Dies HIV cause AIDS? - Prove it - leave opinion at home

Great Debates
21

Has the cases of non HIV related fatalities due to these death causing infections that kill AIDS patients been on the increase in the last 20 years?
AIDS seems to be HIV which causes catastrophic reduction in immune system of the sufferer + a disease which takes advantage of the sufferers weakened immune system.

So are millions dieing in Africa from these otherwise non lethal diseases that only tend to kill those with massively dissfunctional immune systems, who don’t have their immune system damaged by the HIV virus?

22

scr4,
You’ve missed the point. There is obviously something wrong with these people…but is the virus the cause? The only true controlled study was the Concorde study that looked at AZT vs. placebo. This study showed a higher survivial rate in the placebo group. Since this time no studies that I’m aware of use a true control group (i.e. the control group is AZT alone vs AZT plus some other medication). Someone please correct me if my memory has failed.

23

Most of these arguments seem to suffer from a misunderstanding of the nature of “scientific proof.” They seem to be seeking the sort of deductive proof that makes clear that, with X and Y as premises, Z is the only logical answer, and no other answer is possible.

Inductive proof is something quite different, and derives from the idea of generalizing based on the idea that whenever X is present Y results, and Y does not occur without X being present. If, whenever a pigmy hippo in Guinea-Bissau farts, a tropical depression occurs off the coast of West Africa that turns into a hurricane, no hurricane occurs unless a pigmy hippo farts, and on every occasion a pigmy hippo is observed to fart, a hurricane eventually results, then you do have a cause and effect system with predictive validity.

Now, let’s examine the data.

In virtually every case where someone is suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the HIV virus is present. (There are, I believe, a few cases on the books from the early days of the study of AIDS, then called GRID, where the HIV virus was not detected.)

Very few people die from AIDS itself. (I was under the impression that nobody had; this mistaken impression was corrected by someone here (Jillgat?) with expertise in the field.) But a large number of people who are HIV+ die from diseases which they would be able to fight off, or never come down with in the first place, with an uncompromised immune system. This is generally termed “dying of AIDS,” or “dying of complications from AIDS.”

The presence of the HIV virus (yeah, it’s a solecism – tough!) appears to be a recessary prerequisite to developing AIDS. A number of other ancillary causes seem to be aggravating factors in whether or not the HIV+ person will come down with AIDS, and others seem to be ameliorative factors in surviving while HIV+ and not leading to AIDS.

Inference: HIV “causes” AIDS, in that it is a necessary factor for the development of the syndrome. Other factors may increase or decrease the probability that it will lead to AIDS in a particular case. But its presence is required for the development of the disease.

24

For fun, I decided to calculate the odds than HIV does not in fact cause AIDS. I decided that

  1. If HIV does in fact cause AIDS, then all persons who died of AIDS should logically have HIV, and no person who has ever died of AIDS would have not had HIV.

  2. If we find that all people who ever died of AIDS had HIV, it’s simple a matter of confidence; what are the odds it’s just a coincidence?

I used U.S. data because, well, it’s the easiest to find. Between 1981 and 2001, 467,910 people in the United States died of AIDS. (Source: CDC, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, through December 2001, vol. 13, no. 2.)

I have been unable to find a single instance in which a person died of AIDS who did not have HIV. Determining the exact number of HIV infected persons is difficult to say, but the upper estimate for currently infected individuals in the USA is about one million people. (Actually it’s 1.05 million.) Adding to that the number of deaths and rounding we have 1.5 million persons in the USA who were HIV positive between 1981 and 2001, and who account for all deaths.

The number of people living in the United States between 1981 and 2001 is roughly 350 million people. Therefore, a good-enough-for-government estimate would be that 467,910 AIDS-related deaths have occurred in about 1.5 million out of 350 million people. However, I have decided to cut the number of deaths counted in half, to 233955, and the HIV-positive estimate to 1.25 million, because in all fairness not all those people were necessary tested for HIV, especially in the earlier years of the pandemic.

Tehrefore, the odds that HIV does NOT cause AIDS but that a single American resident who died of AIDS would happen to be among the HIV-positive is 1.25 in 350, or about .003571, or approximately 1 in 280.

If we assume then that 233,955 people died with AIDS, and all just happened to be among the roughly 1.25 million HIV-positive people, the probability that HIV does not cause AIDS is about .003571 raised to the 233,955th power - or, if you prefer, one in 280 raised to the 233,955th power.

Now, I do not currently possess a calculator capable of telling me just what 280 raised to the 233,955th power is. I do know that such a number would be greater than the number of electrons in the universe, multiplied by itself.

So I’m going to have to side with probability and say that HIV causes AIDS.

25

Are they ill-tempered Influenza viruses?

Regards,
Shodan

26

I’m not a doctor, but my understanding is that HIV positive (not AIDS suffering) people are selected for medical studies. That means people who are not sick but are carrying the virus. If they remained healthy, the researchers would know.

Or are you suggesting that there is some other mechanism which causes both the HIV infection and the subsequent AIDS?

