# Is there really an HIV (retro)virus? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 19, 2003, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194 "2003-05-19T06:40:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NoCoolUserName](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5fc32e/32.png) [@NoCoolUserName](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoCoolUserName)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/1 "2003-05-19T06:40:43Z")
I have a friend who has AIDS (by the CDC definition). I’m trying to be supportive, but it’s hard when she goes off on these alternative medicine rants and wants to stop taking her meds. So I’m asking for help sorting through the facts. From the SDMB archives: “Peter Duesberg, a respected (until now) virologist at UCal-Berkeley” has some non-mainstream-medicine views about AIDS and HIV. The Boston “Weekly Dig” published two articles that seem largely based on Dr. Duesberg’s point of view (but they include quotes from other anti-HIV believers): Part 1 [http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3168.aspx](http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3168.aspx) Part 2 [http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3389.aspx](http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3389.aspx) (A 3rd is on the way) I simply don’t have the resources to research all his references and I’m hoping the SD know-it-alls do. There are several statements of fact in the articles that could be verified by someone who does that sort of thing for a living. (These are my restatements of the “facts” in the articles–don’t take them as gospel.) 1. HIV is a retrovirus. Retroviruses don’t cause disease. 2. HIV has never been isolated. 3. Current HIV tests do not claim to show HIV (they show the presence of antibodies that might be the result of other infections). The FDA has never approved an HIV test. 4. No one has ever found HIV in human blood (“the titer was zero”). A journalist is quoted in the second article as saying that the original AZT/AIDS study was seriously flawed (“based on fraud” is the exact phrase). Is there any way to verify/debunk this claim? I have questions that are more general as well: What does a “viral load” test really show/do/tell? Are there specific ways one could have a low T-cell count other than an HIV infection? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![MannyL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MannyL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MannyL)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/2 "2003-05-19T07:04:22Z")
Using Google I found the following According to a page at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute [http://www.hhmi.org/annual99/a233.html](http://www.hhmi.org/annual99/a233.html) "Ed Berger and colleagues at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases identified a second receptor, which they named fusin, that appeared to be the second receptor needed for HIV to infect T lymphocytes. But fusin apparently only binds to strains of HIV that have been grown in the laboratory, not to HIV isolated directly from patients, suggesting to Littman that another molecule might be playing a more important role in the disease " So to me that shows that HIV has been isolated both in cell cultures and from people. According to a press release located at [http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00852.html](http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00852.html) "HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new rapid HIV diagnostic test kit that provides results with 99.6 percent accuracy in as little as 20 minutes. Using less than a drop of blood collected, this new test can quickly and reliably detect antibodies to HIV-1, the HIV virus that causes infection in most cases in the U.S." So they show antibodies to HIV that knocks down #3 Hope this helps ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/3 "2003-05-19T07:50:15Z")
1.)Retroviruses don’t cause disease I had to do a double take on that. It’s absurd. What’s this guy smoking? _E-freaking-bola_ is a retrovirus. [cite (Scientific American)](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AB533-ABFF-1C76-9B81809EC588EF21) 3.)The FDA has never approved an HIV test. Huh? You can buy the things mail order. [cite](http://www.homeaccess.com/02/01/) ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/4 "2003-05-19T09:54:59Z")
Ok, well maybe you could remind your friend that before HAART and AZT came along her life-expectancy was much less than it is now. Which suggests they work. ---
**Author:** ![isthatsowrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/35a633/32.png) [@isthatsowrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/isthatsowrong)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/5 "2003-05-19T10:25:42Z")
Peter Duesberg has been spouting this crap for over a decade now. He believes that the use of recreational drugs is responsible for the diseases which are linked to AIDS (you don’t die of AIDS, but rather die from one or more opportunistic infections because you have a weakened immune system). On the surface, his arguments sound reasonable, but they tend to be rooted in complete bullshit. Here is an abstract of the paper where he lays down his view of AIDS: [http://www.duesberg.com/papers/pddrgenetica.html](http://www.duesberg.com/papers/pddrgenetica.html) He lists ten facts, some of which are debatable, and then concludes that AIDS happens to gay men, all gay men do drugs, drugs cause AIDS. It’s simple and completely non-scientific. He refutes counter arguments which similarly bad “science”. