Alright, Skeptigirl.
Lets assume for a second, that you're right. Well, no, lets assume instead that HIV is deadly. Lets say it kills 80% of the people within 25 years, with less than 10% remaining asymptomatic during the entire time.
That's about the most "pessimistic" estimate I'm willing to discuss. But lets assume it's right. Is this a horrible disease?
Yes, of course it is. We value life in the Western world. It actually still appears to be 100% fatal but only time will prove that number smaller.
Do you want to live to be 45? 55? even 65? I would like to at least live as long as possible. I want to live to be 105. And I don't want to do so with no chance of sexual intercourse with a significant other, and taking handfuls of pills, dealing constantly with a chronic disease. HIV-AIDS is a horrible disease as far as diseases go.
Assume I claimed to know magic. I poke people on the forehead, and 80% of them will die within 40 years. A very realistic assumption, provided I only or mostly poke people on the forehead who are 25 or older. I'm fairly sure, observational science could prove this. Would you then find a study that finds that 80% of the people who I poked on the forehead, died within 40 years, to be proof of my magical abilities?
With a good epidemiological study you could make that determination or rule it out if it wasn't occurring.
I have for a long time researched circumcision. I came accross a similiar argument there: Penile cancer is super deadly since most people that get penile cancer don't survive the next 5 years. The argument is simple: Thus circumcision (which prevents penile cancer much like lung amputation prevents lung cancer) is an important health measure. What's not told by the study is that penile cancer almost exclusively afflicts people aged 70 or older. And even then it only hits 1 in 600 men, tops, ever.
An appropriate risk benefit analysis would determine that circumcision was not an effective means of preventing penile cancer in your scenario. Science is capable of weighing one risk against another. Science is capable of giving you the data to make a decision, is the loss of the foreskin a reasonable cost of preventing rare penile cancer? If that were the only reason for circumcision, you wouldn't find very many health care professionals recommending routine circumcisions.
What am I saying? There's 100's and 1000's of scientific papers on HIV/AIDS published every year. Who do you think writes those? Do you believe the people who write those papers have no financial interest in keeping the HIV/AIDS myth alive in the public? Do you think those retrovirologists and AIDS researchers would keep their jobs for long if they publicly questioned the fundamental validity of the HIV/AIDS theory, regardless of its actual validity?
I'm amazed that you have such little knowledge of the scientific community. Yes, there are thousands of researchers whose main interest is in discovery. Scientists love finding out new things. I love finding out new things. Scientists are proud of their accomplishments. I would wager the vast majority of researchers are not making a ton of money and most certainly are not in their profession for the financial rewards.
I actively fight to change the corporate climate. I think it is bad for humanity at the moment. I also happen to think human beings run corporations and the vast majority of them are not like the Enron and Tyco corporatocracies. There are some problems with the system currently but the benefits by far outweigh the drawbacks of capitalism. For every Ken Lay there is a Ben and a Jerry.
Most researchers are motivated by discovery not money.
And do nurses and people like you really do a whole lot of own research, or do they just pay the tuition for their three-week evening course in "how to treat for HIV patients"
First, I have an MSN, not a three week course in treating HIV patients. Second, I take great pride in my profession. Third, I take great pride in my business, which I started as an entrepreneur 17 years ago.
I and the majority of health care providers don't typically take anyone's word for the evidence based medicine we practice. We look at the evidence for ourselves. And that evidence comes from many different sources, different countries, and different funding sources. You simply cannot pull off the conspiracy you believe in because evidence won't let you. Studies must be repeatable, sources must disclose their conflicts of interest, all researchers are allowed in the field and if the evidence is behind their work, it is the evidence which will eventually resolve any questions or doubt.
In politics, you have big money determining who gets to run in the election. So regardless of the fact we are able to vote for our choice, the choices are directed by big money.
But in research, you have an entire international body of scientists. You have scientists who really do care more about discovery than financial reward. You have research funding sources which include charitable foundations and interested individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates for example. Those research funding sources are not connected to any big pharma profits or any retroviral researcher's job security. And providers such as myself have access to all the research. A drug company can only suppress its own scientific reports. They cannot suppress the work done at universities and through non-profit foundations.
I don't make money off HIV. If anything, I let health care workers know that because it takes a large dose of HIV in a needlestick accident to get HIV, PEP drugs are almost never warranted.
But because I order so many HIV tests, I have also had to tell a person they had HIV. When you are faced with telling someone they have an incurable infection which will likely be fatal, you don't do so without knowing what you are dealing with. I am not a fool, I'm damn hard to dupe, and I don't make a profit off anyone with HIV. My practice is based on preventing occupational infectious diseases. If HIV was cured tomorrow my practice wouldn't feel a ripple. Hepatitis B, TB and influenza make up far more of my practice focus than HIV. Preventing the transmission of infectious diseases remains a full time job for an army of public and occupational health professionals with or without HIV.
The people you imagine making money off hyping HIV disease simply don't exist.
