Do HIV and AIDS exist

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's hard to find reliable data on risk per single exposure. This site lists an accurate rate for occupational exposure but you have to log on to find out where the data came from which they used for their figures.

Sexual, needle, and trauma exposure — The exact risk of transmission of HIV with sexual exposure or sharing needles is not known, however the risk with a single such exposure is probably lower than many patients and providers assume. A cost-effectiveness analysis of PEP reviewed a number of sources and used the following estimates [1]:

* Receptive anal intercourse — 2 percent
* Receptive vaginal intercourse — 0.1 percent
* Insertive anal or vaginal intercourse — 0.06 percent
* Receptive oral sex with a male partner — 0.04 percent
* Other sexual exposure — 0.004 percent
* Needle or syringe sharing — 0.3 percent
* Bite or assault — 0.004 percent

But let's say for a minute the figures are correct. It may look low but those numbers are some mid point of the actual range.

Uncircumcised, high viral load, presence of another STD, trauma such as with some anal intercourse and rape, are some of the factors which can greatly affect actual risk per single intercourse act.

In health care exposures there is a thousand fold difference in risk between a blood draw needle, just used, a source patient with a high viral load and a deep puncture, and an exposure with a tiny puncture and an insulin syringe used an hour ago. Yet the source lists one risk figure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

If the risk was one in 9000 for a transfusion with infected blood it wouldn't make sense. So it looks like the risk is per transfusion with all blood rather than infected blood. Then again, that number doesn't make sense either because only a few cases are missed with screening. Are the other numbers per exposure to infected source as they state? Then why is the transfusion number that high. There's no way HIV risk is that low with infected blood transfusions.

Also, I couldn't see the date of the data. I couldn't easily find the page it came from. I tried shortening the web address but it didn't work.

Perhaps Drk. can give the link to the article instead of the chart alone?

 

[Diamond]

I had a landlord who was head of the blood transfusion unit at the local hospital. His remark on the chances:

"On average, it takes 2 years of regular unprotected sex with an HIV positive person for you to become HIV positive"

I've no idea how accurate that is.

And please, leave the "denier" stuff alone. The question is about evidence of infection, a clear mechanism that can be replicated by anyone, and statistical inference which can be also validated and replicated.

Scientific progress is marked by challenges from people who are generally in the minority (usually of one). Science is improved by these challenges. It does not need a consensus to defend it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the risk was that low, how is it so many people are infected?

 

[Capsid]

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

And the S stands for Syndrome.

 

[fls]

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.

There are many causes of immune deficiency that are acquired (not "auto"). However, AIDS refers to a specific syndrome the cause of which is HIV.

Linda

 

[Diamond]

If the risk was that low, how is it so many people are infected?

The answer is: risky sex, increased numbers of sexual partners, contaminated blood transfusions and drug abuse. In Africa, where the dominant mode of transmission is heterosexual, sexual practices such as "dry sex", large numbers of sexual partners and promiscuity with prostitutes are key vectors in the spread of HIV.

 

[Cuddles]

Just as a side note to clarify the medical physicist thing. Medical physics is mainly about running and maintaining scientific equipment like x-ray machines and MRIs, although there is also some involvement with the actual design. It is very much physics applied to medicine rather than the other way around. It usually involves having a 3 or 4 year physics degree and then taking a postgrad course in medical physics, there is no actual medical training at any point. Having support from a medical physicist in a debate about the cause of a disease is about as relevant as having your case supported by a small marmoset.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just as a side note to clarify the medical physicist thing. Medical physics is mainly about running and maintaining scientific equipment like x-ray machines and MRIs, although there is also some involvement with the actual design. It is very much physics applied to medicine rather than the other way around. It usually involves having a 3 or 4 year physics degree and then taking a postgrad course in medical physics, there is no actual medical training at any point. Having support from a medical physicist in a debate about the cause of a disease is about as relevant as having your case supported by a small marmoset.

Hey marmosets can be cute, and you all know how cuteness effects how people treat animals.