27

scr4,
HIV positive people are selected for all the studies in the first world. Usually the trials for the newer AIDS meds don’t last long enough to compare mortality rates…they look at clinical improvement (one of which is CD4+ count). The control groups in these studies (given AZT + or - other AIDS drugs) obviously do worse in the short term or the drugs would not be approved. But, one has to ask the significance of this type of study. AZT is a known carcinogen and, as it was once tested for cancer, kills rapidly dividing cells (i.e. immune cells). How can anyone then tell if the effect of the new drug is killing the virus or offsetting the effects of AZT and other nucleoside inhibitors?

Physicians know that true controls are needed. Unfortunately, that is not allowed here. And, because of the urgent nature of the research, the studies cannot be carried on for 20 years. We cannot even do true controlled studies in the developing world (where many will never have access to drugs) because to do so would be “racist”.
The true question is: Since there are many retroviral sequences present in our genome that are harmless but activate due to immune suppression, could the HIV virus be merely a marker for a collapsed immune system rather than a cause?

Also RickJay and Polycarp, you are still using the circular definition of AIDS. The question is how many people die due to immune system collapse (cause unknown but HIV negative) vs people that are diagnosed as HIV positive and die of immune collapse. You cannot assume that HIV is a necessary prerequisite for developing AIDS. You have to be able to uncouple the two in your mind to make a convincing argument

28

The reason for the problem here is laypeople not understanding what a syndrome is. A syndrome is a conglomerate of symptoms. People look at the acronym “AIDS” and think it is is similar to something like “influenza” or another virus infection. AIDS stands for “Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome”, and if you say “HIV causes AIDS” it means no more, no less that HIV invokes an immune deficiency that will manifest in some characteristic symptoms out of a possible panel. What precise symptoms these are can of course vary from case to case, since all the virus does is impair the immune system. What other diseases happen to profit from that is entirely dependent on what pathogens the person infected by HIV will encounter.

Of course it is possible to die of a similar set of symptoms and not be HIV positive. If your immune system is garbage due to hereditary effects, you will suffer much of the same symptoms. “AIDS” means the deficiency was ACQUIRED. As opposed to inherited, as is the case, for example, with SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency, the 'bubble boy disease").

As such, the key point to keep in mind is that AIDS doesn’t describe the illness caused by HIV, but rather the symptoms produced indirectly. The relation is somewhat similar as to having a serious disease, and then getting pneumonia. Did the agent of the original disease cause the pneumonia? It’s DIRECT effect was something else. But it allowed the pneumonia to take over, much like HIV infection allows opportunistic infections to take hold.

29

The hometown of the OP is most apropos.

30

Yorick, I get the sense that there is nothing that would convince you. The odds that the HIV-AIDS connection is NOT based in fact, just looking at the correlation of HIV to AIDS, exceeds any conceivable doubt. Even if you back my assumptions off, the odds that HIV doesn’t lead to AIDS are one in a number too high to have a name for it yet. What else would convince you? Pictures of little HIV viruses holding up placards saying “I Cause AIDS”?

Now, you have raised the possibility that some people might be dying of AIDS-type symptoms who do not have HIV. That is interesting but doesn’t change the fact that HIV quite obviously does cause AIDS. Even if non-HIV-positive people are dying of varied immunodeficiency illnesses, the number of HIV-positive people who die of such illnesses defies random chance. HIV must cause the illnesses - there is simply no reasonable chance whatsoever that such a solid statistical correlation is mere coincidence.

31

OliverH,
You are correct that this is a syndrome and that what symptoms manifest are not necessarily dependent on the root cause of the syndrome. But that just begs the question: how do we know that HIV is actually the underlying cause? There still is no good evidence that HIV can cripple the immune system. Even patients on their deathbed do not have high enough viral titers to account for total immune collapse. Hepatitis B correlates very well with AIDS, but nobody is suggesting that this is the cause.

All I’m saying is that there may be many reasons immune systems are destroyed (maybe HIV is one cause) but to label only those people with HIV as AIDS patients is circular unless you can prove that HIV caused the immune suppression to start with.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that someone has a failing immune system from a non-HIV cause, but contracts HIV just prior to seeing a doctor. He will now test HIV positive but will die from whatever originally crippled his immune system. He will be labeled an AIDS death. Presence of virus alone is not enough to prove that it was the root cause.

Another very interesting point is that the test for HIV does not isolate virus from the individual but, rather, claims to detect antibodies to the virus (ELISA) or the viral proteins (Western). I find it strange that everybody tests positive on these tests if the lab were to use undiluted serum for the test. The serum is diluted 400 times and, if antibody or protein is still detected, you are considered positive. I don’t think that one needs to be a scientist to understand that these proteins are present in healthy people but appear to be elevated in people with immune dysfunction.

32

As I’m sure you are aware, correlation does not prove causality.

In this case, the suggestion has been made that HIV is a relatively weak virus that would rarely be present in a person with a healthy immune system. But in the case of people whose immune systems have been weakened, the virus can thrive. So it tends to be disproportionately present in people with weakened immune systems.

But of course, not in all people with weakened immune systems. But this is where the circular argument comes in handy. All people with weakened immune systems who are not positive for HIV are defined as not having AIDS, making the AIDS/HIV correlation 100%.

