Do HIV and AIDS exist

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now now, most people don't have time to read links and study stuff. Don't be hard on them. This is also difficult to understand. Most people just believe what the authorities tell them, and feel good.

You have to be nuts to go against the herd mind.

You probably have no clue how stupid this makes you look.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, I see a dire need to include this link to a tutorial on how to evaluate websites. Also remember to be wary of anecdotes and disclaimers:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/webeval/webeval.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From Wiki, (because Wiki's easy)

Scientific response to the Duesberg hypothesis

The current consensus in the scientific community is that the Duesberg hypothesis has been refuted by the huge mass of available evidence, showing that causation of AIDS by HIV is clear, that virus numbers in the blood correlate with disease progression, and that a plausible mechanism for HIV's action has been proposed.[citation needed]

In the December 9, 1994 issue of Science (Vol. 266, No. 5191),[2] Duesberg's methods and claims were evaluated. The authors concluded that:

* it is abundantly evident that HIV causes disease and death in hemophiliacs.[11] [12]
* HIV fulfills Koch's postulates, which are one set of criteria for demonstrating a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease.[13]
* the AIDS epidemic in Thailand cited by Duesberg as confirmation of his hypothesis is in fact evidence of the role of HIV in AIDS.[14]
* AZT and illicit drug use, contrary to Duesberg's claims, do not cause an immune deficiency similar to that seen in AIDS.[15]


Proponents of the Duesberg hypothesis

The most prominent defenders of this theory are molecular cell biologist Peter Duesberg, biochemist and vitamin proponent David Rasnick, and journalist Celia Farber.

So you have Duesberg, his 'vitamins will cure all' business partner and Farber. That's impressive.


Wiki on Farber

Her Harper's magazine article, Out of Control: AIDS And The Corruption of Medical Science,[2] criticized the ethics and industry of antiretroviral drugs. In response to Farber's favorable presentation of the claim that there is no direct link between HIV and AIDS, the Treatment Action Campaign, a South African group campaigning for greater access to HIV treatment, posted a 37-page rebuttal written by eight prominent AIDS researchers. The rebuttal described over 50 errors in Farber's article, ranging from misleading or false statements to implications of sinister motives without evidence.

...In response to criticism of Out of Control, Farber claimed that she did not endorse the Duesberg hypothesis. She also claimed that she had approached the story as an objective journalist without a preconceived opinion, stating, "People can't distinguish, it seems, between describing dissent and being dissent."[12] Her claim of objectivity was immediately disputed, with critics pointing to Farber's long history of arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS.

So she's a liar as well, apparently.


Wiki on Rasnick

Rasnick is now an employee of the Rath Foundation Africa, which advocates that people with HIV should not receive treatment with antiretrovirals but, instead, should buy Matthias Rath's proprietary high-dose vitamin formula. Rasnick and the Rath Foundation are the subject of a lawsuit by the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa. The lawsuit was brought as a result of clinical trials conducted by Rasnick and the Rath Foundation that were not approved by the appropriate authorities in South Africa and did not undergo any ethical review. The trials involved recruiting people with HIV, instructing them not to take antiretrovirals, and providing them instead with Rath's supplements.[2] Court documents regarding TAC's lawsuit are online at: http://www.tac.org.za/rath.html

And this guy wants to sell victims his snake oil.

I suggest a bit of education about what you're reading on the Market Watch site. "This press release contains statements..." means just that, the article is a press release which are typically sent in by the company they are about.

 

[Deetee]

I'm 100% sure HIV is a cause of AIDS, and I am 100% sure there is data to show this. So far nobody here has provided any such evidence. I knowthe evidence exist, because I have viewed it, and this evidence has been around since 1985. Recent evidence confirms this. There is no doubt that HIV is one cause of AIDs.

So, you are convinced by the evidence for HIV as the cause for AIDS. It will save a lot of bandwidth if you just gave us a link to this "evidence", and explain why it convinces you.

That being said, there are still issues, related to the court case.

Such as?
In fact the transcripts are available, if anyone wishes to read them.

Does HIV exposure always cause AIDS? Can you have HIV and never get AIDS? Can you have AIDS but not HIV?

