Do HIV and AIDS exist

[Skeptic Ginger]

It wouldn't be her mouth...

It could be. Seattle HIV researchers documented oral intercourse with ejaculation could infect a person with HIV.

 

[valis]

No, they where not. Just in the same was that if a judge ruled in favor of any number of wacky tax protester arguments, he would be either insane or corrupt. When the evidence so overwhelmingly favors one side, and the decision goes eth other way, what would your third option be?

That there was some point of law or procedure that caused him to do so.

Wait here's a fourth; the judge is honest and sane but incompetent and misapplied a point of law or procedure.

 

[brodski]

That there was some point of law or procedure that caused him to do so.

It would have to be a pretty screwed up point of law or procedure which forced a judge to rule that HIV does not exist or does not cause AIDS, I am completely unable to even begin to guess at what sort of point of law or procedure could lead to that ruling, if someone could point out how the law or procedure could be used to rule in this way, I will consider the idea.

Wait here's a fourth; the judge is honest and sane but incompetent and misapplied a point of law or procedure.

yes, I accepted the incompetence/ stupidity point, which is hardly much better than corruption or insanity.

 

[lionking]

It would have to be a pretty screwed up point of law or procedure which forced a judge to rule that HIV does not exist or does not cause AIDS, I am completely unable to even begin to guess at what sort of point of law or procedure could lead to that ruling, if someone could point out how the law or procedure could be used to rule in this way, I will consider the idea.



yes, I accepted the incompetence/ stupidity point, which is hardly much better than corruption or insanity.

Being a criminal case, if "reasonable doubt" about the existence of or link between HIV and AIDS can be established, then the conviction could be overturned. Which was the whole point of commencing this thread. Everyone is saying that there is no doubt, so the result should be straightforward.

I must say that several suggestions that the judge would either be stupid, incompetent, corrupt or insane if the case went the other way are a bit over the top. It would be because of his interpretation of the law. I think Australia's legal system stacks up with the best in the world.

 

[Paul]

This guy is either mentally ill, incredibly ignorant,

I think the scariest thing about that site is the seemingly glowing references from people who should know better, and The Sun.

 

[JJM]

Uh. I have no idea who Mary Mullis is, but it's probably referring to Kary Mullis (a male), who got the Chemistry prize in 1993 for his work on DNA replication/testing. Although this is related to HIV research in some ways, he is as far as I know no expert on HIV and has, as far as I know, not published any scientific research on the subject.

While Mullis is no doubt very much on the fringe here, I disagree that he's not a 'legitimate' scientist. Just because someone has wacky opinions doesn't make them illegitimate. It does make them wrong, though.

Mullis was once asked to help develop an assay for HIV; so he surveyed the literature. At the time, perhaps he was strictly correct that, although there was ample evidence, the definitive experiment had not been done. That is because it would be unethical to infect people with HIV to see if they developed a terrible (even when controlled by drugs) condition.

Several years ago I heard or read an interview with Mullis. He said that he never claimed HIV does not cause AIDS, he only said the definitive experiment had not been done.

The NIH has a nice summary of the evidence, including reference to an accidental infection of a number of people who went on to get sick.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

 

[brodski]

I think Australia's legal system stacks up with the best in the world.

I think so too, why is why I discounted any Judge agreeing that there is "reasonable doubt" over the HIV/ AIDS issue. In fact if the court did rule that HIV does not cause AIDS (or that there is "reasonable doubt" over this issue) and the judge was not corrupt, stupid or insane- then that would point to much greater failings of the entire legal system.

 

[robinson]

I had no idea there was a serious debate about this ...

I didn't either. I thought this was nonsense.

..A man convicted of knowingly infecting two women with HIV, and receiving 15 years jail, has appealed on the grounds that HIV and AIDS do not exist. He has the support of a medical physicist (I didn't know there was such an occupation) Elani Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, who testified that she would happily have unsafe sex with a HIV positive man.