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/6 "2003-05-19T11:52:02Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. HIV is a retrovirus. Retroviruses don’t cause disease. Leaving Ebola aside, this argument is false on its face because it isn’t the AIDS which kills. In other words, HIV/AIDS isn’t a disease in the normal sense, anyway. > [@](#): > > 1. HIV has never been isolated. Hah! > [@](#): > > 1. Current HIV tests do not claim to show HIV (they show the presence of antibodies that might be the result of other infections). The FDA has never approved an HIV test. Hah! Again! > [@](#): > > 1. No one has ever found HIV in human blood (“the titer was zero”). I’m sorry, the Candymn is next door to Jerry Lewis. > [@](#): > > He believes that the use of recreational drugs is responsible for the diseases which are linked to AIDS This is often true, since its a great way to spread disease. Nevertheless, its not the only way, of course. Unless a certain person I know is actually a gay crippled drug-user. WHich would _really_ shock me. ---
**Author:** ![Mezantius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mezantius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mezantius)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/7 "2003-05-19T12:12:28Z")
1. HIV is a retrovirus. Retroviruses don’t cause disease. HTLV-1, another retrovirus, is linked with tropical spastic paraparesis. HTLV-2, also a retro, is linked with hairy cell leukemia. Just for the sake of accuracy, Ebola isn’t a retro. It belongs in the Filovirus group, which have RNA-based genomes, but do not replicate via a DNA intermediate, as do retroviruses. 1. HIV has never been isolated. 2. Current HIV tests do not claim to show HIV (they show the presence of antibodies that might be the result of other infections). The FDA has never approved an HIV test. 3. No one has ever found HIV in human blood (“the titer was zero”). A ---
**Author:** ![Mezantius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mezantius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mezantius)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/8 "2003-05-19T13:06:48Z")
Stupid TAB key, I wasn’t done… 1. HIV has never been isolated. Viral culture of HIV is a well established procedure that can be ordered from numerous labs. It’s so common that you can even get it done via mail order: U. Penn will do it for you for $200 [http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/aids/coreDE1A.htm](http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/aids/coreDE1A.htm) 1. Current HIV tests do not claim to show HIV (they show the presence of antibodies that might be the result of other infections). The FDA has never approved an HIV test. 2. No one has ever found HIV in human blood (“the titer was zero”). ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/9 "2003-05-19T13:12:43Z")
I am not a doctor, and I don’t even have a site. But I have read a few different articles stating that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Although some of them make a compelling case, the thing that I keep coming back to is this question: If we don’t know what is causing it, how is that we are able to reproduce it in our test animals? In other words, the fact that they can induce AIDS in test animals makes me believe that they DO understand the mechanism for causing it. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/10 "2003-05-19T16:25:38Z")
HIV/AIDS has been the subject of more research dollars and manhours than any other infectious disease in history. If all that work has resulted in a wildly erroneous conclusion, then there’s not a single bit of medical knowledge that we can trust, because it’s been the result of far less research. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/11 "2003-05-19T16:31:37Z")
HIV/AIDS has been the subject of more research dollars and manhours than any other infectious disease in history. If all that work has resulted in a wildly erroneous conclusion, then there’s not a single bit of medical knowledge that we can trust, because it’s been the result of far less research. ---
**Author:** ![NoCoolUserName](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5fc32e/32.png) [@NoCoolUserName](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoCoolUserName)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/12 "2003-05-20T02:32:56Z")
**Bandit** –the smiling, and laughing, is great, but I was hoping for something more detailed than “Hah!” Thanks for the cites of sites, **MannyL** and **Monkey** –and for all the specifics **Mezantius**. **Khadaji** , I’ve heard about animal tests as well–do you have any references? Thanks all! ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-really-an-hiv-retro-virus/176194/13 "2003-05-20T11:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Bandit–the smiling, and laughing, is great, but I was hoping for something more detailed than “Hah!” I’m afraid I can’t give you much more because the assumptions of the doctor in question are completely wrong, empirically speaking. That is, a medical catalogue dealing with that stuff contradicts his statements flat-out. I was more wondering what he smoking than anything else.