You need to understand what AIDS is and how the terminology was derived.
Originally, a disease syndrome was described with multiple opportunistic infections and cancers occurring in people who had no apparently obvious cause for any immune deficiency. This syndrome was labelled GRID, then AIDS. This predated the discovery of HIV. HIV was recognised as being universally present in patients with AIDS. However, as more people got tested, it was realised that many patients had HIV and had not yet become ill - a situation analagous to say Hepatitis virus, which can cause cirrhosis, but takes a while to do so.
HIV has been demonstrated to result in progressive immune deficiency in the majority of those infected (but some tolerate infection well, and do not become unwell - this has already been covered in posts above).
The term AIDS is an anachronism - the term advanced HIV infection is preferrable, which just means that one has become sufficiently immunodeficient to be susceptible to severe opportunist infections.
Obviously there are other causes of immune deficiency, and these people can develop opportunistic infections without having HIV.

What are the chances of sexual transmission?

I believe estimates were quoted to you back around page 2 or 3 of this thread.

Can you prove you got HIV from someone?

Yes - since the virus is prone to frequent replication errors, with different genes having different inherent nucleotide mutation rates (eg the HIV gag gene is more prone to this than the HIV env gene). Through molecular epidemiology it can be determined whether a particular strain of virus in one person has been acquired from another. There have been a number of high profile cases where genotypic sequencing has shown who infected whom, and convictions for transmitting the virus have resulted.

Can you prove HIV will give you AIDS?

Well, there have been many well documented cases where individuals have had clearly identified exposure to HIV-infected material such as blood needle stick, artificial semen insemination, blood transfusion etc where the recipient has subsequently become ill with "AIDS" and died. Do these not count?

 

[Deetee]

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??

Its easy to gain an education. Its even easier to misuse it.

As has been pointed out to you, Eleni Papadopoulos is not a medical doctor, and neither are the overwhelming majority of HIV dissident "doctors". Those that are spring from fields usually some distance away from anything to do with virology, microbiology, epidemiology or infectious disease medicine. Most have their own agendas - being an HIV dissident gains considerable notoriety and fame for some proponents.

Some prominently quoted dissidents have actually changed their stance as evidence accumulated, but they have never been erased from the list of scientists the HIV dissidents like to keep in the public domain.

After all has been said and done there are merely a handful of people with a background in the HIV field. Having said that, science is always open to question, and it is not who these people are that matters, but what they say. Their own theories always come up woefully short.

I know you have quoted helicobacter as an example where a revolutionary concept took time before it was accepted by the majority. [But remember that not all ulcers are caused by helicobacter, and the traditional treatments for ulcers (Proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers) continue to be among the most prescribed drugs globally - because they work]

HIV dissidents like to quote people like Galileo and Marshall as examples of why they should be taken seriously. This is just logical fallacy, and as ever, alternative thinkers usually misinterpret what science had to say about them.

As Sagan said -
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Papadopolous and her cronies are just the equivalents of Bozo, I am afraid.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Very sound posts Deetee, a very good read.

Robinson, please learn some terms.

-Retrovirus
-RNA
-reverse transcriptase
-DNA

http://www.cellsalive.com/hiv0.htm

Once you learn these basics, then it won't be so frustrating to discuss this issue with you.

After entering the body, the viral particle is attracted to a cell with the appropriate CD4 receptor molecules where it attaches by fusion to a susceptible cell membrane or by endocytosis and then enters the cell. The probability of infection is a function of both the number of infective HIV virions in the body fluid which contacts the host as well as the number of cells available at the site of contact that have appropriate CD4 receptors.
Within the cell, the viral particle uncoats from the envelope to releases its RNA. The enzyme product of the pol gene, reverse transcriptase that is bound to the HIV RNA, provides for reverse transcription of RNA to proviral DNA.
It is this HIV proviral DNA which is then inserted into host cell genomic DNA by the integrase enzyme. Once the HIV proviral DNA is within the infected cell's genome, it cannot be eliminated or destroyed except by destroying the cell itself. The HIV provirus is then replicated by the host cell. The infected cell can then release virions by surface budding, or infected cells can undergo lysis with release of new HIV virions which can then infect additional cells. Antibodies formed against HIV are not protective, and a viremic state can persist despite the presence of even high antibody titers.

Current information is vital. It is 2007, and we've had over 20 years to get to know HIV.
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/HIV.html

 

[kellyb]

So, you are convinced by the evidence for HIV as the cause for AIDS. It will save a lot of bandwidth if you just gave us a link to this "evidence", and explain why it convinces you.

I was wondering that, too.

Some prominently quoted dissidents have actually changed their stance as evidence accumulated, but they have never been erased from the list of scientists the HIV dissidents like to keep in the public domain.

