What published scientific evidence proves HIV causes AIDS?

What published scientific evidence proves unambiguously that HIV causes AIDS?
The glaring fact of transmission claimed by the NIH, CDC
that AIDS is transmitted through sexual conact is not supported by their own statistics. This would impose a geometrically expanding spreading rate. Why has the pool of new AIDS cases/year been confined to approximately 30,000/ year confined to (documeted) social groups of:

60% male homosexuals between the ages of 20 and 45 years with a severe chronic drug lifestyle including: hundreds of sexual contacts/year, repeated history of sexual diseases and antibiotic therapy, fisting, etc. Whose immune sysem wouldn't go belly up living like this?
**************
30% intravenous drug users.
****************
10% general population incuding those afflicted with hemophilia.
*******************
Women make up less than 10% of all AIDS cases in Europe and the US.

Only prostitues with a chronic drug lifestyle are determiend to having AIDS.

Thete is no documented case of AIDS (HIV) transmission person to person.

African AIDS, untested, undocumented, are shared 50%men and women. The opporunistic diseases in Africa are confined to lime disease and diahrrea.
The social groups affected in Africa, are, guess what? Answer: poor, uneducated and economically challenged.

The statistics have remained constant since the government has been taking data startng in early 1980s.

Is there an African HIV, a female HIV, A white male HIV, a homosesexual HUV, drug users HIV, straight person's HIV?

HIV has been catagorized as the most unique virus ever. facts:
1. HIV has never been isolated to the exclusion of all other biological matter.
2. HIV has never been identified with electron scanning micro-photography.
3 AIDS tests do no test for the HIV, the AIDS test is for a segment of a protein common to 4 or 5 other diseases, e.g. Epstein-Barr syndrome(sic).
4. Luc Montaignier never isolated HIV, nor did Robert Gallo.
5. Luc Montaignier published research work (Science 1982, the first to analyze bio-matter from alleged AIDS victim) included photograph ostensibly depicting HIV. Luc stated the photgraph was included for educational purposes. years after publication.
6. HIV claimed to mutate so rapidly it cannot be isolated and analyzed. This cnveniently explains away research ambiguities. Get this statement of convenience: The rapid mutation of HIV affects only those attributes necessary for identification purposes, but the pathological implications.

Anybody ever try this - look at Perth Group?

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

REalizing that you're just a troll...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I appreciate your answer but the thread is titled "what published scientific evidence proves HIV causes AIDS?"

Do you have direct references to your statements. After all this is a science forum.

And Persol, there was a scientific study that showed the only significant factor in prostitutes having AIDS are those with a chronic drug life style.
Here are a few quotes from some scientists in the battle against AIDS. The beach between manistream dogma and scientific objections is wide and deep,
Here is an entry into another side of the story on AIDS.
Here are a few quotes from some promnent scentists rearding AIDS and HIV.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)


Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978:
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000)


Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University:
"I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)


Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley:
"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)


Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Persol I didn't respond to most of your post because it was void of scientific references. It was fuil of scientific statements like "No".

Your link was relativiely useless to me for that reason. . Where do you get your information and advice? You were being deceptve and/or incompetent here Persol.

From the Perth Group in Australia we can access to some acutely direct and well documented papers. One, for instance, Perth goes into great detail describing the "AIDS test" as massively inconsistent, hundreds of labs with no or questionable quality control. double figure percentages of false positives. The test is a test for a protein segment claimed to be part of the coating of the virus, which is an "RNA like genetic string". What is even more fanastic is that the protein segment is common to a number of diseases, includng Epstein-Barr syndroms.

I have seen a half dozen claims of electron micrographs advertised as HIV.The laughable part of this is there are no absolute proofs of exactly what HIV is supposed to look like. One publication showed a number of white materials of various sizesd and little arrows pointing to 5 or 6 white dots that were referred to as "HIV". The references were void in any attempt at proof that the microgrpahs were as advertised.

In a mid '80s publication of the National Geographics there was a feature article re AIDS. A beautiful colored photograph showed a cell inundated with little HIV sspread over the surface, Intersting photograph. The only problem is, this turned out to be an artists rendition. I looked for references in the body of the story for any references tot he origin of the picture. There was none, or I missed it in my search.