Using Google, it didn't take long to find there is a huge AIDS/HIV controversy, one the Media simply ignores. And Dr. Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos is right in the middle of it. Along with about a thousand other Doctors. Some very highly educated people. WTF??

The article quoted a couple of sceptical scientists, Dr Mary Mullis, a Noble Prize winner, and Dr Harry Rubin.

The article was headed "25 million dead people can't be wrong. Or can they?". Is there any real doubt about HIV or is this criminal clutching at straws?

Did you mean Dr. Kary Mullis?

From a web based search, it is obvious with only a little looking, that there is indeed something strange going on. I went with the intent of finding obvious evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Because we all know it does. Imagine my surprise, being a skeptic, when there doesn't seem to be any. In fact, it looks like AIDS is a scam?? HIV as cause fails all four of Koch's postulates?? And there is no double blind study at all about it?? None?? Nothing?? Zip? What??

The Chimp studies (none double blind) all seem to support that HIV doesn't cause AIDS??? You would think something we all know would have some hard science behind it, but just try and find one study showing HIV causes AIDS. There isn't any. There isn't even any evidence that sex spreads AIDS. WTF?

As a skeptic, I like to have some evidence for stuff. HIV causing AIDS doesn't have any at all??. (I know, that sounds crazy, but look for yourself). But hey, I could be wrong. Somebody show us one double blind study showing any evidence at all that HIV causes AIDS. Show me something, anything. Please. Because this is just nuts.

Dr. Peter Duesberg, who seems to have invented the science of the retrovirus, seems to be a major player in this debate. This isn't some woo person, he isolated the first cancer gene in 1970, through his work mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences for his discoveries. He seems to know more about retroviruses than anyone on the planet.

His evidence that HIV can't cause AIDS is overwhelming??? WTF???

Wow. This is unbelievable. I bought the whole HIV myth from the media, and there isn't a shred of truth in it at all??? There isn't any evidence HIV is spread by sex, there isn't any evidence it causes AIDS, and there isn't any evidence that it is even a retrovirus???

None? Not a single experiment?

Now this is just whack. Usually when somebody makes a claim, about something, like you transmitted a disease to me!, the person making the claim has to back it up. As in, there is such a disease, and it can be transmitted by sex. Like in this case. (I know, sounds silly doesn't it? Wanting proof).

But here is the whack part, there isn't any evidence to prove the claim. None. I know, I know, that sounds crazy. After all, everybody knows HIV causes AIDS. So where is the evidence? With something this easy to test, and the money that has been spent, where is the evidence?

Instead of pointing to a study, or several studies, showing the evidence, people say dumb stuff instead. This is absurd. If HIV causes AIDS, it should be easy as pie to link to the study.

Look at the data, view the evidence.

So, where is it?

Its a valid question. Why would it be so hard to just show the scientific evidence? Not doing so, is just so woo.

 

[robinson]

Now, before anybody has a cow, look at

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This is the "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS, and I have read it. The problem here, is that as a skeptic, I want to see evidence to back up the claims made. There isn't any. I looked at the research, read the reports/studies. It doesn't meet the requirements for science at all.

http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hivcausesaids.html

Another evidence page. Same problem. No double blind study at all on HIV causing AIDS.

No evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV. This is crazy. There must be a scientific, peer reviewed, repeated experiment that proves HIV causes AIDS. How can there not be? We all know it is true. How can the tests not be there?

Millions of people have died, millions more have it, why no scientific evidence that shows HIV leads to AIDS? Yeah, yeah, I read all the stuff that is offered as evidence. None of it meets the requirements for a disease cause. Or does it?

I know this is going to be shown to be simply nuts. Google must be broken. There HAS to be a peer reviewed, published paper showing HIV causes AIDS. There HAS to be a repeated experiment to show it wasn't a flawed study. That is how science works.

