Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug
said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those
vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV
causes AIDS.

Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.

Efforts to create a vaccine have all failed so far. That's not the same
thing as a prediction that none will ever work. Time will tell.

If I understand correctly HIV is the first RNA virus where attempts have
been made to make a vaccine. A long learning curve is to be expected.
It took centuries of science for the first DNA virus vaccine to be
introduced. As someone who is not infected, who avoids infection and
also avoids the other vectors, I'm in no hurry. I personally can afford
to be in no hurry. Being in a hurry can't help anyways. Being in a
hurry does not help science.

Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs
the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the
immune system.

That's also how DNA viruses function. The successful ones do not kill
their host cells. The most successful ones get included in the cell's
genetic material.

Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.

Sure, if that happened. New people would stop being HIV positive.
Fewer not none, actually, given how herd immunity and statistically
uncertain personal immunity from vaccination works. The deaths from
currently sick people would occur. New deaths would either continue
unabated or track the new infection rate. And then there would be
certainty.

Time will tell. It's how science works. Immature science includes
discussion of concensus because concensus gives the best guess in the
absence of cetainty. Eventually science reaches such a close
approximation to certainty that opinion is irrelevant and concensus is
irrelevant. Medicine in general and AIDS treatment in specific are far
from that level. I tend to favor the concensus opinion but I know what
it means to need to poll for a concensus in the first place. It means
the issue is not yet resolved. Okay, so a large error bar then. I'm
okay with large error bars once I know they are there.