Luc Montaingie a star of he AIDS world published a ""seminal " paper on AIDS that included a microphotograph that was admittedly not an HIV microphotograph. Luc claimed he inserted the picture for "educational and instructional purposes" Ths paper was published in "Science".


You claimed electron microscopy has pictured an HIV. Thee is not even an attempt to prove what the picture in this linkactually is. Persol, you stress thel ine of credibility when you assert all the undocumented "facts" claimed by your self as true. Where dd you get your information?
It was fraudelent Persol.

Your post was written with th ebest of intentions I am sure, but your best in ths case started ouit with an insult that I was a troll, whatever that is andyou concluded with. Your reference tot e common cold was in eply to a

"

So Peson if other virus tests are screwed up and uinscienific this elevated the tests for HIV to what? Scientific accepability?

i am asking a lot of questions persol, i just wishes there was someone in this forum knowledgeable enough to answer.
If the HIV is mutating so rapidly how can it possibly ever get identifie

d? Again, you are equating the HIV conundrum to the c'ommon cold'? Sciences definitive void in getting a handle on the "commn cold' is used by you as what" Defense for the lack of scientific protocol in the AIDDS disaster?

You started your post with an insult and you ended it wih an insult, In between we all see an obvious attempt at exercising some of the propganda instructions you received from somewhere. Where did you get your traning in the art and science of propagnandizing scientific matters as cover ups of massive governemtnal incompetence and criminal activity? You scence Pesol, you jus make it up don't you or somebody makes it up for you.?"

Science Persol do you have a clue?

Geistkiesel
"From the link I provided the following:
First Pictures of "Pure HIV" (March '97)

Two historic papers in the leading science journal Virology in March this year provide astonishing new data on the purification and isolation of HIV. For the first time in the history of AIDS, elusive electron microscope images of 'HIV' collected or 'banded' at the official density required for retroviruses, 1.16 gm/ml, have been published, by a research group in Germany. The electronmicrographs disclose "major contaminants" in "pure HIV".



HIV expert Hans Gelderblom of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, whose photos of non-banded 'HIV' material have been the industrial benchmark since 1987, co-authored the first paper which describes the contamination as "an excess of vesicles" - particles of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA. In a consecutive paper, a US research team from the AIDS Vaccine Programme in Maryland reveal carefully, "It is unknown how these cellular proteins associate with the virus" and warn, "The presence of microvesicles in purified retroviruses has practical implications": both teams discuss the resulting nonspecifity of HIV tests, all of which are based on early unchecked "purified HIV".

In an historic admission that it has never been established which proteins constitute 'HIV', the US scientists conclude, "The development of various purification strategies to separate microvesicles from HIV-particles ... will greatly enhance our ability to identify virion-associated cellular proteins." The imaging step in attempts at retroviral isolation was deemed essential when isolation procedure was discussed and decided at the Pasteur Institute, Paris in 1972, but it has never been published before in the 13-year history of 'HIV'. (Continuum autumn 1997

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I appreciate your answer but the thread is titled "what published scientific evidence proves HIV causes AIDS?"

Do you have direct references to your statements. After all this is a science forum.

And Persol, there was a scientific study that showed the only significant factor in prostitutes having AIDS are those with a chronic drug life style.
Here are a few quotes from some scientists in the battle against AIDS. The beach between manistream dogma and scientific objections is wide and deep,
Here is an entry into another side of the story on AIDS.
Here are a few quotes from some promnent scentists rearding AIDS and HIV.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)


Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978:
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000)


Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University:
"I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)


Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley:
"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)


Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Persol I didn't respond to most of your post because it was void of scientific references. It was fuil of scientific statements like "No".

Your link was relativiely useless to me for that reason. . Where do you get your information and advice? You were being deceptve and/or incompetent here Persol.

From the Perth Group in Australia we can access to some acutely direct and well documented papers. One, for instance, Perth goes into great detail describing the "AIDS test" as massively inconsistent, hundreds of labs with no or questionable quality control. double figure percentages of false positives. The test is a test for a protein segment claimed to be part of the coating of the virus, which is an "RNA like genetic string". What is even more fanastic is that the protein segment is common to a number of diseases, includng Epstein-Barr syndroms.