 

[brodski]

Now, before anybody has a cow, look at

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This is the "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS, and I have read it. The problem here, is that as a skeptic, I want to see evidence to back up the claims made. There isn't any. I looked at the research, read the reports/studies. It doesn't meet the requirements for science at all.

so, the peer reviewed articles in respected medical journals "don't meet the requirements for science at all", would you care to be more specific? I mean, I'd love to just take the word of some random guy posting on the internet over the published research, but others may not be so forgiving.

Another evidence page. Same problem. No double blind study at all on HIV causing AIDS.

exactly what kind of double blind study would you wish to see on the human immunodeficiency virus causing AIDS?

Would you also demand double blind studies on the effectiveness of parachutes ?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1459

Millions of people have died, millions more have it, why no scientific evidence that shows HIV leads to AIDS? Yeah, yeah, I read all the stuff that is offered as evidence. None of it meets the requirements for a disease cause. Or does it?

If you fell that it fails to meet that standard, show how it fails to meet that standard, a blanket dismissal of the evidence in vague terms just doesn't cut it.

 

[strathmeyer]

If you don't think it's funny it's because you don't know how absurd the claim is.

I laughed so hard I started crying and forgot to start laughing. Seriously.

 

[Ocelot]

HIV as cause fails all four of Koch's postulates??

Sorry Robinson I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here. If the latter would you care to elaborate?

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates

Koch's postulates are:

1. The organism must be found in all animals suffering from the disease, but not in healthy animals.
2. The organism must be isolated from a diseased animal and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured organism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy animal.
4. The organism must be reisolated from the experimentally infected animal.

However, it must be noted that Koch abandoned the second part of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera (Koch, 1893) and later, Typhoid Mary. Indeed, asymptomatic carriers of many diseases have since been found, especially viruses such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.
The third postulate does not always happen, as Koch himself discovered and stated in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera (Koch, 1884). Indeed, we see this today with diseases such as HIV, where CCR5 Δ32 deletion individuals seem to be resistant to infection with HIV.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Publications/hivaids/12.htm seems to agree with these definitions.

So If you are indeed saying that ALL four of Koch's postulates are failed by HIV Lets deal with them sequentially.

1 The organism must be found in all animals suffering from the disease, but not in healthy animals.

Can you cite the AIDS victim who does not carry the HIV virus?

The page you linked to suggests that AIDS is only diagnosed if "manifestations of HIV infection are severe." There appears to be a disparity here. If instead you are suggesting that HIV is found in people who have not yet developed AIDs then of course this is part of the postulate that Koch apparently abandonded when confronted with non-symptomatic carriers.

2 The organism must be isolated from a diseased animal and grown in pure culture.

Are you saying that this has not happened? It appears that the peer reviewed evidence Coombs et al., 1989; Schnittman et al., 1989; Ho et al., 1989; Jackson et al., 1990 appears to disagree. What flaws do you find in this evidence?

3 It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.

Horrible though it is this experiment has apparently been inadvertanly carried out when HIV researchers were accidentlly exposed in the lab to isolated strains of the HIV virus. The peer reviewed evidence cited is Blattner et al., 1993; Reitz et al., 1994; Cohen, 1994c

4 It must be found in the experimental host so infected.

And in the case of some of these accidental infections the HIV virus has been isolated from their blood stream and senquenced. It was found to be the original infecting strain of the virus.

So I'm confused what is meant by this "HIV as cause fails all four of Koch's postulates"

Personally I'm of the viewpoint that after being diagnosed with HIV this individual may have taken solace in the dangerous ideas being presented here. It would be quite understandable. If he can prove that he was exposed to these ideas before comitting his crimes then those presenting them may be equally culpable.

If these woo "doctors" truly are the reason that this man continued to have unprotected sex after being advised that he had a sexually transmitted disease then I'd like to see the "doctors" locked up for the deaths that they cause.

