Could someone explain to me how someone gets AIDS without first having HIV? I didn’t know it was possible until I read Cecil’s responce to the question of whether or not AIDS is a manmade disease (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_371.html). If possible, please provide documentation of this occurance.
ravenfire
Since by definition AIDS must include HIV infection, it is impossible to have an AIDS diagnosis without having HIV.
First, there are A LOT of HIV viruses. Not just one. Anything is possible.
Otto, I think the OP refers to this statement by Cecil:
[/quote]
The main counterargument is that people without HIV don’t get AIDS (although a couple apparent exceptions have turned up)
[/quote]
Or did you know that? Then maybe (not for the first time) you have the audacity to challenge Cecil! Maybe JillGat will come along and set the record straight.
[[First, there are A LOT of HIV viruses. Not just one. Anything is possible.]]
There are two HIV viruses: I and II. There are many substrains, but they will all show up on standard ELISA/EIA and confirmatory Western Blot tests. There are people with compromised immune systems who do not have HIV but have some other disease that affects the immune system. As Otto said, to get an “AIDS diagnosis,” according to the CDC definition, you must have HIV infection. There might have been a very few people who seem to be infected with HIV but don’t test positive, but this would be very rare, and I don’t find info. on this in my search. I’ll keep looking, though.
Jill
Searches for HIV-negative people who have AIDS-type severe immune suppression have also been taken specifically within AIDS risk groups. Vermund reported in the United States Multicenter Cohort Study that of the 2,713 persistently HIV- negative homosexual men in the study, who had had a total of 22,643 blood tests, only one significantly immunosuppressed man (CD4+ lymphocyte counts persistently less than 300) was found. This man was taking chemotherapy and radiation for cancer, and thus had a very good reason other than his lifestyle to explain his lab results.11 If this study is indicative, then most, if not all, male homosexuals with sustained AIDS-range immune failure are HIV-positive, since it has proved very difficult to find any who are HIV- negative.
One resource I highly recommend for anyone interested in this issue is the newly-published, doorstop-weight, 1100-page tome “The River.” Fortunately, it’s beautifully written, so those pages go by pretty quickly. The author’s thesis is that HIV may (and emphasis on the may) have emerged in humans via experimental polio vaccine trials conducted in what is now northeastern Congo, Rwanda and Burundi in the late 1950s. Along the way, he does quite a nice job of explaining the state of HIV research circa 1999. One key point is that generalized immunosuppression does happen on occasion without HIV; indeed, it appears that that’s what happened with the famous “Manchester Sailor” purported to be an early case of HIV, but whose tissue samples were contaminated with modern HIV and failed, when reexamined, to yield HIV DNA sequences.
Hello Board,
I have some questions concerning this topic. First of all, I must say I side with Peter Duesberg’s stand that the failure of the HIV virus to pass Koch’s postulates almost remove it from being a suspect in the cause of AIDS.
If injecting a monkey with purified HIV+ blood won’t cause it to come down with HIV in 15 years, how then can it infect humans? Also, why must the existence of HIV antibodies be proof of infection?(going on the basis that an antibody has been formed to eliminate the virus).
Why can’t HIV simply be an opportunistic virus which shows itself when AIDS is triggered in humans? 
And as the article Jill cited asks whether the CDC’s definition shouldn’t be updated to meet the current days’ needs?
Can you help Jill? You seem to well-versed in this subject.
And what are the odds of catching hiv from an infected partner?
I exposed myself about 10 times with my husband, and didn’t get it. What were my odds?
I haven’t read Peter Duesberg’s book, but the concensus of opinion is that he’s a crank. This is not to say that he is a crank based on concensus of opinion, just that there is a concensus on him and it’s that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
I don’t know what “purified HIV+ blood” is. The “H” in “HIV” stands for “human.” There is an equivalent virus in simians called SIV, the “S” standing for “simian.” I am not an epidemiologist, but if a simian injected with HIV does not contract HIV, that indicates to me that HIV does not infect simians. It does not lead me to draw a conclusion about the infectiousness of HIV among humans or the role of HIV in AIDS.
hOtto,
Whether Duesberg is a con artist with a chip on his shoulder against virology in general for being spurned as a “revolutionary”, or someone who’s a loose cannon is not what my question pertains to.
I’m not siding with him 100%, but he makes strong points.
The comment about causing a host animal to suffer the same consequences when exposed to the contaminant, comes from a set of guidelines that were set for determining if a contaminant(i.e.-virus, bacteria, etc.) is the actual pathogen involved in the illness.
Aside from that, with our genetic makeup very close to our cousin the simian, it is most likely that he would befall the same syndrome as us.
If he doesn’t, and instead develops antibodies to HIV(just like we do, and in fact the HIV tests only test for antibodies which would show a clear sign that humans develop an immunity to it, not a syndrome from it), that means that HIV has been around for quite a while, and most likely is a passenger virus which the human race has developed antibodies for.