I have seen a half dozen claims of electron micrographs advertised as HIV.The laughable part of this is there are no absolute proofs of exactly what HIV is supposed to look like. One publication showed a number of white materials of various sizesd and little arrows pointing to 5 or 6 white dots that were referred to as "HIV". The references were void in any attempt at proof that the microgrpahs were as advertised.

In a mid '80s publication of the National Geographics there was a feature article re AIDS. A beautiful colored photograph showed a cell inundated with little HIV sspread over the surface, Intersting photograph. The only problem is, this turned out to be an artists rendition. I looked for references in the body of the story for any references tot he origin of the picture. There was none, or I missed it in my search.

Luc Montaingie a star of he AIDS world published a ""seminal " paper on AIDS that included a microphotograph that was admittedly not an HIV microphotograph. Luc claimed he inserted the picture for "educational and instructional purposes" Ths paper was published in "Science".


You claimed electron microscopy has pictured an HIV. Thee is not even an attempt to prove what the picture in this linkactually is. Persol, you stress thel ine of credibility when you assert all the undocumented "facts" claimed by your self as true. Where dd you get your information?
It was fraudelent Persol.

Your post was written with th ebest of intentions I am sure, but your best in ths case started ouit with an insult that I was a troll, whatever that is andyou concluded with. Your reference tot e common cold was in eply to a

"

So Peson if other virus tests are screwed up and uinscienific this elevated the tests for HIV to what? Scientific accepability?

i am asking a lot of questions persol, i just wishes there was someone in this forum knowledgeable enough to answer.
If the HIV is mutating so rapidly how can it possibly ever get identifie

d? Again, you are equating the HIV conundrum to the c'ommon cold'? Sciences definitive void in getting a handle on the "commn cold' is used by you as what" Defense for the lack of scientific protocol in the AIDDS disaster?

You started your post with an insult and you ended it wih an insult, In between we all see an obvious attempt at exercising some of the propganda instructions you received from somewhere. Where did you get your traning in the art and science of propagnandizing scientific matters as cover ups of massive governemtnal incompetence and criminal activity? You scence Pesol, you jus make it up don't you or somebody makes it up for you.?"

Science Persol do you have a clue?
Here is an entry into another side of the story on AIDS.

Here is the entryway into science
Geistkiesel

"From the link I provided the following:
First Pictures of "Pure HIV" (March '97)

Two historic papers in the leading science journal Virology in March this year provide astonishing new data on the purification and isolation of HIV. For the first time in the history of AIDS, elusive electron microscope images of 'HIV' collected or 'banded' at the official density required for retroviruses, 1.16 gm/ml, have been published, by a research group in Germany. The electronmicrographs disclose "major contaminants" in "pure HIV".



HIV expert Hans Gelderblom of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, whose photos of non-banded 'HIV' material have been the industrial benchmark since 1987, co-authored the first paper which describes the contamination as "an excess of vesicles" - particles of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA. In a consecutive paper, a US research team from the AIDS Vaccine Programme in Maryland reveal carefully, "It is unknown how these cellular proteins associate with the virus" and warn, "The presence of microvesicles in purified retroviruses has practical implications": both teams discuss the resulting nonspecifity of HIV tests, all of which are based on early unchecked "purified HIV".

In an historic admission that it has never been established which proteins constitute 'HIV', the US scientists conclude, "The development of various purification strategies to separate microvesicles from HIV-particles ... will greatly enhance our ability to identify virion-associated cellular proteins." The imaging step in attempts at retroviral isolation was deemed essential when isolation procedure was discussed and decided at the Pasteur Institute, Paris in 1972, but it has never been published before in the 13-year history of 'HIV'. (Continuum autumn 1997

Geistkiesel

 

On the other hand, we have this page here:
http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/default.htm


Which prompted me to do this search. Maybe if you wade through it all you can find what you are looking for:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=ncbisearch&cmd=search&term=HIV

 

And Geistkiesel, your most recent article by the experts is 5 years old. Has there been anything since then that dispute the HIV/AIDS condition?

Didn't we name the AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) to describe what is happening when you contract the HIV virus? I thought we identified HIV, then named the disease that it causes AIDS.

 

We had AIDS first Idle. The first few years were the most frightening for me. I still remember reading a small item in Time magazine in 1982 metioning a mysterious disease that was killing gay men by devastating their immune sytems. A virus was suspected, but hadn't yet been found. It was sometime in 1984 that HIV was isolated, with some controversy over the credit.