 

[robinson]

so, the peer reviewed articles in respected medical journals "don't meet the requirements for science at all", would you care to be more specific?

Its the same problem with "Homeopathic Medicine". Just because a bunch of people say it works, doesn't mean it works. No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't make it true. Without double blind studies, peer review, and repeatability, it doesn't have any validity. Homeopathic crap has been around for years, millions have used it, people know it works, but if it can't be validated by scientific means, then how can you take it seriously?

exactly what kind of double blind study would you wish to see on the human immunodeficiency virus causing AIDS?

The same kind that are done with any disease agent.

Would you also demand double blind studies on the effectiveness of parachutes ?

Fallacy. Not only have you switched the focus onto something unrelated, you are also talking about a fix for a problem, rather than the problem. They are not related, but nice try.

If you fell[sic] that it fails to meet that standard, show how it fails to meet that standard, a blanket dismissal of the evidence in vague terms just doesn't cut it.

Fallacious argument, and I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

As to HIV causing AIDS, I can accept anecdotal evidence, (clearly, with millions dead, there must be a cause), that HIV and AIDS are associated, but even accepting that, there is no evidence at all that it (HIV) is transmitted through sex. In fact, based on obvious statistics, it can't be a sexually transmitted disease, based on the evidence we do have.

The experiments on Chimps started in the eighties, are the most obvious evidence that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. And of course, all those people with HIV that don't have AIDS.

 

[Terry]

there is no evidence at all that it (HIV) is transmitted through sex. In fact, based on obvious statistics, it can't be a sexually transmitted disease, based on the evidence we do have.

Could you please elaborate on that?

 

[robinson]

Now I'm not happy about any of this. First, it makes me sound like a nutcase, and I doubt very much anyone else will look at the evidence, or in any way be skeptical about the issue. After all, we all know HIV causes AIDS, it is a scientific fact. No questions allowed, no research allowed, no question permitted.

What is just nuts, is looking at the data, there was no scientific evidence, no trials, no peer review, no repeatable experiments, no study published, none of the usual scientific methods were followed before the press announced HIV caused AIDS.

What is even more nuts, is I believe HIV causes AIDS. I also believe it is spread by sex. And through blood. Maybe other bodily fluids. But there just isn't any evidence to back it up. Not the kind of evidence we demand for stuff.

There should be overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. And that it spreads through sex. I read that in 1999, 22 million people are infected with the HIV virus. It takes 2 to twenty years to show up as symptoms. Based on that knowledge, there should be millions of people with it in the US.

It is a deadly disease, you get it from sex, it kills you. This is what I have heard for years. And yet, a really really smart Doctor, who knows more about this stuff than I ever will, says this has not been proved.

 

[robinson]

Sure

Could you please elaborate on that?

Using my skeptical mind, and the statistics from the CDC, it makes no sense at all. If people were starting to die from AIDS in 1978, (fact), and it is spread by HIV, (or any other sexually transmitted vector), and it takes from 2 to twenty years to show up, (or kill you), then in 2007, there is no way the numbers can add up.

Remember this is a disease people don't even know they have, for a long time. The rate of a sexually transmitted disease is well known, and that is for diseases that shows symptoms in a matter of weeks, not years. The numbers make no sense.

What does make sense, based on the number of deaths, before treatments were started, is another vector for the spread, but not sex.

Again, I don't believe this, but it looks like there is no evidence for a sexually transmitted virus.

This is difficult to fathom, because I have always believed HIV causes AIDS, and sex spreads it. To actually look for the evidence, the overwhelming evidence, and find nothing, is a bit screwed up. The burden of being a skeptic.

I'm pretty sure, and hopeful, that somebody really smart is going to blast out a bunch of hard evidence here, so I can stop thinking about this. I don't like it. There is much weirdness around this.

 

[robinson]

Sorry Robinson I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here. If the latter would you care to elaborate?

I'm not sure what the hell I am being. My mind boggles.

