Do HIV and AIDS exist

[TonyL]

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.

This is simply false. Given that there are literally thousands of studies using the scientific method and published in the peer reviewed literature, I'm going to guess that either you didn't actually study the issue like you claim (other than reading denialist sites) or you are pulling our legs.

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.

Um, yeah, there are really smart doctors who claim that the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't happen. Heck, the some of the same "really smart doctors" that claim we haven't proven that HIV causes AIDS also claim that germs don't cause disease, or that Polio disappeared because of changes in sanitation, not due to the vaccine.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Why? See the CDC's numbers it is only about one million people with HIV in the US in 2003 see CDC link

so where are you getting your numbers from and how do you get from the 22 million to millions of people in the US

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Why? See the CDC's numbers it is only about one million people with HIV in the US in 2003 see CDC link

so where are you getting your numbers from and how do you get from the 22 million to millions of people in the US?

 

[JJM]

{snip} 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?? {snip}

Duesberg was certainly a serious scientist at one time. Several years ago I perused his (2) books that have his thoughts on HIV/AIDS, and his arguments are post-hoc and disorganized. I have no idea what happened to him.

He first said that AIDS was caused by use of illegal drugs (I don't recall if he had a list; but he did include heroin and cocaine). If you point out that people with hemophilia got AIDS, before the blood supply was routinely tested, he said they were using (blood-derived) coagulation factors that were foreign to their bodies which caused it. When you observe that kids in Africa get AIDS without using clotting factors or illegal drugs- then it is caused by other diseases and famine.

Let's try another approach- AZT inhibits the virus and reverses AIDS, I don't remember his first response; but I do remember he says AZT causes AIDS! The protease inhibitors are specifically designed to inhibit the virus, and they hold-off or reverse the symptoms; Duesberg says that protease inhibitors of that sort elicit a general immune-stimulating effect.

Duesberg's arguments are not at all convincing. And they are just that, arguments. Nature published a few of his letters on the subject, and then told him they would not publish anything more unless he had data.

On the other hand, the NIH page we have cited does refer to reliable, published literature. Even if one or two items is wrong, they sure have a whole lot of evidence remaining.

Finally, tens of thousands of scientists have worked on HIV/AIDS in government, commercial, academic and private foundation laboratories and clinics (internationally) for more than twenty years. Is it rational to believe a few scientists got it right, and masses of others are deluded, and can't understand even when they see the arguments?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I repeat, there is NO DEBATE about HIV causing AIDS among any credible scientists. For Pete's sake we have made incredible advances in treating the disease, we have recorded the genome, we know which parts of the virus cause the damage, we know viral loads correlate with disease onset more closely than white blood cells counts.

The one thing I always find missing from the typical discussion of mythical biological beliefs such as belief in intelligent design and in this case nonsense about an infectious organism is all of the advanced science. The sources and statements that some of you here are so focused on are the equivalent of discussing a controversy kindergarten children believe exists. The adults have an overwhelming amount of additional information the kindergarten level discussion doesn't include.


edited to fix confusion

 

[anonimouse]

Oh wow!

My first post in the science forum, and I get to use it to call robinson an HIV-denialist troll. You know, the "so-called skeptic" who goes from saying "I always thought AIDS was caused by HIV" to "there's no evidence that HIV causes AIDS" in record time. Just like the anti-vaxer who pretends that at some point they supported vaccines.

 

[drkitten]

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.

Huh?

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the rate of a sexually transmitted disease," but assuming you're referring to the transmission rate, no, it's not well-known. Or rather, it's well known that the transmission rate of STDs varies widely, not only with the STD, but with the manner of exposure.

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.

As a simple example of what I said above -- the CDC has published these numbers about the infection rate for exposure to the HIV virus. For example, of 10,000 people who receive blood transfusions of HIV-infected blood, about 9,000 can expect to develop HIV infection. On the other hand, of 10,000 people who share needles with HIV-infected people, only 67 can expect to develop HIV infection themselves. The rate drops dramatically yet again when we look at sexual encounters; for "normal" (pen/vag) intercourse, only 10 cases out of 10,000 exposures are expected. To put it another way, only after 1,000 unprotected sexual encounters with an infected person are you "expected" to develop HIV infection (the odds are actually less if you are male). Assuming you have sex 200 times a year, that's about five years. If you use condoms, the transmission rate drops even more.

Does this answer your question about why "only" a few millions Americans have developed HIV infection?

And does an official Center for Disease Control publication, with references, count as "hard evidence"?

 

[JJM]

mistake

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a page linking to one of the CDC's information on HIV-AIDS menus. They have updated a number of information pages in the last couple of weeks.

 

[lionking]

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.

You mean like a conspiracy? I think that the appeal will be soundly dismissed, but please analyse what you are saying here. If a qualified, experienced judge sitting in a properly constituted court in a reputable jurisdiction, having heard days of scientific and other evidence, comes up with a finding you do not agree with, than it is obviously wrong. This is CT 101 and the Loose Change Forum is full of it.

 

[brodski]

You mean like a conspiracy?

no, incompetence rather than malice. I don't believe conspiracy theories, I do believe in cock up theories.

I think that the appeal will be soundly dismissed, but please analyse what you are saying here. If a qualified, experienced judge sitting in a properly constituted court in a reputable jurisdiction, having heard days of scientific and other evidence, comes up with a finding you do not agree with, than it is obviously wrong. This is CT 101 and the Loose Change Forum is full of it.

