HIV-AIDS Fact Or Fraud

[Blade]

I got a question. Ever since i watched this documentary i wonder if it's true.

Dous anyone have proof that HIV causes aids?

 

documentary:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916&q=hiv+aids+fraud&total=48&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

 

Disclaimer:

This dous not mean that if u have HIV-AIDS that u should not take medicines.

Do Whatever the doctors tell u.

[insane_alien]

Seeing as AIDS is a collection of symptoms and infections caused by an impared immune system. and HIV impairs the immune system. then yes, HIV is a cause of AIDS. AIDS can also be caused by other viruses and conditions that impair the immune system.

 

simple definition research would be useful for you here.

[Blade]

but there is no proof that HIV inpairs the immume system. in that documentary atleast.

[ecoli]

http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

 

I think this provides a much more balanced perspective on the debate.

 

Remember, just because somebody makes a documentary on something, doesn't make it true!

[insane_alien]

yes, one documentary that has been discredited by many many scientists.

 

really, go read some research papers. there is not a lack of them. i believe there are a few hundred. i believe them over a single documentary. also, why else would people with HIV have a deficient immune system even if no other infections are present?

[ecoli]

really, go read some research papers. there is not a lack of them. i believe there are a few hundred.

 

Or, in the words of the link I posted...

 

There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Instead there are tens of thousands of papers containing a wide range of evidence that, taken together, make the case overwhelming.

[insane_alien]

uh yeah, i didn't see your post as i was writing mine when you posted.

[Blade]

Isn't it weird that there is on conclussive evidence?

[John Cuthber]

I think the only way to conclusively prove it would be to get a large un-exposed population, inoculate half of them with HIV and see who went on to develop aids.

I don't think it's weird that nobody has done that experiment, so I don't think it's weird that there's no conclusive evidence.

 

Biology seldom produces strictly conclusive evidence. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you but we have all heard of people who smoked for decades yet lived to grand old ages. Biology is awkward that way.

[insane_alien]

well, do you want to be a test subject, we'll just give you a hypodermic full of HIV and wait and see if you get AIDS.

 

while we have ethics to prevent us from doing this, there has been accidental exposure to pure HIV strains. the unfortunate victims did go on to develop AIDS.

 

not conclusive in the scientific world but it definitely raises the probability of current understanding being right.

[iNow]

Isn't it weird that there is on conclussive evidence?

 

It's useful to remember that, in science, there is no such thing as absolute fact or certainty. What you have is a collection of evidence, taken in different settings and contexts, repeated over and over by different reseachers. The evidence often implies specific outcomes with a high degree of certainty, and in the case of HIV -> AIDS connection, the connection is overwhelming. However, it's always possible that new evidence will come along the next day to disprove everything currently thought.

 

Note that the video you linked provides zero alternate information that counters the mountain of evidence currently available to us which is indicative of the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

 

 

Maybe it comes from kissing frogs, eh? Or unicorns from the dark side poking you while you sleep?

[Blade]

Note that the video you linked provides zero alternate information that counters the mountain of evidence currently available to us which is indicative of the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

 

Duesberg's (unproven but reasonable) hypothesis is that long term drug use will undermine the immune system. He covers other risk groups: many gay men tend to be drug users (esp. nitrite inhalants, or "poppers", as aphrodisiacs) ( Documentation here), babies dying from AIDS got drugs via their pregnant drug-using mothers, blood transfusion recipients are often already sick and die from the pre-existing illness (50% die within one year regardless of HIV status), hemophiliacs taking (toxic) Factor VIII get their clotting ability but lose their immune system.

 

He also defines a new risk group: people who take AZT, ddI, or ddC (all highly toxic products of cancer chemotherapy research) to stop HIV, end up with AIDS anyway. (SF HEAL adds D4T and 3TC to the list of toxic anti-retrovirals.)