Rather than get into a protracted debate here, (one that seems to be going on elsewhere), let me just say, I don't know. The urge to be sarcastic about it is strong. After all, we all know HIV causes AIDS. We have been told this. It is without a doubt.

Yet, looking for some strong evidence, some scientific without a doubt testing, there isn't any. Everything I said about it is from the Internet, (usually not the best idea). Most of the time you can just dismiss what you don't accept as cranks, nutjobs, and vested interest. But I quickly found a lot of scientist, Medical people, providing scientific reasoning, and logic, and while trying to find a counter to it, I find they seem to be correct.

You would think there would be overwhelming evidence to refute everything. But there doesn't seem to be. My skeptical mind is not happy. I don't want to debate it, because I don't believe it.

I would be arguing against my own beliefs. What I am reading, is that there is a controversy (still), over this. Unbelievable.

And the skeptics, (the ones questioning the established theory), seem to have valid credentials, and scientific reasoning behind them.

Avoiding the HIV causes trouble, the transmission issue is obviously screwy. It doesn't take a rocket science to see that. And since that does apply to the topic....

Geez, this crap is making my head hurt.

 

[robinson]

There is another trial about AIDS starting in Africa.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21812

One that we can only hope, will have a better result.

 

[Ocelot]

Remember this is a disease people don't even know they have, for a long time. The rate of a sexually transmitted disease is well known, and that is for diseases that shows symptoms in a matter of weeks, not years. The numbers make no sense.

Wait up - are you assuming that every time an infected person has sex they pass on the virus? If so does an alternative hyposthesis that the virus is only passed on in a varying percentage of cases depending on say the vigor and type of sex, open wounds etc. (You know - all that stuff we've been taught to believe) Does that make the figures add up again?

Can you direct me to the figures you've found. I'm sorry but perhaps I'm rather quick to dissmiss such claims when the reliable evidence that is claimed not to exist actually seem to exist in abundance as I just referenced. Is the evidence I referenced the evidence that the critics of the HIV AIDS theory have attmepted to debunk? If so can you point to the debunking. If not does this evidence now satisfy you?

To be honest I can't say I've dug out the evidence in question or that I would be qualified to assess it but it does appear to peer reviewed which gives me some indication of its accuracy.

 

[brodski]

Its the same problem with "Homeopathic Medicine". Just because a bunch of people say it works, doesn't mean it works. No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't make it true. Without double blind studies, peer review, and repeatability, it doesn't have any validity. Homeopathic crap has been around for years, millions have used it, people know it works, but if it can't be validated by scientific means, then how can you take it seriously?

It's not the same situation at all, you looked at a number of paper published in reputable peer reviewed journals, and dismissed them as "not up to the standards of science". Now you claim that none of these are peer reveiwed or repeatable (the double blind bit is debatable, see- and try to understand, my parachute paper)

The same kind that are done with any disease agent.

not all disease agents are treated the same, when you have an agent which is hypothesised to cause a terminal illness in human hosts, but react very differently in animal hosts, there are large ethical problems with trying to do the types of studies which you seem to be after.

Fallacy. Not only have you switched the focus onto something unrelated, you are also talking about a fix for a problem, rather than the problem. They are not related, but nice try.

It is an analogy, not a fallacy- how do you do a double blind test to see if HIV causes AIDS, without infecting healthy people with HIV?

Fallacious argument, and I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

What fallacy am I using? You made claim that the evidence doesn't meet your expectations of what science is- well fine, that's your opinion, now please, be specific in your criticisms.

The experiments on Chimps started in the eighties, are the most obvious evidence that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. And of course, all those people with HIV that don't have AIDS.

Animal testing Si always problematic, and as for people with HIV that don't have AIDS, do you then except that typhoid, cholera and some strains of hepatitis aren't caused by the accepted agents, as people can be effected with those agents and not necessarily develop the associated disease.