# AIDS Disbelievers - shut the FUCK up **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 25, 2001, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034 "2001-08-25T02:35:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/21 "2001-08-26T19:42:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > \*\ ***lucwarm** , %100 of AIDS patients have/had HIV in their body. > > \*\* That’s not exactly true - there are a small number of cases where people experience AIDS-like symptoms but are not HIV-positive. For starters, look at the Cecil quote above. Since an AIDS diagnosis typically requires that the patient be HIV positive (am I right?), your statement is of course true in the tautalogical sense. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I think thats a pretty conclusive evidence. > \*\* It’s persuasive evidence, but not conclusive. As I’m sure you’ve heard before, correlation is not causation. > [@](#): > > \*\* > . . . spread you scientifically unproven beliefs to other people, and tell them that they can get HIV without getting AIDS, thus endangering peoples’ lives. Also, once you have HIV you should NOT GET PREGNANT. Its not fair to the child. > \*\* I basically agree with you, but here’s my concern: History is replete with examples of groups of people making spectacularly poor judgments. Inevitably in such situations, dissenters are intimidated and silenced in various ways, usually in the name of the common good. The theory (hypothesis? notion?) that HIV does not cause AIDS is not ridiculous in the same way that other fringe theories, such as crystal healing, are ridiculous. The title of this thread troubled me, which is why I felt the need to respond. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/22 "2001-08-26T20:02:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > \*\* > > And if you want to keep my blood pressure from rupturing my aorta, don’t mention the word law. Laws are passed by legislative bodies, and therefore have nothing to do with science (except indirectly), no matter what you were told in ‘science’ classes in school. \*\* Not that I doubt you, but what do scientists say when they want to refer to the principles that are symbolized by the following equations: E = W + Q; PV = nRT; F = Gm1m2/r^2 V = IR When I went to school, these were taught as the “First Law of Thermodynamics”; the “Ideal Gas Law”; the “Universal Law of Gravitation”; and “Ohm’s Law” respectively. How do scientists refer to these principles? ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/23 "2001-08-26T20:35:08Z")
**lucwarm** , you’re free to believe whatever you want. I just hope (and this is NOT intended as an insult) that if you are ever diagnosed, you will be wise enough to take the doctor’s advice. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/24 "2001-08-26T20:40:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > > \*\* > > > > And if you want to keep my blood pressure from rupturing my aorta, don’t mention the word law. Laws are passed by legislative bodies, and therefore have nothing to do with science (except indirectly), no matter what you were told in ‘science’ classes in school. \*\* > > Not that I doubt you, but what do scientists say when they want to refer to the principles that are symbolized by the following equations: > > E = W + Q; > > PV = nRT; > > F = Gm1m2/r^2 > > V = IR > > When I went to school, these were taught as the “First Law of Thermodynamics”; the “Ideal Gas Law”; the “Universal Law of Gravitation”; and “Ohm’s Law” respectively. > > How do scientists refer to these principles? \*\* They are theories, because new evidence can completely replace them or cause them to be altered. Look at what Einstein did to the rather simple task of [adding velocities](http://www.britannica.com/magazine/article?content_id=158854&pager.offset=60), after all. Admittedly, it would be very unlikely that new evidence will change our theories of thermodynamics, but we must keep our eyes open. That’s why they are theories, not laws. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/25 "2001-08-26T20:46:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > \*\* > They are theories, because new evidence can completely replace them or cause them to be altered. \*\* Do scientists use the word “law” when they refer to these principles? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/26 "2001-08-26T23:00:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > \*\ ***lucwarm** , you’re free to believe whatever you want. I just hope (and this is NOT intended as an insult) that if you are ever diagnosed, you will be wise enough to take the doctor’s advice. \*\* For what it’s worth, if I tested HIV-positive, I would listen to my doctor’s advice and also do my own research. If there is good evidence that the current treatments yield significant benefits for those who are HIV-positive, I would most likely undergo those treatments. (And note that even if HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, this doesn’t necessarily make it a bad idea to undergo treatment. Clearly if you test HIV-positive, that is a good indication that something is wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/27 "2001-08-26T23:37:24Z")
But the ones who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS believe that you should not seek treatment and that drugs like AZT cause AIDS. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/28 "2001-08-27T01:38:16Z")
