy..... Scary stuff. Mind war.