Quite the opposite, as the scientific evidence so overwhelmingly favours one side -as determined by peer reviewed journals, and based on decades of argument and evidence- if a judge (who i doubt has been trained in a scientific discipline) finds against the overwhelming evidence, after just a few days, questions need to be asked. It is not because he disagrees with me that I would question his motives or sanity, if would be because he disagrees with the objective evidence.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm not sure what robinson is confused on, since I don't have time to read every post.

Just wanted to clarify that not all cases of AIDS are caused by HIV. There are many causes of AIDS. Auto-immune deficiency has other causes, but HIV caused AIDS is what this thread is about.

HIV is one cause, and HIV is a virus that infects the T-cells. I posted on this very early on.

If you are looking up studies on HIV caused AIDS, then make sure you access information that includes information on HIV caused AIDS.

HIV ends up in bodily fluids, that is why it can be passed on through needles and via semen, etc.

HIV is a retrovirus. This means that it hides in your dna. Once it is in there, it may hide for years. You have problems once it actively starts making the T-cell replicate the HIV rna. The HIV RNA leaves the T-cell encased in the T-cell cytoplasm. After a while, you have no T-cells left that are actually acting like T-cells. This causes the auto-immune disorder.

I've posted a link to pictoral evidence of this.
There is more here: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/immunology/tutorials/AIDS/HIVimmune.html

Have fun.

I don't know what is unclear. Perhaps this will help?

 

[drkitten]

If a qualified, experienced judge sitting in a properly constituted court in a reputable jurisdiction, having heard days of scientific and other evidence, comes up with a finding you do not agree with, than it is obviously wrong. This is CT 101 and the Loose Change Forum is full of it.

Hardly. Any more than there's a conspiracy involved when I say that any metallurgical engineer who says that steel melts at 100K is obviously wrong. The fact that a person has credentials and experience unfortunately doesn't provide an ironclad guarantee against making boneheaded mistakes of fact or logic.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Can Duesberg be prosecuted? I think you can make a compelling case that the crap he has spewed has directly led to people's deaths.
Why does AIDS denial exist? I guess there's no idea so crazy that nobody will make a following out of it.

 

[drkitten]

Can Duesberg be prosecuted?

Probably not in any country with a reasonable set of civil rights. "Freedom of speech" and all that, you know. Unless you think you could prove that he knew he was lying and that he knew people would die as a result of his lies, the case would come to naught.

Of course, if you want to run a trial by old-style Stalinist rules, in which case he can be prosecuted and shot or exiled simply for being unpopular....

 

[Modified]

Let's not lose sight of the important thing here.

Elani Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos

Best name ever.

 

[EvilBiker]

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?

I did some investigation into this a coupla years ago, also for the forum. Can't find my original post, unfortunately, but anyway...

Chances of getting infected by having sex with an HIV+ person are actually pretty slim, apparently. I contacted an AIDS activist group here locally, the Treatment Action Campaign, who gave me the stats. I'm not sure exactly of the figures (memory faaading!), but for normal sex, the chance of infection was something like 1 in 500. For anal sex, the figure dropped somewhat, I think to about 1 in 400.

With forced sex the picture obviously changes, but the infection rate is still pretty low (1 in 200). The main factor here is if there is any blood transfer, which would mean damage to both parties.

As far as I'm aware, other fluids besides blood do not transfer the virus. Citing a previous post about getting infected due to oral sex, I would hazard a guess at sharp teeth being somehow responsible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure what robinson is confused on, since I don't have time to read every post.

Just wanted to clarify that not all cases of AIDS are caused by HIV. There are many causes of AIDS. Auto-immune deficiency has other causes, but HIV caused AIDS is what this thread is about.

HIV is one cause, and HIV is a virus that infects the T-cells. I posted on this very early on.

If you are looking up studies on HIV caused AIDS, then make sure you access information that includes information on HIV caused AIDS.

HIV ends up in bodily fluids, that is why it can be passed on through needles and via semen, etc.

HIV is a retrovirus. This means that it hides in your dna. Once it is in there, it may hide for years. You have problems once it actively starts making the T-cell replicate the HIV rna. The HIV RNA leaves the T-cell encased in the T-cell cytoplasm. After a while, you have no T-cells left that are actually acting like T-cells. This causes the auto-immune disorder.

I've posted a link to pictoral evidence of this.
There is more here: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/immunology/tutorials/AIDS/HIVimmune.html

Have fun.

I don't know what is unclear. Perhaps this will help?

The A in AIDS stands for Acquired, Eos, not auto-.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did some investigation into this a coupla years ago, also for the forum. Can't find my original post, unfortunately, but anyway...

Chances of getting infected by having sex with an HIV+ person are actually pretty slim, apparently. I contacted an AIDS activist group here locally, the Treatment Action Campaign, who gave me the stats. I'm not sure exactly of the figures (memory faaading!), but for normal sex, the chance of infection was something like 1 in 500. For anal sex, the figure dropped somewhat, I think to about 1 in 400.

With forced sex the picture obviously changes, but the infection rate is still pretty low (1 in 200). The main factor here is if there is any blood transfer, which would mean damage to both parties.

As far as I'm aware, other fluids besides blood do not transfer the virus. Citing a previous post about getting infected due to oral sex, I would hazard a guess at sharp teeth being somehow responsible.

Your figures are dangerously low. If the rate was that low then we wouldn't have a worldwide pandemic.

I think you need to check a more reliable source like the CDC or WHO.

 

[brodski]

Your figures are dangerously low. If the rate was that low then we wouldn't have a worldwide pandemic.

I think you need to check a more reliable source like the CDC or WHO.

According to the numbers from the CDC which DrKitten posted in post 67, his estimates of rates if infection are too high rather than too low.