 

[robinson]

Long, but full of data

Diamond, you are a real light in the darkness. I spent couple of hours researching last night, way late, too tired to even look at this board, but your logic and clear headed response was most welcome to a fellow skeptic.

I had a landlord who was head of the blood transfusion unit at the local hospital. His remark on the chances:

"On average, it takes 2 years of regular unprotected sex with an HIV positive person for you to become HIV positive"

I've no idea how accurate that is.

That is the kind of thing I am running into all over. How long does it take to test positive after you are infected? The very term HIV positive means you are producing antibodies, it is rare to actually get tested for the HIV virus.

Example, - a man seeking to become infected with HIV reports:

Six frenzied hours of uninterrupted sex, drugs and alcohol. At the end of the night, the crowd began to slowly dwindle. Some left, a few fell asleep on a couch, the master bedroom, or any other suitable corner. But I was in the toilet. Even though the small tiled room was cold, I was sweating because of the cocktail of Ecstasy, cocaine, marijuana and vodka I had taken. As I looked at myself at the mirror, I knew that I had got what I had come for.

Two months later, the doctor in the Saint Mary’s Hospital told me I was HIV-positive.

http://www.orato.com/node/660?PHPSESSID=8ce4db5c57bf758cc80bade7b38d131e

That is anecdotal evidence of time from infection to showing positive on an HIV test. (there is no test for AIDS).

Looking at an HIV test site-
http://www.hivtest.org/subindex.cfm?fuseaction=faq#8

If I think I have been exposed to HIV, how soon can I get tested?

To find out when you should be tested, discuss it with your testing site staff or personal physician. The tests commonly used to detect HIV infection actually look for antibodies produced by your body to fight HIV. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 3 months after infection, the average being 20 days. In rare cases, it can take 6-12 months.

Where is the data on the testing? There isn't any. That statement is based on observation alone. No testing. It is all anecdotal.

Then you have people like Michael Shernoff, testing positive since 1977, with no symptoms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15372716&dopt=Abstract

(There are many others).

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/04/healthscience/snlive.php

This is just the tip of the iceberg out there.
This answers one question I saw, about people with HIV and not AIDS. It is not an unknown event at all.



There are also people with AIDS, without HIV showing up. But because of the definition of AIDS, if you don't test positive for HIV, the diagnosis is changed!

But before I go further, I clearly stated I believe HIV is a virus that causes AIDS. And that it is spread through sex, blood, and possibly other means. It was the difficulty of finding evidence, especially from the original study on HIV, that gets my skeptic sense going. I almost abandoned this discussion until I read your comment, and a few others, that seem to open minded, yet skeptical.

In the vein of scientific questioning, research and sharing data, I am going to post a bunch of links, mostly showing how the myths about HIV and AIDS are refuted by the most modern data on HIV. It wasn't easy to find, but good fortune shines on those who seek.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/b...tml?ex=1171515600&en=ea53d887269518fb&ei=5070
Harpers published a 15 page article about a lot of this controversy, March issue, 2006. The kaka hit the fan. And yep, there is Dr. Peter Duesberg in the middle of it.

Here is one site that published the response from AIDS researchers
http://www.tac.org.za/debunking.html

For those who don't read or follow links, (you know, those who know everything and don't need to even look), here is the point by point rebuttal to the Harpers article:

http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf

The mother load of responses to the debate on HIV causing AIDS. (I knew it was out there, not easy to find however)

Reading that offers a lot of the answers I was looking for, but also brings up a few more questions. Science marches on. I don't have time to get into each one them now. But it is worth a read, for anyone who has questions about this.

http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf takes each point and responds to it, and uses a lot of sources.

The original Gallo study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=6200936&dopt=Abstract

Reading that, it is obvious why anything else would have been attacked and shredded by skeptics. Just substitute cancer for AIDS, and it is obvious. That anyone bucked the tide of the Media frenzy is amazing.

That anyone still is, makes one wonder.

And one more link, from another skeptic, who worked in the AIDS field for ten years.

Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions – of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on – that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.