Yep. In the early 90's there were a lot of "questioners", and it was quite a valid debate, in my opinion.
But the evidence at this point is really extraordinary. Science never "proves" anything, and a placebo controlled trial to prove that HIV causes AIDS seem a wee bit on the unethical side to me, so I think we're left making logical inferences from what's available.

 

[Deetee]

In the early 90's there were a lot of "questioners", and it was quite a valid debate, in my opinion.
But the evidence at this point is really extraordinary. Science never "proves" anything, and a placebo controlled trial to prove that HIV causes AIDS seem a wee bit on the unethical side to me, so I think we're left making logical inferences from what's available.

The dissenters/denialists usually like to say: "Where is the single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS?" or variations on this theme. This stems from Kary Mullis' original statements on the issue. (As has been mentioned, concocting a trial to deliberately infect people to demonstrate this is unethical and there will never be a trial to show this).
However, when scientists respond with the reply that there is not a single seminal paper, but thousands of papers that cumulatively provide evidence for the existence of HIV, the structure of its genome, the transmission of the virus, its ability to cause immunodeficiency and the progression to AIDS, and the ability of specific drugs engineered to inhibit HIV replication to restore immune function and prolong life, - they are met by the denialist response: "You see! There is no single paper to show this! So HIV does not cause AIDS!"
Complete intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Capsid]

Don't cases of accidental infection of laboratory workers count towards showing that HIV causes AIDS? This paper describes such a case with progression to AIDS 8 years after the infection.

 

[Deetee]

Of course not, Capsid - don't be so stupid!
All similar cases where HIV/AIDS has been documented as developing in someone following exposure to the virus are merely other things masquerading as HIV.

For denialists like Duesberg, this case is proof that the unfortunate individual was actually a drug abuser in his spare time, getting high on heroin and crack cocaine, or that he surreptitiously took drugs like zidovudine. It is obviously these things that caused AIDS.

Or, for denialists like Papadopoulos, it is proof that the person indulged in rampant receptive anal intercourse with multiple partners, being exposed to bucketloads of semen, causing immune deficiency and AIDS.

Or, for other denialists, it is proof that the person was in fact a malnourished native of sub-Saharan Africa ingeniously disguised as a laboratory technician, and of course all malnourished people get AIDS-like illnessess.

I could go on...

 

[Capsid]

Well, I was wondering what the denialists' arguments are for this scenario. Is infection of a lab worker considered an artificial situation somehow? If you wanted to show that HIV causes AIDS then you have to deliberately infect someone. This is what has happened in this case albeit not a double blind placebo controlled trial (maybe that is the reason it doesn't count?).

 

[robinson]

Here is a good site responding to "AIDS Myths".
http://www.aidstruth.org/debunking-denialist-myths.php
But like every other source, it does not include my evidence that HIV is a cause of AIDS. The reason I have not linked to such evidence, is simple. It doesn't seem to be online. Nor has it come up in the trial, (so far).

Which is strange. It is such overwhelming evidence that you would think it might be mentioned at least once somewhere. Considering the huge controversy over these issues. I know, I know, there is no controversy, but still, you find all kinds of pages on all kinds of websites about it, and there is a trial before the Supreme Court right now, but still, there isn't any controversy.



Its funny, because on any other issue, science and medicine works the other way around. You have to prove something first, and defend it, not the other way around. You don't get to announce something as true, file a patent, make a lot of money, THEN prove it works.

Which is what happened with HIV/AIDS. There is no doubt about controversy, it has happened since day one. What is strange, is that usually the person claiming something is the one under the gun, not the people questioning them. In this case, right from the start, the scientist questioning the research were attacked, for asking questions, wanting to see evidence, wanting to repeat the experiments.

That is messed up.

This week should wrap up the trial. More will be revealed.

Well, I was wondering what the denialists'[sic] arguments are for this scenario. Is infection of a lab worker considered an artificial situation somehow? If you wanted to show that HIV causes AIDS then you have to deliberately infect someone. This is what has happened in this case albeit not a double blind placebo controlled trial (maybe that is the reason it doesn't count?).

The statistics about HIV transmission from needle sticks, blood transfusions, and surgery contamination, reveal the obvious truth about HIV/AIDS. It is not easy to get it. One reason it never became an epidemic among medical workers. This is not easy to find, but the hard data is there. The risk of getting infected with HIV from a lab accident or surgery accident is very very slight.

