There was a 2008 episode of Law & Order: SVU on this evening about a doctor who claimed HIV does not cause AIDS. I’ve seen this episode several times and I really like it because I like when stupidity is exposed.
I have a few questions. The doctor kept saying that HIV cannot cause AIDS because HIV is a “retro virus” (that’s the name of the episode, “Retro”). What does this mean, chemically/biologically?
Also what is the thinking (if any) behind the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS? And what is the motivation behind it?
I did a little googling on the subject, but it’s always more rewarding to ask here…
The motivation? A lot of people find HIV and AIDS terrifying, and when people are terrified of something sometimes they choose to cope with it through sheer denial. I think some people find it comforting to think that if the conventional wisdom about HIV and AIDS is wrong then that means they can find a way to cure themselves through some form of unconventional woo and quackery to “beat the odds”.
(Although I do wonder if, now that HIV medication has progressed to the point that many HIV+ people on proper treatment can live a fairly normal life for decades, the terror is not quite so extreme and maybe the HIV deniers have lost steam).
It’s a “retro” virus because it does things backwards from other living things. For the majority of us on this planet, we have a DNA genome that is translated into RNA and then into protein. A retrovirus has an RNA genome that it converts, with many mistakes, into DNA, and then RNA (in a host’s genome once it is taken in) and then protein.
So…why would such a virus not be capable of causing AIDS or another disease?
Or is the argument that people don’t specifically die of AIDS but of a secondary disease/infection, therefore technically HIV wasn’t the *cause *of death?
One claims that there is a myth that HIV is a endogenous retrovirus - if true - this would allow them to claim something like it can’t cause disease. HIV is actually exogenous.
Another claim is it is the only retrovirus that doesn’t cause disease - also not true according to that page.
Anyway - it is no different than any other conspiracy theory - they BELIEVE something - and then try and twist the facts - or find stats that support their belief. Only difference here - is they are more using fancy words - in order to appeal to authority I guess - cause I’m thinking 19 out of 20 people aren’t going to know why they should care that HIV is a retrovirus.
So in short - I don’t get why it being a retrovirus would be a problem. But there are at least two items using that word that have been used by others.
Obviously it can’t REALLY be a problem - cause if it was - then the REAL scientists would have said “Oh shit - we forgot - this is a retrovirus - boy do we look silly after 30 years - our bad”.
Oh, and she herself died of pneumonia. And had to be treated for pneumonia about 6 months prior. Having severe bouts of pneumonia like that is nearly synonymous, to the best of my understanding and experience (I worked on a study with patients with AIDS for several years; pneumonia was a common immediate cause of death), with having AIDS or similar immunosuppression. But oh no, other people who buy her story said it had nothing to do with AIDS! Nope, of course not!
What little reading I have done on the subject, the thought is that HIV does not cause AIDS, they are usually (but not always) seen sequentially, but it’s not cause and effect. Not saying I buy it, but in the early days of HIV AIDS research, I did think it was stupid to shut down research into unpopular theories simply because we didn’t know much about it.
I remember the late 70s / early 80s and the fear of the unknown “gay plague.” I don’t hang out in “high risk” circles, so I haven’t really experienced the devastation. I know some of you lost friends, loved ones and family members. All the rhetoric on both sides should have been tabled to figure out wth was going on sooner.
Or don’t. While I like the character of the alien doctor, this is a shining example of Goldwyn’s Law. I’m always surprised that David Gerrold didn’t write it.
There are people who think that “George W. Bush is a shape-shifting reptilian alien from the constellation Draco.” is intuitively obvious and that anyone who disagrees with it is an Illuminati shill and probably a Jew, to boot.
I meant he kept harping on it as if anyone with a knowledge of chemistry or biology would agree that it made sense. “HIV can’t cause AIDS because it’s a **retro **virus!” I was just wondering what was the specific thinking (as I said: IF ANY) behind the insistence that a *retro *virus couldn’t cause a disease. What is it about the characteristic of being RETRO that (in his mind, again: IF ANY) makes this (in his mind) obviously true.
Of course, he’s full of shit. That goes without saying.
I didn’t take biology in college. Took physics. All that nice clean magnetism and electricity–no bodily fluids.
ETA: Maybe it’s something as simple as saying a car that only operates in reverse can’t possibly crash head-first into something.
You’re talking about a character on a TV show, right? I don’t think there’s anything to “get” here, it’s just a pseudo-scientific sounding line the writers came up with.
I assumed that since this plot/character was based on a real situation, the character was using the same argument that the real person used in real life. I didn’t think the writers just came up with:
-Let’s say that HIV can’t cause AIDS because it’s a retro virus!