 

In an interview for SPIN magazine , Duesberg complains that the same government which finances HIV-AIDS research will not finance drug-AIDS research. (Kary Mullis's hypothesis is that AIDS is caused not by HIV but by other retroviruses. Mullis, Charles Thomas Jr., and Phillip Johnson ask "What Causes AIDS?", but their answer is, basically, "something other than HIV".) A pathologist and toxicologist, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati argues that AIDS is caused by various toxins.

[insane_alien]

but still HIV causes AIDS. just because other things can cause it doesn't mean that HIV suddenly can't.

 

an analogy would be, i push something over using my left hand. that doesn't instantly mean that there is no physical way for my right hand to push something over.

[Blade]

but still HIV causes AIDS. just because other things can cause it doesn't mean that HIV suddenly can't.

 

an analogy would be, i push something over using my left hand. that doesn't instantly mean that there is no physical way for my right hand to push something over.

 

Hmmm.....

 

Then it can also mean that Duesberg's (unproven but reasonable) hypothesis and the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis can both be true

[iNow]

Duesberg's (unproven but reasonable) hypothesis is that long term drug use will undermine the immune system. He covers other risk groups: many gay men tend to be drug users (esp. nitrite inhalants, or "poppers", as aphrodisiacs) ( Documentation here), babies dying from AIDS got drugs via their pregnant drug-using mothers, blood transfusion recipients are often already sick and die from the pre-existing illness (50% die within one year regardless of HIV status), hemophiliacs taking (toxic) Factor VIII get their clotting ability but lose their immune system.

 

For a note from the SciAm editors on Duesberg, see this:

 

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmPerspectivesMay2007.html'>http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmPerspectivesMay2007.html

Readers may therefore be shocked to see Duesberg as an author in this month's issue. He is not here because we have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather Duesberg has also developed a novel theory about the origins of cancer, one that supposes a derangement of the chromosomes, rather than of individual genes, is the spark that ignites malignant changes in cells. That concept is still on the fringe of cancer research, but laboratories are investigating it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer. We consider the case worthy of bringing to your attention, with the article beginning on page 52.

 

 

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmEdNoteMay2007.txt'>http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/SciAmEdNoteMay2007.txt

Editors' note: The author, Peter Duesberg, a pioneering virologist,

may be well known to readers for his assertion that HIV is not the

cause of AIDS. The biomedical community has roundly rebutted that

claim many times. Duesberg's ideas about chromosomal abnormality as a

root cause for cancer, in contrast, are controversial but are being

actively investigated by mainstream science. We have therefore asked

Duesberg to explain that work here. This article is in no sense an

endorsement by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of his AIDS theories.

 

 

 

 

And for an all around fun time, watch the spanking which occurs here to he and others of similar ilk:

 

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/

[Dak]

lots of things cause AIDS (tho it might not be called AIDS when non-HIV-induced to avoid confusion): irradiation, for example, will cause a mass cull of immune cells, thus causing aids. htlv (human t-lymphotrophic virus) will, iirc, cause AIDS (or at least something very similar). in theory, any lymphotoxin will cause AIDS.

 

however, in virtually every observed case of AIDS:

 

HIV is present

the degree of AIDS correlates with the level of HIV

the number of CD4+ cells is inversly correlated with the HIV virion count

the progression of AIDS correlates with the strain of HIV (eg, if anti-HIV drugs are administored and AIDS is suppressed, the re-emergence of strong AIDS symptoms will correlate with the emergence of HIV, within the individual, that is resilient to the anti-HIV drugs being administored).

 

furthermore, it's observed that if someone is exposed to HIV, they will often become infected, and then get AIDS.

 

not to mention that you'd be hard pressed, if HIV did not cause AIDS, to explain how, exactly, the HIV virion can cull CD4+ (observed in vitro) cells without causing an immunodeficiencey complex, what with the CD4+ helper-t-cells kinda being important for a functioning cellular aquired immune system.

 

so: several things can cause AIDS, HIV definately being one of them, and being the most common.

[Blade]

Thank you fore the answers. Now i know fore sure HIV causes AIDS.