FWIW, as an anecdotal recitation, my last college roommate was gay and died of what my college girlfriend (MD, pathologist - _not_ the bedside doctor) who followed the case described as AIDS without HIV. Claude died of a sudden (we’re talking weeks here) onset of liver and lung cancer with a myriad collection of opportunistic bacterial infections that normally don’t pester you and me. He tested negative but went down as per typical AIDS case. And he’d had the lifestyle that fit the profile. He died in 1993 and I’ve always suspected that that he _was_ HIV+, but that the tests were not sophisticated enough to pick up the variant that caught him. I haven’t thought about you in a while, Claude - May peace rest your merry soul. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/29 "2001-08-27T08:12:10Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s persuasive evidence, but not conclusive. As I’m sure you’ve heard before, correlation is not causation. I think the “100%” figure indicates something a bit more substantial than “causation”. As long as we’re exchanging trite, vague, overused expression, I’m sure you’ve heard that outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/30 "2001-08-27T13:12:15Z")
Well, there’s a distinction between believing that HIV does not cause AIDS and not being totally convinced that HIV does cause AIDS. As a member of the latter camp, I am troubled by the notion of silencing those in the former, even if their beliefs are unjustified. > [@](#): > > I think the “100%” figure indicates something a bit more substantial than “causation”. > > As long as we’re exchanging trite, vague, overused expression, I’m sure you’ve heard that outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. Trite but oh so true. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/31 "2001-08-27T16:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > As a member of the latter camp, I am troubled by the notion of silencing those in the former, even if their beliefs are unjustified. Well, what about when they are the person supposed to be in charge of the government’s fight against AIDS, and they willfully promote this nonsense? Sometimes people just need to be bitchslapped and told to shut up and sit down. See:[Don’t Call Me ‘Manto’](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_924000/924889.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/32 "2001-08-27T22:15:39Z")
Derleth, lucwarm, let’s put this hijack to bed so the main thread can continue. A scientific “law” is a description of behavior. It is a mathematical formula. A theory is an explanation. The theory describes why the formula seems to work. The formula is the “law of behavior”. However, in science, laws are really just as acceptable to change as theories. A hypothesis is a preliminary guess. It can be a theory guess or a law guess - both are hypotheses. Newton’s laws of motion are mathematical descriptions of the behavior. Relativity shows they aren’t entirely correct, but they still work adequately for most cases. Same with the other examples quoted - they are “laws” of behavior, mathematical statements, not explanations for why the formula work. Theories don’t become laws, but sometimes they include them. lucwarm said: > [@](#): > > That’s not exactly true - there are a small number of cases where people experience AIDS-like symptoms but are not HIV-positive. For starters, look at the Cecil quote above. > > Since an AIDS diagnosis typically requires that the patient be HIV positive (am I right?), your statement is of course true in the tautalogical sense. There is a great link discussing this whole topic, including Duesberg’s claims and defining AIDS. [http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html](http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/33 "2001-08-28T13:38:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Irishman \* > \*\*A scientific “law” is a description of behavior. It is a mathematical formula. A theory is an explanation. The theory describes why the formula seems to work. The formula is the “law of behavior”. However, in science, laws are really just as acceptable to change as theories. A hypothesis is a preliminary guess. It can be a theory guess or a law guess - both are hypotheses. Newton’s laws of motion are mathematical descriptions of the behavior. Relativity shows they aren’t entirely correct, but they still work adequately for most cases. Same with the other examples quoted - they are “laws” of behavior, mathematical statements, not explanations for why the formula work. Theories don’t become laws, but sometimes they include them. > > \*\* This is consistent with what I learned in school. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Derleth_\*\* > > And if you want to keep my blood pressure from rupturing my aorta, don’t mention the word law. Laws are passed by legislative bodies, and therefore have nothing to do with science (except indirectly), no matter what you were told in ‘science’ classes in school. > > \*\* This is not consistent with what I learned in school. But in any event I agree that the HIV/AIDS issue is more interesting. Thanks for the link, Irishman. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/34 "2001-08-28T18:07:32Z")
That was my first rant. How was it? ---
