Do HIV and AIDS exist

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And so many intelligent researchers questioning if we faked the moon landings, and if the Jews where behind 911.

 

[Diamond]

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.

I think you'll find that I remarked about what risk factors made a greater incidence of HIV infection likely. Occasionally there are reports of infection from the one and only sexual partner.

What I was referring to was the reasons why AIDS is so prevalent in some societies and what were the key vectors for transmission.

My other point is that in science, there is always a vigorous debate about things which appear to be settled. Its the disputatious nature of science that there is a majority view and a minority view, and science is the stronger for that.

My impression of the theory of evolution was greatly helped by the disputing of creationists as to what constituted scientific proof, what is a scientific theory, why does the theory of evolution have such widespread approval amongst scientists, is the theory of evolution falsifiable...and so on. Reading talkorigins.org and the EvoWiki gives great insight into why that theory is so compelling. And it wouldn't have happened had creationists not challenged evolution for their own religious ends.

(Bear in mind that for a short while in my early 20s, I believed some of this creationist crap)

I fundamentally believe that science itself points to experimental evidence as the key deciding factor as to whether a theory is true or false - not whether a large number of people believe it to be so. Conversely a large number of scientific theories that were believed to be true by a majority of scientists have been shown to be false by careful experiment. Just last year two Australian scientists were given the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their research that showed that stomach ulcer are caused by a bacterium and not by stress - and a majority of scientists at the time called them crackpots and worse.

Ultimately the truth will out. If the HIV-transmission hypothesis is incorrect, why does it work so well as a predictor of AIDS? Why do T-cell counts fall dramatically in AIDS patients if not for HIV? Any competing theory has to account for the success of the leading theory.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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

Argh, that's right! In class we have tests on terms every day, and I'm getting them mixed up here on the forum. Sorry, and good thing I don't do that in class when actually writing them down

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Not many ways to acquire immune deficiency!
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/
http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/2006_EpiUpdate_en.pdf

As of December 31, 1993, injection drug use and sexual contact accounted for approximately 92 percent of all adult and adolescent AIDS cases reported to CDC.

The Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach study carried out 2 years later (McCoy et al., 1994), researchers reported that 52 percent of the syringes showing visible traces of blood tested positive for HIV.

HIV positive moms have 25% chance of passing it to unborns, and breastfeeding moms' chances of passing it on are higher than that.

Blood to blood transmission is the riskiest. So, if you have open wounds contacting each other (or injecting a needle with HIV into your body), your risk is higher. If it is an open wound and semen, your risk is high. The stats I saw for heterosexual encounters that involve no wounds is around 1 in 500 for first time contact. Homosexual encounters had a higher chance of passing HIV on.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE7D9153AF931A15757C0A96E948260

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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

Good comprehensive break down of stupid HIV denier claims and further proof of HIV existence (including genomes and cultures).

 

[hammegk]

Er, who is disputing the existence of HIV?

The dispute concerns it being the cause of AIDS. I'm with robinson; I'd like to see something besides what smells more like cya arm-waving than scientific proof.

As a historical fact, was polios' link to a causative virus no more rigorous than the AIDS-HIV link appears to be?

 

[blutoski]

I repeat, there is NO DEBATE about HIV causing AIDS among any credible scientists.

I'm reminded of Captain Rum in Blackadder II:

[Blackadder hopes the crew will know the way to France]
Captain Rum: The crew, my lord?
Blackadder: Yes, the crew!
Captain Rum: What crew?
Blackadder: I was under the impression, that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.
Captain Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.
Blackadder: Really?
Captain Rum: Yes, all the other captains say it is, I say it isn't!



The point being, I guess, that as long as one nitwit stubbornly holds to a ridiculous opinion, he can officially say that there's "debate".

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm. Let's see. HIV infects T-CELLS. T-CELLS. Without T-cells your immune system is seriously compromised. Please tell me people aren't so lug headed as to not understand the seriousness of not having their T-cells.

http://www.immunecentral.com/immune-system/iss8.cfm

From there on, you can see the cascading effects of HIV destroying T-cells.

Please tell me this isn't hard to comprehend.

Or is hammie just toying again, he's admitted it to it before.

 

[JJM]

... The dispute concerns it being the cause of AIDS. I'm with robinson; I'd like to see something besides what smells more like cya arm-waving than scientific proof.

Once again into the breach...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This refers to expert studies and publications. So far, the response to this from the denialists has been "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The linked site is an introduction to an enormous wealth of data linking HIV to AIDS, if you know how to evaluate it.

 

[robinson]

Hmmm...

 

[Ian Osborne]

Or is hammie just toying again, he's admitted it to it before.

Toying? More like trolling.

Incidentally, if a person with HIV was put in a sterile environment like those plastic bubbles, could he or she live a normal lifespan without treatment? I'm not suggesting it's a practical solution, but if no germs or virii can get in, surely the lack of a functional immune system wouldn't be an issue? I've never heard of a wealthy HIV+ person trying it so I presume it wouldn't work, but I can't see why not.