After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the interests of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

Obviously I have not searched or read anything close all of the articles and controversy over this issue. But it is obvious there is a furious debate, as well as real science questions about current HIV/AIDS theories. And it is THEORY, not proof, not fact, it is theory. Once there is overwhelming evidence, then we can stop debating.

And if you don't bother to spend hours reading, but still want to post some insulting, small minded comment, go ahead. Water off a ducks back to me.

If you want to just be able to counter doubts about this, read the .pdf article. It responds to most every point skeptics bring up about the issue.

 

[brodski]

And it is THEORY, not proof, not fact, it is theory.

You mean like the theory of evolution, or the germ theory of disease?
You have still not answered my questions on why you dismiss the research which you linked to which supports the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, a blanket statement that peer reviewed articles in reputable medical journals don’t "meet the standards of science" won't cut it.

 

[robinson]

And please, leave the "denier" stuff alone. The question is about evidence of infection, a clear mechanism that can be replicated by anyone, and statistical inference which can be also validated and replicated.

Scientific progress is marked by challenges from people who are generally in the minority (usually of one). Science is improved by these challenges. It does not need a consensus to defend it.

Your wisdom inspires.

http://www.tac.org.za/debunking.html is titled Debunking AIDS Denialism, a curious tack to take when debating science. After doing some reading, it is obvious that the authors use emotional and illogical arguements in the effort to counter questions about science. If it was something woo they were defending, they would get shredded by skeptics for engaging in such dumb reasoning.


As to the Koch's postulate question, it seems there are three theories put forth by "HIV causes AIDS" supporters.

That Koch's is not valid for some diseases.

That Koch's is met by HIV.

That Koch's is not met by HIV, but it doesn't matter, Koch's is no longer used.

I'm not kidding. All three of those are published as reasons for HIV satisfying Koch's postulate.

That kind of thing gets my skeptic mind wondering.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then you have people like Michael Shernoff, testing positive since 1977, with no symptoms. (There are many others).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15372716&dopt=Abstract

So there are a fair number of individuals who don't seem to progress. But why should that be odd, diseases effect people differently and it would not be the first to have carriers who do not display symptoms.

edit:also you are atributing a positive test about a decade before a test was developed. That is the suggested time of infection but not a positive test.

This is just the tip of the iceberg out there.
This answers one question I saw, about people with HIV and not AIDS. It is not an unknown event at all.

So what? HIV effects people differently, and some don't seem to get really sick from it. Why should that be so surprising?

Typhoid must also be a fake disease as it to can have carriers such as the famous typhoid marry.

There are also people with AIDS, without HIV showing up. But because of the definition of AIDS, if you don't test positive for HIV, the diagnosis is changed!

And when has anyone said that HIV is the only way to become severely immune compromised?

Obviously I have not searched or read anything close all of the articles and controversy over this issue. But it is obvious there is a furious debate, as well as real science questions about current HIV/AIDS theories. And it is THEORY, not proof, not fact, it is theory. Once there is overwhelming evidence, then we can stop debating.

Like gravity and evolution are also theories

 

[robinson]

You have still not answered my questions on why you dismiss the research which you linked to which supports the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, a blanket statement that peer reviewed articles in reputable medical journals don’t "meet the standards of science" won't cut it.

You obviously have not read anything just posted above. 8 minutes isn't enough time to read even half of the pdf file i linked to. It answers most of the questions.

You mean like the theory of evolution, or the germ theory of disease?

The theory of evolution is open to change, as is the germ theory of disease. Both have been altered and changed over time, as errors and fallacies were revealed. That is the beauty of science, it changes as new data and research is published and shared. Trying to dismiss or ignore data that challenges your pet idea, is also common. Nothing is more certain in science, than change.

And fighting over it.

 

[brodski]

Your wisdom inspires.

http://www.tac.org.za/debunking.html is titled Debunking AIDS Denialism, a curious tack to take when debating science. After doing some reading, it is obvious that the authors use emotional and illogical arguements in the effort to counter questions about science. If it was something woo they were defending, they would get shredded by skeptics for engaging in such dumb reasoning.


