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.
It’s persuasive evidence, but not conclusive. As I’m sure you’ve heard before, correlation is not causation.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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. *
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.
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.