 

[Cuddles]

Incidentally, if a person with HIV was put in a sterile environment like those plastic bubbles, could he or she live a normal lifespan without treatment? I'm not suggesting it's a practical solution, but if no germs or virii can get in, surely the lack of a functional immune system wouldn't be an issue? I've never heard of a wealthy HIV+ person trying it so I presume it wouldn't work, but I can't see why not.

There are already millions of different things inside you, many of which have the potential to cause problems. In any case, you would still require food, drink and air, and it would be impossible to prevent all germs reaching you. Trying to isolate yourself from the outside world might reduce the risk a little, but I very much doubt you would be able to live as long as normal, even if you could live longer than most AIDS victims. Of course, this refers to averages, not to individual people who can sometimes live a long life anyway.

 

[EvilBiker]

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.

Where are you based? I'm in Africa. Diamond is pretty much on the nail when it comes to reasons for the epidemic proportions out here.

I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I for one am not saying that there is no risk when indulging in normal sexual pursuits, just that the risk is not as high as one might expect. I was just as surprised when I first saw those figures. Problem with AIDS is that currently there is no cure - you WILL die sooner rather than later.

This does bring up an interesting thought. Out here in the boondocks, there is an extremely low tolerance level of HIV positive people. There are regularly cases of people being ostracised from their social groupings after declaring their status - in some cases people are killed.

So, you have this situation:

1. Push the fact that AIDS is a massive problem, infection rates are high, hopefully to get the governments on board to roll out treatments. Downside is that populace see HIV+ves as pariahs, and remove them from society.

2. Reveal the (relatively) low risk of infection, HIV+ves are more readily accepted by society as they are not seen as a huge threat, but governments miss the urgency and do not as readily give in to demands for ARV rollouts.

I'm not saying that AIDS is NOT a problem out here, it's a huge problem. I went up to Malawi and Botswana last year - there are areas that used to contain thriving village populations 15 years ago, now all gone. The extent of depopulation is staggering, and it's all due to AIDS.

Regarding my post previously, where I mentioned the transmission rates - the figures I was given originally came from the WHO. I will try and corroborate them.

 

[TonyL]

Just last year two Australian scientists were given the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their research that showed that stomach ulcer are caused by a bacterium and not by stress - and a majority of scientists at the time called them crackpots and worse.

No, a small minority of scientists may have called them crackpots and worse. The majority were unconvinced by the data that had been gathered up to that point and were respectfully doubtful. However, unlike the HIV denialists, Marshall and Warren collected more data and published it, which is what convinced the rest of the scientists.

 

[JJM]

No, a small minority of scientists may have called them crackpots and worse. The majority were unconvinced by the data that had been gathered up to that point and were respectfully doubtful. However, unlike the HIV denialists, Marshall and Warren collected more data and published it, which is what convinced the rest of the scientists.

That is exaclty correct. Kimble Atwood (MD) reviewed the history of that in either Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer in the past couple years.

I would add that ulcers were not a topic of intense scrutiny as HIV/AIDS is. When a bogus idea is hot, it is usually debunked pretty quickly (as in Cold Fusion).

 

[Skeptic Guy]

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

Kind of like the "debate" between ID and Evolution.

 

[robinson]

I'm not saying that AIDS is NOT a problem out here, it's a huge problem. I went up to Malawi and Botswana last year - there are areas that used to contain thriving village populations 15 years ago, now all gone. The extent of depopulation is staggering, and it's all due to AIDS.

Can you provide any recent figures on AIDS/HIV in Malawi? Sorry, but as a skeptic, I like to know if something is true or not. Some quick checking,(I looked it up)
http://www.globalhealthreporting.or...&malIC=1247&tbIC=1248&map=1253&con=Malawi&p=1

HIV/AIDS in Malawi

12,158,924: population of Malawi (July 2005 est.)

940,000: Estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

14.1%: Estimated percentage of adults (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

500,000: Estimated number of women (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

91,000: Estimated number of children (ages 0-15) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

78,000: Estimated number of deaths due to AIDS during 2005

Those figures make no sense, if AIDS is wiping out the population. Especially in children.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/malawi.htm
Population children <5 years old 2,262,359 (2004)
Annual live births 545,602 (2004)
Life expectancy at birth - male 35.7 years (2001)
Life expectancy at birth - female 36.7 years (2001)

or

http://www.afro.who.int/malaria/country-profile/malawi.pdf

Total population 1990, 9,434,000
Total population 2002, 11,848,000

Annual population growth rate 1990 - 1.21
Annual population growth rate 2002 - 2.36

Pop. less than 5 years 1990- 1,821,000
Pop. less than 5 years 2002 - 2,156,000

Are the people there getting some kind of super health care that allows them to not come down with AIDS? If AIDS is killing most everybody off, how is the population rising? Malaria seems to be a constant still.

Malaria cases reported
1990 - 3,870,904
2002 - 1,362,742

Malaria deaths
1990 - 57,649
2002 - 57,649

The data doesn't seem to match the report that AIDS is "wiping out" the population.