As to the Koch's postulate question, it seems there are three theories put forth by "HIV causes AIDS" supporters.

That Koch's is not valid for some diseases.

That Koch's is met by HIV.

That Koch's is not met by HIV, but it doesn't matter, Koch's is no longer used.

I'm not kidding. All three of those are published as reasons for HIV satisfying Koch's postulate.

That kind of thing gets my skeptic mind wondering.

The emotionalism is due to the nature of the disease, you will find similar emotional langue in those sites which counter anti-vaxx nonsense.

As this was explained earlier in this thread, there is more than one version of Koch's postulates, which Koch actually changed, based on observation of several well known and understood diseases.
Using the revised version, Koch is met by HIV. The older version of Koch is not met by HIV, but has been demonstrated to not apply to all diseases (where you have asymptotic carriers) and is no longer used.

 

[drkitten]

If the risk was one in 9000 for a transfusion with infected blood it wouldn't make sense.

That's not what it says. It says that of 10,000 exposures (via transfusion with infected blood), 9000 people are expected to show signs of infection. The 9000 is the numerator, not the denominator. In layman's terms, if you get a transfusion of HIV+ blood, you've got about a 90% chance of becoming HIV+ yourself.

Perhaps Drk. can give the link to the article instead of the chart alone?

Certainly. Here it is. The image itself is table 1. I apologize for the length and techncial tone.

 

[robinson]

It didn't take long to find many many sources online about the HIV/AIDS controversy. There is one. That is beyond a doubt. What is surprising is to find so many intelligent researchers and scientist who are questioning the science of AIDS.

Some of the educated people questioning the AIDS issue,
Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert
Nobel laureate and biochemist, Kary Mullis
Lynn Margulis, evolutionary biologists,
Don Miller, professor of Surgery at the University of Washington
Gerald Pollack, bio-engineer


The original Harpers article
http://www.harpers.org/OutOfControl.html

Evidence that HIV causes AIDS
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.htm

http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

How interesting.


Lancet study that shows Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for the treatment of HIV infection did nothing to increase lifespan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16890831

There are a lot of questions, based on scientific studies, about HIV and AIDS. I don't have time to look at this right now. But most interesting.

 

[fls]

But it is obvious there is a furious debate, as well as real science questions about current HIV/AIDS theories.

I can give you an insiders perspective on this issue. There is no furious debate. The "debate" has been generated by a few, most of whom are talking about issues outside of their field of expertise, and has been played out in the media and political arenas. It does not reflect debate that has occurred in scientific arena.

Linda

 

[JJM]

I can give you an insiders perspective on this issue. There is no furious debate. The "debate" has been generated by a few, most of whom are talking about issues outside of their field of expertise, and has been played out in the media and political arenas. It does not reflect debate that has occurred in scientific arena.

Linda

Exactly! The problem comes when journalists, politicians, and the public at large imagine that anyone with something to say has a rational point of view. See this, and references cited within:
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/id/

One needs some specific education to separate scientific controversies from noise. Then, it is necessary to understand that scientific disagreements are settled with data, not argument. And it takes a lot of expertise to evaluate data in any particular field. You can't develop that expertise by reading Good Housekeeping, random web pages, or books by questionable authorities.

And it is difficult for the uninformed to identify reliable authorities. Chopra, Weil, Duesberg etc. are all people with credentials that mean nothing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The answer is: risky sex, increased numbers of sexual partners, contaminated blood transfusions and drug abuse. In Africa, where the dominant mode of transmission is heterosexual, sexual practices such as "dry sex", large numbers of sexual partners and promiscuity with prostitutes are key vectors in the spread of HIV.

As a health care provider who has seen patients with HIV since 1978, I sincerely doubt the patients with sexually transmitted cases all had large numbers of sexual partners and/or used IV Drugs. I understand the need here to go by the data and not the fear factor, but the way you and others are portraying this is only people with more extreme behaviors are at risk. That is a fool's position.


Greater than 9 sexual partners in a lifetime is listed as an increased risk for hepatitis C and it is poorly transmitted sexually.