Epidemiologists realized early on that whatever this new disease was, it was transmissible. Read Randy Shilts' book And The Band Played On.

The AIDS/HIV hypothesis is very sound. I'm not going to bother to find published documentation, it is very close to trying to prove evolution to sceptics. Don't forget the way HIV killed so many hemophiliacs. They were not long term drug users.

 

Okay, that sounds reasonable. I wasn't sure about the history of the whole thing.

 

I just wonder what the agenda of the AIDS skeptics is - some, like Geitskeptel, are probably homophobic and would rather it was punishment than a random disease. But there are a lot of hyper-liberal people who somehow find it necessary to disbelieve such an established scientific theory. You only find this kind of head-in-the-sand behavior from evangelicals on evolution or anti-Semites on the Holocaust. Does anyone else have any ideas how the HIV-AIDS connection would merit such skepticism? (the very vehemence of some people's arguments against it belies a hidden agenda)

 

Geistkiesel, your complaints about the cause of AIDS are non-sensical and outdated. Do some research yourself and you'll find the studies about transmissibility of AIDS under various conidtions. These numbers agree with the varying risk rates.

You will NEVER purely isolate a virus. You'd destroy the virus in the process of trying.

Very simple, either get some proof or do some research. Your quotes (and all of those on your links) are from over 5 years ago... most are over 10 years old Believe it or not many people have been doing research since then.

What EXACTLY would it take to prove to you that HIV is the cause of AIDS? I'm willing to bet your desired information is either impossible to provide, or already researched.

 

Amen!

The anti-fluoridationists and anti-immunizationists are another example of such head-in-the-sand skepticism, although maybe not as severe as the examples you cited.<P>

 

"The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized in 1981 . . ."This from your first reference does not provide an link to published material.

"In many developing countries, where diagnostic facilities may be minimal, healthcare workers use a World Health Organization (WHO) AIDS case definiton based on the presence of clinical signs associated with immune deficiency and the exclusion of other known causes of immunosuppression, such as cancer or malnutrition. An expanded WHO AIDS case definition, with a broader spectrum of clinical manifestations of HIV infection, is employed in settings where HIV antibody tests are available (WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 1994;69:273)."
This is a definition, which if you look closely, is diofferenct than for the rest of the world.

"With regard to postulate #2, [isolation of the HIV] modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.
This is another undocumented claim. Thee has never been an isolation of HIV at the exclusion of all other bio-entities in the universe.

"Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995)."

More undocumented arguments. The statemen ignores the reality that approximately 90% of AIDS victims live a chronic drug use life style.

"The availability of potent combinations of drugs that specifically block HIV replication has dramatically improved the prognosis for HIV-infected individuals. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS."

This is not an accurate statement. AZT is a killer.



"The recreational use of nitrite inhalants ("poppers") also predates the AIDS epidemic. Reports of the widespread use of these drugs by young men in the 1960s were the impetus for the reinstatement by the Food and Drug Administration of the prescription requirement for amyl nitrite in 1968 (Israelstam et al., 1978; Haverkos and Dougherty, 1988). Since the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the use of nitrite inhalants has declined dramatically among homosexual men, yet the number of AIDS cases continues to increase (Ostrow et al., 1990, 1993; Lau et al., 1992)."

This a gross distortion of fact. Poppers werellinked to AIDs via kaposiss sarcoma, usually a benign condition. The KS lesiosn were found principally in the nose to lung area pf homosexual men. When the sacre went ut l;inking AIDS to [poppers the incidence of KS dramatically declined.

Note: Your reference was a NEWS release, not a published scientific journal, without even pretending it was peer reviewed for instance.

 

So what does "what we named AIDS"" have to do with it? The "we: you rfeferred to did not include me and a few millions others.

I merely asked for published scientific papers, what is so difficult about? Especially any published material proving the isolation of HIV. If yo have been following his tragedy very indetail yo will recall that at one point in time the NIH responded witht the argumetn thagt Koch's "law" was 100 years old and that in "good labs" HIV was proved. THis was Anthomy Fauci's dribble for a cnsiidefrable period of time.

