So what? Are you saying that we haven’t learned a single thing since 1996? That scientists being now more in agreement than they were then doesn’t count? That Kary Mullis ever was an expert on this particular subject? Has he said anything recently on HIV?
What is the point of this?
I’m just stunned that people are this convinced that there’s got to be another explanation, that it can’t be HIV. We know what happens at each step of HIV replication inside T-cells, where they hijack the cell’s usual mechanisms and force it to create more copies of HIV. We’ve got pictures (one linked here) of the process. T-cells are an important part of your immune system; destroy that and it is hardly a leap to believe that one would start getting very odd, uncommon infectious diseases.
The comment about SIV not causing AIDS in their simian hosts has no relevance. Many viruses have different symptoms once they’ve mutated drastically; SIV is not identical to HIV. Furthermore, contrary to Duesberg’s assertions, there is another retrovirus that causes a similar syndrome to AIDS, that being feline immunodeficiency virus. But I suppose that’ll be counted in with HIV in his mind and thus discounted, since it doesn’t fit his ideas of what AIDS must be.
I don’t think they take it as evidence HIV/AIDS is wrong; they take it as evidence that HIV/AIDS can’t be disproven. As I understand it, scientific theory has to be capable of being disproven, or it’s not ‘real’ science.
Lemur suggested I inject myself with HIV. I was just pointing out that if I did, it wouldn’t prove anything.
I don’t think it’s that they don’t understand.
In Africa the “case definition” for AIDS includes weight loss, asthenia (“a feeling of weakness”), and diarrhea. The criteria for America are different.
Smallpox, on the other hand, is the same on wherever you get it.
What source can I consult to read this diagnosis?
Hah, I know just who you mean.
And it’s just the merest chance that anti-retroviral drugs have greatly reduced the death toll resulting from HIV infection.
Not so much an “attention whore” as a predator scamming the witless…
Those who have brains and education can indulge themselves in wondering whether HIV causes AIDS as an outlet for their paranoic tendency to accept conspiracies. It’s fine with me; they are not victims except of their own stupidity.
Those who promote the same pap among the helpless for personal gain should be summarily executed.
If at this time you don’t buy the idea that HIV causes AIDS, you might as well toss out all of germ theory, and evidence-based medicine as well. AND the theory of gravity.
Well, the theory of gravity is JUST a “theory.”
d&r
Well, it could be disproven, but as others have pointed out, it would be unethical to do so.
Those who want to discount HIV-AIDS connections have a tough row to hoe given that treatment which reduces HIV counts reduces or eliminates symptoms of AIDS. I haven’t heard of them addressing this - does anyone know what they say?
Linus, take a minute and try to figure out why this might be the case. Compare standards of care in sub-Saharan Africa with the United States. Sure, in much of Africa a diagnosis of AIDS is based on symptoms rather than a positive HIV antibody test. Why do you think that is?
Africa is desperately poor. Millions of people have AIDS. They don’t have the money to give everyone an antibody test, and even if they did, how would it help? Maybe they’d find a few people with compromised immune systems from a cause other than HIV. Well, those people are going to die, just like the people with HIV.
If there were a worldwide outbreak of smallpox, do you think they’d only diagnose you with smallpox if you tested positive for smallpox antibodies? Or do you think they’d diagnose you based on symptoms? Note that the theory that smallpox is caused by the smallpox virus is pretty well established. And smallpox is now extinct.
Let me ask you this. If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, why do modern antiviral treatments that reduce HIV in the blood to undetectable levels also cure the symptoms of AIDS? If HIV were merely a symptom or byproduct of the other mysterious disease that causes AIDS, why does treating the symptom lead to recovery? Why, if people stop taking the antiviral treatments, does the viral load in the blood increase and people become sick again?
If AIDS is diagnosed by symptoms instead of blood tests, fair enough. The sticky point for me is this:
There are plenty of diarrheagic diseases that don’t seem to need HIV weakening immune systems, in order to be endemic in the tropics. If you’re all you’re using to show an AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa is a list of symptoms that could be any of those, then you aren’t proving HIV incidence. Maybe AIDS occurrence numbers are being inflated.
And if it is being overstated, whatever the reasons, then two big problems appear: First, it impedes the ability of Western doctors, operating under the misapprehension that “all these people have AIDS!” to treat the real problems of diarrheagic disease. Second, some indigenous doctor with a good treatment for another diarrheagic disease can decide that he can cure whatever the Westerners are calling AIDS, & we get false AIDS cures that help no one. The confusion is, then, an invitation to malpractice of both.
Also, Lemur, I think you misunderstand Linus’s point. AIDS actually has different symptoms in Africa than in the West. Some of this is because AIDS is, legitimately, a disease of complications. But it does raise red flags in many minds when we try to say that there is a single epidemic, rather than multiple epidemics lumped together.
:dubious: Diarrhea, weight loss, and weakness are common symptoms for AIDS in the West, too. He’s talking about what symptoms are required to produce a diagnosis. They don’t have the resources to run PCR tests on everyone.