And even if you get HIV, there is no evidence to show you will develop AIDS. There are many theories about why this is so, and research is going on. Obviously such knowledge is very very important to surgeons and other medical practitioners. So is information about the accuracy of HIV testing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

 

[robinson]

For those of you not following the trial, the Gallo testimony is priceless. The part where he insults the judge was my favorite exchange. His evasion and anger over questions about his original research is proof positive that controversy has happened since day one of HIV/AIDS.

Pity.

 

[robinson]

So, you are convinced by the evidence for HIV as the cause for AIDS. It will save a lot of bandwidth if you just gave us a link to this "evidence", and explain why it convinces you.

OK I found it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sO...QINx&sig=_JdGQEELnIAIPrJyq6V98SO-UqQ#PPA12,M1

It wasn't easy, and there aren't a lot of other sources to back it up. I don't really care. It was, and still is, the best evidence that HIV can lead to AIDS, that the test for HIV are working, and that even in the absence of test, AIDS can be transmitted.

It doesn't, however, answer most of the questions about HIV/AIDS that come up, all of which are scientific questions that should be looked into.
If there were no controversy over HIV/AIDS, that would be strange.

 

[Capsid]

And even if you get HIV, there is no evidence to show you will develop AIDS.

Ddin't the paper I linked to demonstrate that the lab worker got infected with HIV and went on to develop AIDS?
Why did you query my use of the apostrophe on denialists?

 

[kellyb]

But like every other source, it does not include my evidence that HIV is a cause of AIDS. The reason I have not linked to such evidence, is simple. It doesn't seem to be online. Nor has it come up in the trial, (so far).

Nevermind a link then. If your objective was to make us curious, you've succeeded. Spill the beans.

And even if you get HIV, there is no evidence to show you will develop AIDS.

There are anomalies all throughout biology. It's sort of like the english language with all it's exceptions to rules. But if you acquire the virus, there's a very good chance that you will develop AIDS. There are enough children dying (medicated in the developed world, and living relatively long, and unmedicated in Africa, and dying very young.)
Confounding factors make it messy, but the pattern of HIV---AIDS is definitely there.

ETA:
Thanks for the link. Interesting.

 

[robinson]

In the early 90's there were a lot of "questioners", and it was quite a valid debate, in my opinion.

From what I can find, the questions started in 1984. The most credible of the HIV researchers that go against the tide, seem to have started then, and have not stopped.

But the evidence at this point is really extraordinary. Science never "proves" anything, and a placebo controlled trial to prove that HIV causes AIDS seem a wee bit on the unethical side to me, so I think we're left making logical inferences from what's available.

Actually, from what I have read, the problem with trials is the animal experiments didn't work out right. With the conflicting commentary about chimps, monkeys and rat trials, it is almost impossible to come up with any evidence from them. (I know, that sounds crazy, but check for yourself).
http://www.mrmcmed.org/aids.html

This is why animal experiments are not used as the obvious counter to people who question AIDS/HIV/whatever. The data from animals does little to show HIV causes AIDS, and despite the conflicting reports from different sources, it is obvious there are issues.

 

[robinson]

Nevermind a link then. If your objective was to make us curious, you've succeeded. Spill the beans.

Obvious slippage. The data from Cuba is overwhelming. Before any test was available, Cuba authorities simply stopped any chance of infection from the new disease. Based on symptoms alone. After the tests were available, they simply tested everyone, and continued to do so with any risk groups, and they isolated anybody who tested positive.

The data from Cuba is overwhelming. They are the only country with no AIDS problem.

 

[robinson]

Ddin't[sic] the paper I linked to demonstrate that the lab worker got infected with HIV and went on to develop AIDS?
Why did you query my use of the apostrophe on denialists[sic]?

There is no such word as denialists[sic], or denialist[sic].

Not everyone who has been exposed to HIV has tested positive for it, and those that have, not all of them have developed AIDS. This is not in dispute. While with enough time, some may, many still have not, even without medical treatment. It is one of those things that is being researched.

I don't make this stuff up, it is from researchers that this data is known.

 

[kellyb]

Actually, from what I have read, the problem with trials is the animal experiments didn't work out right. With the conflicting commentary about chimps, monkeys and rat trials, it is almost impossible to come up with any evidence from them. (I know, that sounds crazy, but check for yourself).
http://www.mrmcmed.org/aids.html

This is why animal experiments are not used as the obvious counter to people who question AIDS/HIV/whatever. The data from animals does little to show HIV causes AIDS, and despite the conflicting reports from different sources, it is obvious there are issues.

That's true for many, many viruses, though. Coming up with an animal model for human viral infections is one of the primary challenges in virology.