**Author:** ![missdavis102](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@missdavis102](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/missdavis102)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/35 "2001-08-28T18:28:07Z")
Question: If AZT causes AIDS, why would people show AIDS symptoms before exposure to (presumably leading to treatment with) AZT? To me, that hypothesis is about as bass-ackwards as saying Insulin therapy Causes Diabetes. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Jeffro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7993a0/32.png) [@Jeffro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeffro)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/36 "2001-08-28T19:18:52Z")
Sooner or later AIDS will kill her and when it does, all her supporters will say “The scientist’s had her killed cause she was telling the truth!!” ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/37 "2001-08-28T20:38:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > \*\ ***lucwarm** , %100 of AIDS patients have/had HIV in their body. I think thats a pretty conclusive evidence. > > \*\* Any comments on the following, from the Maggiorie web site? \*The high correlation that appears to exist between HIV and AIDS is not proof of causation, but rather an artifact of the AIDS definition: AIDS is defined as any one of 30 old diseases (such as pneumonia, yeast infection, TB, cancer, diarrhea, salmonella, etc.) that occurs in people who have also registered positive on an HIV antibody test. AIDS can only occur, by definition, in people who test HIV antibody positive, even though antibodies of any kind cannot cause and do not predict illness. \* ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/38 "2001-08-28T21:02:49Z")
I agree that it’s not very credible to claim that AZT causes AIDS, although I would point out that many people who take AZT have not yet experienced any symptoms. In any event, nobody can deny that the drugs that are used to treat AIDS (and indeed many other illnesses) are very powerful and can have a lot of negative effects. As an anecdote, I had a co-worker who died of cancer about a year ago, and it was clear that her chemotherapy took an enormous toll on her. Now, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t treat serious conditions like cancer and AIDS. But I do think that people should think long and hard about the possible costs and benefits before putting powerful substances into their bodies, even at the advice of their physicians. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034/39 "2001-08-29T18:19:28Z")
notcynical, I suggest you check out that link I already provided. [http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html](http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html) It explains in detail the history of AIDS diagnosis, and why the diagnostic descriptors use any of the list of other diseases _and_ HIV to diagnose. It also goes into a good evaluation of how to define AIDS without HIV and then goes to show why HIV is considered to cause AIDS. The short version: when faced with a new illness, doctors (this is usually done by the CDC and maybe the AMA - I’m not sure on this point) come up with a descriptive diagnosis that is easy to recognize and covers the cases of importance but omits the ones not related. In the case of AIDS, it was noticed that there was a correlation to a number of different diseases that were typical secondaries of immune disfunction. These diseases were not unheard of, but were suddenly occurring in people with no _known_ reason for immune weakness. A known reason for immune weakness would be chemotherapy for cancer, or immune suppression for transplants, etc. But here were much more frequent cases of diseases that were typically rare. After the HIV connection was made, the diagnoses became essentially HIV plus a disease that indicates weakened immune system. Ergo the list of diseases. Whereas a person could have any of those diseases for other reasons, and thus excluding them when HIV was not present. Again, this is purely a diagnostic tool, and not meant as a medical definition of AIDS. Regarding antibodies, it is normally true that antibodies do not show whether you currently have a disease or whether you’ve just been exposed at some time in the past. This test is used because it is cheaper and quicker to look for the antibodies than to look for HIV itself. For a while, they couldn’t test for HIV itself, but only the antibodies. Now that is different, but it is still easier and quicker to look for the antibodies. They use the antibody test as a front line screening, and if you test positive they now follow up with the more expensive HIV test as confirmation. There’s a lot more in the specifics of how HIV/AIDS works, and why it is not a conventional virus. Read the link, or do some online searches at CDC. It is too lengthy to get into here. And finally, I’m confused. Isn’t this the Pit? Isn’t this fhe forum for flaming mercilessly? For bitching about things that are annoying you? Why is it then that I keep seeing these things immediately get filled with advice or responses that try to debate the points? Don’t you think if the person wanted a debate they’d go to GD, and if they wanted advice they’d go to MPSIMS? I know when I posted a Pit thread, it wasn’t because I wanted advice, it was because I had to scream and yell about a topic that was making my head throb. Okay, rant over. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aids-disbelievers-shut-the-fuck-up/78034.md?page=1)