I’m dealing with someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS. Is there any scientific support for this? I am sure that you guys have covered this in the past, but as a lowly guest I can’t search to make sure.
http://www.sunburstprojects.org/resources.shtml
These’ll get ya started, good luck; the problem is ignorance fights back.
I would ask the guy to explain how
(1) lots and lots of hemophiliacs and other people who received blood transfusions in the 80s died of immune system failure;
(2) the problem largely went away after blood donations started being screened for HIV.
The first fact strongly suggests that a bacteria or virus is at work. The second fact suggests that the culpable agent is HIV.
Are you talking to a senior African politician?! :eek: 
‘Thabo Mbeki and Robert Mugabe have both propounded the theory that AIDS in fact stems from poverty rather than HIV infection.’
It’s only a small point, but Africa has both Aids-deniers and insufficient funds to treat HIV. It also has the highest rates of AIDS deaths in the world:
Africa is without doubt the region most affected by the virus. Inhabited by just over 12% of the world’s population, Africa is estimated to have more than 60% of the AIDS-infected population.
Well, I suppose you could suggest to him that he go out and try to catch HIV, to prove his theory? 
What IS the point of denying it? How do they explain people with HIV, which later developed into AIDS?
Oh boy.
My advice: dig a hole.
They were in on it!
For Guy in the Corner:
What does this person think HIV is? What do they think AIDS is? What do they think causes AIDS instead?
I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just curious what his/her take on the disease is.
Interesting article on AIDS denialism.
A summary of the evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
He hasn’t explained his full arguments yet, but I do know that he is raving about Celia Farbers book. He was saying that no retrovirus has actually killed a cell. They cause cancer and uncontrolled growth but not cell death. He refused to believe that retroviruses could make the leap to cell death. He was also saying the standard line that the NIH won’t fund anyone that denies the HIV-AIDS link so we can’t even get the “true story.”
Well, here’s a start…
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/75/7/3121
It was shown recently that retroviral infection induces integrase-dependent apoptosis* (programmed cell death)** in DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK)-deficient scid pre-B cell lines… *
It may be hard to prove that you can die from the HIV infection. I think AIDS kills by destroying the immune system and then some other bug comes along and finishes the job.
That said, it is a total waste of time to argue with an AIDS denier. It will be a dialog of the deaf. The point about hemophiliacs (and other recipients of transfusions, remember Arthur Ashe?) is a good one, but the HIV-denier will have already worked out an answer.
- The fact is that blood transfusions are one of the best ways of ruining your immune system. The same thing happens (although it’s easier to treat) for organ transplant - your body will reject that which is foreign. It is hard to be scientific in this day of utter certainty (“he died from the blood - well the must have been ‘HIV’ in it”), but how can you prove HIV killed them when HIV has never actually been isolated?
Another good example of this ridiculous reasoning:
a) Intravenous drug users’ immune systems are breaking down
b) They must be transporting a blood born pathogen
or
c) Intravenous drug users’ immune systems are breaking down
d) The massive amount of drugs they are injecting into themselves are causing their immune systems to break down
Why make up a phantom virus (there are possible motives - but I won’t get into that) when there is no evidence of one? They cannot accomplish Koch’s Postulates or any intriguing viral isolation procedure.
The same goes for so-called “AIDS in Africa”. Is it the lack of food, the bad water, and the toxic anti-retrovirals that are killing their immune systems, or is it this mystery virus that lays dormant in the cell just waiting to cause an epidemic (not following the pattern of any other virus by the way).
- I see no evidence support this claim.
I don’t have time to go through rebuttal papers, but going through virusmyth.net should help you comprehend one of the biggest scientific fallacies of all time.
I don’t get it. If HIV has never been isolated what the hell were the idiots sequencing it’s entire genome back and forth and comparing strains actually doing?
Do you agree that during the 1980s there was a huge wave of people dying of immune system failure after getting blood transfusions?
Do you agree that if the problem was that blood transfusions are inherently risky, there wouldn’t have been a big wave like that? Instead, wouldn’t you see a steady stream of people dying after having had a blood transfusion?
If I can show you figures that the number of people dying from immune system failure after receiving blood transfustions dropped dramatically a few years after blood donations were screened for HIV, would it change your mind?
By the way, I agree that it’s valuable to be skeptical about the link between HIV and AIDS. Just because most scientists happen to believe something doesn’t mean it should be accepted without question. And if HIV hasn’t been isolated, that should be cause for some skepticism.
But it looks to me like the pattern of immune system failure after receiving blood transfusions just screams “VIRUS!”
Hmmm, and these same people came to the conclusion that HIV varies thousands of base pairs, yet is still somehow just as unbeatable and causes the same “AIDS”.
brazil84:
Instead of pointing out all of the other changes in between 80’s blood transfusions and the ones we have today - many more definitive things can be pointed out:
If you need to isolate a virus in order to find which antibodies are made against it, and thus finding out how to test for it - how did they test the blood banks for HIV?
Furthermore, by getting a blood transfusion you basically have AIDS. Your immune system will be severely damaged, and the strain on your body is like no other.
I’ll give you some hints:
If what they are sequencing varies many thousands of base pairs, is existent in people who’s immune systems were broken down by blood transfusions, drugs, and starvation, and they can’t isolate it - what they think they are looking at (HIV antibodies) are actually non-specific antibodies and other cellular junk. In light of this, it is interesting to note that different ethnicities have different rates of HIV positivity (based on which test they used), ~50 percent of dogs test positive, and milk tests positive.
Really? Anyone who has ever had a blood transfusion has AIDS?
I’m glad Mbeki has seen the light.
Actually, it is fair to say that more Africans have been treated with anti-retroviral drugs than any other population - the damage of these “medications” will be realized at a later date.
“Africa has the highest HIV rates in the world”
It also has the lowest HIV testing standards. It is ridiculous how many different standards there are, but it is unfair to say the least. In Africa one can be “diagnosed” with HIV with 2 symptoms such as diarrhea and a fever. The standards are so skewed that you can have AIDS in the US, and experience a “miraculous recovery” with a trip to Canada! We are used to AIDS = (1 of 28 AIDS defining illnesses) + HIV, but depending on which of the dozens of HIV standards and tests (southern blot, PCR, etc) are used - the rates of positivity are different.
Heh. Notice how your quote started to use “AIDS” and “HIV” interchangeably.
Don’t want to get into the definitions again of (1 of 28 AIDS defining illnesses) + HIV = AIDS and all, but it is highly probable that their symptoms were similiar to that of an AIDS patient for a good while after the transfusion. Furthermore, due to the product of non-specific HIV tests and the blood transfusion it is likely that they would’ve tested positive for HIV too.
Now the backpedaling comes. Suppose they do have thousands of base pair variations. They could be in a non-critical part of the virus, different enough to confuse the immune system but having no impact on the functionality.