One of the more interesting assertions (no sarcasm intended/implied/etc.):
Has anybody else ever heard of this? Any thoughts or debates thereon? I’m not going to jump into the discussion at the link posted, mainly because of the author’s charming appellation of the “pHARMaceutiKILL” industry, but here is another story. If you want the Straight Dope, go to the SD itself, as my pappy always said.
I’d agree that variants on HIV will appear, but I distrust anyone who says “from a holistic perpsective”. Also, why is the acronym AIDS a misnomer? Nothing in the acronym specially says HIV, and the author even writes “AIDS should be considered AUTO IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME”. Hmmm, duh?
Basic semantic errors doesn’t make me sanguine about his conclusions or his ability to express them coherently.
Who says HIV can’t get a foothold in someone with an intact immune system? There’s been no good evidence of this assertion. The most widely accepted medical model is that the HIV infiltrates an individual with a good immune system, and attacks it from within. Therapy based on this model has prolonged lives greatly.
There are theorists out there who state that AIDS has nothing to do with the HIV, but they haven’t produced convincing evidence to back up their assertions.
Last i heard, they were saying AIDS was caused by illigal drugs (specifically Meth for some reason???). And AZT was a big scam, and a giant conspiracy was afoot to make the drug companies billions. Their evidence was that some people have had AIDS a while and are not dead. The SOLE evidence i saw, i might add…
As far as I can tell from the article, someone came across the term “autoimmune” somewhere, doesn’t know what it means, but noticed that the initials A and I could be fit into the AIDS acronym and decided that was a medically worthy discovery.
Autoimmune diseases are those where the body makes a mistake and starts making antibodies against its own cells. Arthritis and lupus are such diseases.
I thought it was a clue to the nuttiness of the writer when he referred to the drug companies as the pHARMaceutiKILL industry.
Having once had an autoimmune disease myself—polyarteritis nodosa, now in remission—and had my ass saved by Immuran and prednisone, I get pissed off when some idiot makes casual slurs against an industry that, while not perfect, is doing a terrific job in an exceedingly difficult field.
May I suggest better sources of health info? Mayo Health and Medscape are good. Skip this other garbage.
One of the very earliest theories regarding AIDS (back in the days when it was still called GRIDS and before HTLVIII - now known as HIV - had been identified) was that that the high use of recreational drugs (in particular poppers) among urban gay men damaged in and of itself provoked the kind immune system crisis which allows opportunistic infections to run rampant.
For a considerable period of time during the mid-1980s, there were theories floating around that the progression from HIV infection to AIDS was dependent on “co-factors”.
Auto immune disease generally refers to disease in which the body attacks itself, rather than a break down of the immune system which prevents the body from defending itself against pathogens.
Although we tend to use the term AIDS in respect of HIV, immune deficiencies caused by cancer treatments or post-transplant immunosuppressant drugs could also be “correctly” termed “acquired” immune deficiencies.
I was trying to think of a way to say that without adding the words “You Idiot” to it, but that would have defeated the whole purpose of the ‘discussion’ that was purportedly going on.
I have an autoimmune disease and it is nothing like AIDS or any immune deficiency. Rather, the problem is my immune system *isn’t *deficient, it works too hard and goes after the wrong things. This is why I was so curious about this person’s claims. It just didn’t sit right at all no way no how.
The best refutation I’ve seen of this theory is in Section 6 of the sci.med.aids FAQ. (The page linked to explains the various doubts of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis; the page reached by clicking on “next” addresses said doubts.)
The “short scientific shuffle” was actually a fairly major deal, and eventually Gallo and Montagnier were both credited with “discovery” (in fact one was the first to isolate the virus, the other the first to grow it). The significance of the “shuffle” was who would have the “rights” in respect of antibody tests.
You’ll also find the virus referred to in old literature as ARV or LAV.
HTLV-III was the name given the virus by the NIH team headed by Dr. Robert Gallo. Gallo, along with Max Essex, had been famous for discovering HTLV-I and HTLV-II, and it was his theory that the virus causing AIDS was a form of the HTLV virus.
LAV (lymphadenopathy-associated virus) was the name given to the virus by Dr. Luc Montagnier’s team at the Pasteur Institute.
ARV (AIDS-associated retrovirus) was the name given to the virus by Dr. Levy, in San Francisco.
In 1986, the international committee in charge of naming viruses, said “Hey, these are all the same virus”, and renamed it HIV.
The absolute best book on the scientific and political issues of the first few years of the HIV pandemic is And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts (ISBN 0312241356 for the current edition).