33

Another previous thread, with further links.

34

I am not convinced either way in this argument. I’ve looked at both sides of the argument and just find a lot of the data questionable.

I still don’t see your point. How is it obvious that HIV causes AIDS. You are still making the same argument that everyone with AIDS has HIV. By definition, then, the correlation must be 100%. I’m saying that, throughout history, people have died from immune system collapse. It is uncommon, but no more so than death from AIDS in this country. If you saw two populations dying from similar symptoms (i.e. opportunistic infections due to immune collapse), one group has a particular virus and the other does not, what can you conclude:
1.The virus is not the cause, only present in a large percentage of the patients (similar to hepatitis B with HIV-positive AIDS patients)
2. The virus may be one cause and every other case is caused by something else (plausable)

But, to name the syndrome in such a way that the virus is always necessary to be diagnosed with the syndrome effectively eliminates debate. I’m a firm believer in the germ theory of disease but there must be one thing specific that is caused by this virus (along with a mechanism) to even suggest that it causes the entire syndrome. Even Luc Montagnier (sp) and Bob Gallo freely admit that HIV alone may not be sufficient to cause the syndrome.

35

I love the OP/thread title. It says “prove it - leave opinion at home,” but the post is entirely opinion (no facts in there) and makes it ENTIRELY clear the author will not be convinced by any amount of information that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Correlation doesn’t prove causation. But it’s clear there’s a relationship, yes? So either something stupendously unlikely is happening, or either 1) HIV causes AIDS 2) something causes them both. I’m not even close to being a doctor, but given the fact that HIV and AIDS seem to almost never occur separately, and the fact that as far as I know, no disease spontaneously becomes HIV or AIDS, I’m not sure what else could be the case.

36

Well, I’m going to have to disagree with that. When the correlation in question suggests a probability of causation so close to 1 that the difference is below the Planck constant, that’s proof enough for me. You can’t show me an experiment more certain than that.

The problem with the reverse-causation argument of “AIDS and other immune deficiencies just allow HIV to arrive in spades” is that many otherwise healthy people have HIV. The order of things is fairly clearly established through objective evidence.

37

Correlation not proving causation is not because the degree of correlation is not high enough - it’s because instead of A causing B, it might be that B causes A, or that something else causes both A & B. In this case, I was going for the third option, as outlined in my subsequent paragraph - that something else (i.e. a weak immune system) causes both A (HIV) & B (AIDS).

The question is if it has been established that “otherwise healthy people”, meaning here people whose immune systems are not weakened, who have HIV are more likely to subsequently develop weakened immune systems than are otherwise healthy people who are not HIV positive. If this has in fact in fact “fairly clearly established through objective evidence” then it would seem to be pretty strong evidence that HIV is at least a factor in developing AIDS. But I’d like to see some source for your assertion - I am skeptical as to whether this has in fact been established.

38

Did you ever hear of the two sciences called cellular and molecular biology? You see, they research how things happen on a cellular and molecular basis. They are also used in virology to determine what it actually is that a virus does. I am not sure how you want to claim that HIV does not cripple the immune system when, in fact, it proliferates in immune cells. And I am not sure how you want to claim that Hepatitis B should cause AIDS when, in fact, the mechanism for it to do so is lacking.

No, it is not circular. They have the symptoms, and as such they have the syndrome. If they had a different immune deficiency, they would have SIMILAR but distinct symptoms. For them to have a different form of AIDS not caused by HIV, they would have to have an agent in their body capable of causing such a set of symptoms.

Sorry, but your entire assumption is wrong. If his immune system IS already crippled, he would have a hard time contracting HIV, let alone, testing positive for it. That would require a)the cells being present for HIV to proliferate in and b)his antibody production being intact.

That’s not what you call a deficient immune system.

One needs to be a scientist to understand what is standard practice and what isn’t. As such, I suggest you acquire a basic understanding of the tools you discuss before dismissing a test. In a western blot, antibodies are used that reconize a sequence of the target protein. They will frequently, not ideally, of course, recognize other similar sequences as well, leading to unspecific bands on the western blot. If you have a lot of protein, you will see little more than a bunch of garbage, or several thick bands that might overlap. If you’re lucky. If not, you will just see a smear. When you dilute it, separate bands become much more discernible. You don’t just check for the presence of a protein in a western blot, you check whether it has the right SIZE, too. Seeing something in a western is one thing. It by no means is an indication of the presence of the protein you are looking for. Seeing something of the right SIZE, and something that is reproducible, even when you dilute the sample, is something entirely different as having a dark spot on a film.

Sorry, man, but you can’t dismiss tests if you don’t know how they work. I’d be glad if westerns were as binary as you make them out to be. If they were, I wouldn’t have been trying the same experiment over and over again over the past two months trying to make sense of the results.

39

Read my post above again on the meaning of the word ‘syndrome’. You are seriously distorting the meaning of the words of these people.

40

WE HAVE REACHED THE LIMITS OF WHAT ANAL PROBING CAN TEACH US!!!