I’m not saying Duesberg’s word is gospel, and I’m not an expert…just looking for other people’s input since prior to this, I have relatively little AIDS knowledge, and this book(“Inventing the AIDS virus”) is decidedly a very one-sided story.
Sam Roza
P.S.-- I’m not saying it’s an un-refuted fact, and I’m not suggesting that people try their luck with HIV+ partners and unprotected sex, but Duesberg’s reference in the book points to a 1 in 1000 chance(1000 sexual interludes with an infected person), of contracting HIV
We have discussed this issue numerous times in several forums on this board. For refutation of Duesberg’s theories, go to:
www.cdc.gov
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu
There is copious evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The drugs now keeping people with HIV alive and healthy work specifically against the reproduction of HIV in the body. If this weren’t the cause of AIDS, they wouldn’t be seeing such dramatic results. The death rate for AIDS in my state has dropped 40% since these drugs became available in 1996. I’m not sure of the motivation for people who refuse to believe the numerous of scientific studies that support this.
You might also check the archives for articles Cecil has written on the risk of HIV transmission via heterosexual sex. I’ve also written a couple of mailbag articles here about HIV.
Jill
Otto, sweetie, I wouldn’t get get too cranked up here. I can’t help noticing that GaWd’s e-mail address in his profile says “Sam.roza” (posted at 7:41 a.m.) and that JRoger’s posts (at 10:58 a.m. and again at 11:00 a.m.) supporting GaWd are both signed by one “Sam Roza”.
Maybe he has to sign his name because JRogers is his sister or something, and if somebody sends feedback to that e-mail address, he wants his sister (or whoever) to know who it is that’s using her e-mail address.
Or is “Sam Roza” going to claim that somebody’s going around signing his name to JRogers’ posts?
I also notice he re-typed “Otto” in the second post, misspelling it as “Hotto”. I’m sure you enjoyed that, too! 
Say, GaWd, you ought to check this website out.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
[[If injecting a monkey with purified HIV+ blood won’t cause it to come down with HIV in 15 years, how then can it infect humans? Also, why must the existence of HIV antibodies be proof of infection?(going on the basis that an antibody has been formed to eliminate the virus).]]
Otto is right about the specificity of the virus and why it might not infect non-humans. Also, we don’t just rely on antibodies to identify the existance of the virus now. We do viral loads.
BTW, it is against the policy of the SD message board to be posting in more than one screen name.
Jill
As stated in our membership agreement:
Only one screen name is permitted per user. If you wish to change screen names please notify the webmaster and we will deactivate your old screen name. Use of multiple screen names is grounds for revocation of your right to post under ANY screen name.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The Straight Dope
Just in case you wondered what happened.
Well, last time I looked, a monkey is not a human. Some pathogens affect many species the same, some affect them differently--often a matter of timescale, some affect some species but not others.
Note what HIV stands for--*HUMAN* immunodeficiency virus. There's also a SIV--Simian immunodeficiency virus. The presence of the two names would imply that HIV probably does not infect monkeys the same as it infects humans, if it even infects monkeys at all.Not to hijack this thread, but to set the record straight:
From the “Is My Face Red” department:
Turns out “jrogers” is in the clear. He is NOT “Sam Roza.”
The other guy . . . well, we’re looking at him a little closer.
Sorry for any confusion.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The Straight Dope
Returning you to your regularly scheduled topic.
So why does JRogers thread have the words Sam Roza in it?
“You don’t have insurance? Well, just have a seat and someone will be with you after you die.” --Yes, another quality sig custom created by Wally!
A Jesusfied sig: Next time I covet thine opinion, I’ll ask for it!
JRogers doesn’t have to BE Sam Roza in order for Sam Roza (a.k.a. GaWd) to be using JRogers’ e-mail address to create a sock puppet.
I know, I know, “teach not thy grandmother to suck eggs…”
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
I’ve just got a thing or two to say here in my defense.
Since this is the username and password the server sent to me, I used it(although I did apply for more than one username, get over it).
For you, NotThe to be judging my actions and assuming that I’m using someone’s other logins,(as you put it so simply “sock puppeting”) for, as Tuba put it “morally and intellectually wrong” purposes, without hearing my side of it is totally screwed. When it turns out that through this message board’s error I received someone else’s logins.
And if I did want to pull the wool over your oh so intellectual collective by stealing logins, why would I sign my name to it?
So, all of you(especially you NotThe), who this board is so important to…get a life, get a job, and get off of people’s backs for silly little things like this.
Oh, and try and fix the server error that still returns this login to my E-mail instead of the logins I set up(I would assume if JROGERS had his password sent to him it would send my logins to his E-mail).
Way to administrate Tuba! Doin a great job of killing people’s accounts without asking for the story.
So, Cecil and all of your followers can eat me!
Warmest possible regards,
Sam Roza
P.S.-- please send all hate mail to gawd@local420.net