 

[hammegk]

Once again into the breach...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This refers to expert studies and publications. So far, the response to this from the denialists has been "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The linked site is an introduction to an enormous wealth of data linking HIV to AIDS, if you know how to evaluate it.

And as I said; bulletproof? I'd say no. Correlation no doubt. Causation? A few rather intelligent and noteworthy researchers say no.

But yes, it's certainly advertised that HIV causes AIDS.

I'll ask my question again. Did any such controversy as surrounds HIV causes AIDS occur for a virus as the cause of polio?

 

[robinson]

Well while looking for Botswana and AIDS figures, I came across this:

(partial quote)

The South African writer Rian Malan in a recent article in the UK-based 'Spectator' makes similar conclusions regarding the AIDS pandemic in Southern Africa. In his article "Africa Isn't Dying of AIDS," Mr Malan reacts to UNAIDS claims that almost 30 million Africans now have HIV/AIDS.

- But, says Mr Malan, "the figures are computer-generated estimates and they appear grotesquely exaggerated when set against population statistics." In Botswana, the country with the world's highest AIDS prevalence, several reports had suggested that population had dropped from 1.4 million in 1993 to under a million currently, due to the AIDS pandemic.

Not true, says Mr Malan. "Botswana has just concluded a census that shows population growing at about 2.7 percent a year, in spite of what is usually described as the worst AIDS problem on the planet. Total population has risen to 1.7 million in just a decade. If anything, Botswana is experiencing a minor population explosion," the South African writer concludes.

He continues slaughtering UN and national statistics on South African AIDS deaths. UNAIDS is using a computer simulator called Epimodel to estimate AIDS related deaths, which had produced estimations of 250,000 AIDS deaths in South Africa in 1999 alone.

http://www.afrol.com/features/11116

There is a lot of stuff published about the numbers and such in Africa. More than enough to question the story.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hiv_aid_dea_percap-hiv-aids-deaths-per-capita

Statistics. But no evidence. It looks like estimates are used, rather than doing any actual test.


American statistics.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_dea_due_to_hiv-health-deaths-due-to-hiv


How strange.

 

[robinson]

I'll ask my question again. Did any such controversy as surrounds HIV causes AIDS occur for a virus as the cause of polio?

Didn't mean to ignore your question. There was, and is, much controversy over Polio vaccines.

Poliomyelitis

Considerable controversy exists in this area and here we would do well to read Klenner's little known published data. Klenner argues that the Salk vaccine was not only useless, as we have shown, but dangerous. Dr. Klenner further contends that the Salk and the Sabin vaccines may be allied to the increase of leukemia in the USA. Equally important in his discussion is his demonstration that recovery from most viral diseases results in permanent or genuine immunity and that this is responsible for the false notion that presence of an antibody always indicates immunity. This may be true only when those antibodies are the result of natural infection (Klenner, 1955).

http://whale.to/w/kal.html

SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey. Soon after its discovery in 1960, SV40 was found in polio vaccine.

Over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine during the period (1955-1963) when some of the vaccine was contaminated with SV40. SV40 has been found in certain types of human cancers, but it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm

There is a lot more, try using Google.

 

[robinson]

I fundamentally believe that science itself points to experimental evidence as the key deciding factor as to whether a theory is true or false - not whether a large number of people believe it to be so. Conversely a large number of scientific theories that were believed to be true by a majority of scientists have been shown to be false by careful experiment. Just last year two Australian scientists were given the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their research that showed that stomach ulcer are caused by a bacterium and not by stress - and a majority of scientists at the time called them crackpots and worse.

Ultimately the truth will out. If the HIV-transmission hypothesis is incorrect, why does it work so well as a predictor of AIDS? Why do T-cell counts fall dramatically in AIDS patients if not for HIV? Any competing theory has to account for the success of the leading theory.

Good points. From the little research I have done, there seems to be several questions that scientist are asking about HIV/AIDS that are not answered yet.

Why no Gold standard for the HIV virus?

Why does AIDS happen without HIV?

Why do some HIV infected people never get AIDS?

Why doesn't HIV cause AIDS in Chimps?

If HIV causes AIDS, why hasn't it spread according to known medical science?

How is it transmitted by sex?

I can debunk several of those, but it isn't easy. And these are not coming from cranks or nutjobs, (those websites are a completely different thing, and I don't use them as sources), but from scientist, researchers, Doctors.

Most strange. I thought it would be easy to prove the people who question HIV wrong. It is anything but.

In related information

Virologist Dr. Bill Paxton at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City noticed, "the center had no study of people who were exposed to HIV but who had remained negative." He began testing the blood of high-risk, HIV-negative individuals like Steve Crohn, exposing their blood to three thousand times the amount of HIV normally needed to infect a cell. Steve's blood never became infected. "We thought maybe we had infected the culture with bacteria or whatever," says Paxton. "So we went back to Steve. But it was the same result. We went back again and again. Same result." Paxton began studying Crohn's DNA, and concluded there was some sort of blocking mechanism preventing the virus from binding to his cells. Further research showed that that mechanism was delta 32.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/clues.html