In any event whre is the published proof.? Idel mind, you must be an extremely unique person with god like mental powers. I noticed you didn't cite any puvblished materials. What magically source to scientific research do you use?

Geistkiesel

 

HIV test is a trest for antibodies whjich are common to 5 or 6 common diseases. Even then the test is riddled with deficiencies such as lack of standardizations, monitoring for recults, large percentag of false negative and positives.

Your statement that "epidemiologist reaslized early on " is the kind of statement that is so common in the scientific world. So easy to use he words yet so difficult to prove, but then who can make the NIH, or any department attached to the NIH, procve anything.

OK RepoMan, who in 1984 isolated HIV?

You must be referring to Luc Montaignier and Robert Gallo. Luc's paper never claimed that he isolatedHIV! Robert Gallo claimed it, using LM's paper and RG committed scientific fraud in his part in the scenario. You want to trust your governmnt, go ahead, be my guest.

Years later LM was asked if he found any HIV to which he replied that they (his research team) "looked and looked" but to no avail. When then asked what was the microphotograph he included in his published paper all about he responded that it was included for "educational purposes".

"The Ban Played on" s not a published scientific document. I read the book yars ago, probably before you did.

Oh ye of infinite faith, trusting in what?

Geistkiesel

 

Read my reply Idle Mind. Explain to me what it is about Repo Man that you so easily agree with his presentation? I am not questioning anyone's sincerity in this matter, I am only questioning the truth of the matter which can be ressolved with a simple indication to the direction of published materials, which are non-existent. Instead we are inundated with news releases.

Geistkiesel

 

Go fuck your self zyncod

 

The links provided above stated that HIV was isolated, now you come along and say it wasn't. Remember the operning thread here everybodyu? It asked for publsihed scientific documents ha prove HIV causes AIDS. If you are so convinced of he matter why don't you supply the papers that you used to prove to yourself the HIV story? I ahve researched those matters you referred to and found them to be nonsense.

If you are so up to date on this matter as you claim give us the benefit of your research - published scientific documents that prove the assertion that HIV casues AIDS. Persol you aren't a scientist with any experticxe in HIV/AIDS anymore than in secial relativity theory. Upour mission, paid or volunteer is to down grade anyone questioning the standard models.

You do know what published scientific dcuments are don't you, all of you following this thread?

Geistkiesel

 

Hecules Rockerfeller, it seems you stumbled upon a thread asking for reference to published scioentific papers that proved he assertions that HIV was causally related to AIDS. So the two "antis" you mentioned interesting.

Did you know that in year or so afer massive polio vacines had been effectively provided the largest outbreak of polio ever occured? Similarly history tells of many instances where smallpox had decimated towns and villages that had been innoculated, while neighboring towns relying on isolation and cleanliness suffered minisicule numbers of smallpox cases. Go figure that one out
HR

Geistkiesel

 

No, it has been observed... not completly isolated. Nothing ever is. If you wish to argue over semantics you should try another forum.

Then you wouldn't mind providing links to the studies and expaining why they are nonsense? Calling you an idiot is much less work... and just as correct as doing your research for you.

The simple fact is that all the anti-retroviral drugs currently used to combats AIDS/HIV are designed to combat HIV..;. and only stop working due to mutations. Are you honestly going to try and claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but destroying HIV still stops AIDS?

Do you know that this is expected with vacines?

Come on troll... at least provide us some links from Geocities....

And? HIV has been grown in vitro, and is infectious is injected. The worst that can happen from your claim is a false positive (assuming your claim of 'common' was even true). This fullfills Koch's postulates.

Oh, my fault. I forgot that the government and thousands of AIDS researchers are all out to get you. I must need to make a new tin-foil hat.

 

No one can provide proof of this. What we can provide, is evidence that supports the claim that HIV is present in AIDS cases. Here are some articles I found at PubMed in a quick search.

First, using the terms HIV, AIDS, and the Boolean qualifier AND to connect the two (HIV AND AIDS).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15714064

And another, using T-cells AND AIDS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15709041

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15699152

AIDS is the depression of the immune system. HIV kills host immune cells at an astonishing rate. While it may not be the only reason that a hosts immune response may be diminished, it is certainly a high contributor based on the prevalence of the virus. Why is this so hard to accept?