HIV and the Cause of AIDS

ScottXSI · 19th September 2009, 10:45 AM

http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/cause/index.htm
http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm
http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap1.htm
http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/stop/index.htm

I've been reading through these article's and they seem to me like utter ********, but then again I dont know much about the disease.

Anyone with more medical knowledge care to chime in?

Cavemonster · 19th September 2009, 10:53 AM

All he needs to do is publish a peer reviewed study showing a significant number of patients with AIDS who are HOV negative. If the HIV deniers are correct, this should be a snap.
We're waiting...

Skeptic Ginger · 19th September 2009, 07:04 PM

Don't confuse Scott, Cavemonster. That isn't even true. If someone were to discover there was a separate cause for AIDS, it would in no way disprove the known cause of HIV.

There have been nutjob HIV deniers since the causative agent for AIDS was discovered. Some of them are people who are in denial that they are infected. One famous case of that of Christine Maggiore who recently died of AIDS. She refused to have her children tested or treated despite the fact treatment would have saved her life and was critical if the kids were infected.

There's also Dr Douchebag who, like a number of other scientists who suffer from the mental disorder of bizarre thinking, has been claiming drug use causes AIDS, not the HIV virus.

This site has a wealth of evidence about HIV-AIDS and an extensive debunking of the HIV denialists.

ScottXSI · 19th September 2009, 07:34 PM

Well after reading a few pages on HIV denialism, it seems another case of un-proven theories tied to underlying politcal bias and big pharma conspiracy.
These people appear to be working to shoe-horn evidence into a conclusion they have already made. Much like creationists really

Fantastic

Skeptigirl - thanks for the links, I had actually just read that article about Christine Maggiore just before I found your post.
I'll have to get stuck into that last link about pseudo science.

Brian-M · 19th September 2009, 07:47 PM

It's very simple...

HIV is a virus that attacks the immune system.
AIDS is a disorder of the immune system.

We know from medical research that...

Almost everyone with HIV later develops AIDS.
Few people without HIV ever develop AIDS.

Now, I know that this isn't proper scientific procedure... but I'm sensing some kind of connection between the two... I think it's something called cause and effect.

Looking at the first link on the OP....

Quote:

6. AIDS in Africa results from malnutrition, the consequent release of endogenous cortisol, and opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the thymus and lymphoid tissue in people suffering from malnutrition has been known since 1925; malnutrition also impairs T cells functions. Feeding an adequate diet reverses these changes. It cures AIDS! Thymus size in malnourished children increased from 20% of normal to 107% of normal, after nine weeks of feeding.

Quote:

9. Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the factual causes. Examples:

a) The CD4+ T cells of 1,075 HIV-positive pregnant women increased from 426/uL to 596/uL in six months on a balanced diet. This also improved the outcome of their pregnancies; and

With all the millions of dollars spent on trying to cure AIDS, do you really think that researchers in poorer countries have never bothered to feed their patients properly?

ETA

But I'm not a doctor, so what could I know?

shadron · 19th September 2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

But I'm not a doctor, so what could I know?

Ah, but if you were a doctor, you'd be a member in good standing of the medical establishment. No good going there.

Delvo · 19th September 2009, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Few people without HIV ever develop AIDS.

Why not none?

kellyb · 19th September 2009, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Why not none?

It actually is none.

ScottXSI · 19th September 2009, 09:08 PM

^ KellyB - this is something I have been wondering for a while, if there have been any cases of AIDs were there has been no trace of HIV.
You say no, got any relevant links?

Travis · 19th September 2009, 09:41 PM

There are other conditions that can cause catastrophic immunocomprisation that are very similar to AIDS. That doesn't mean HIV isn't the cause of what is classically termed AIDS though.

Skeptic Ginger · 20th September 2009, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by ScottXSI

^ KellyB - this is something I have been wondering for a while, if there have been any cases of AIDs were there has been no trace of HIV.
You say no, got any relevant links?

There are a couple other immune deficiency syndromes. We don't call them AIDS, however.

With HIV the research is at the intricate level of the genome and the molecular actions that cause AIDS. It's not some trial and error study that confirmed the viral cause of AIDS. We study HIV including the specific mechanisms by which it enters the cells, replicates, and causes cell death. That's why there has been such progress in anti-HIV drugs. And it is sad that HIV deniers have no clue how clearly we understand this virus.

ScottXSI · 20th September 2009, 02:30 AM

^ Thanks for clarifying that.

ponderingturtle · 20th September 2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Why not none?

Depends on how you define aids. There are people with compromised immune systems for all kinds of reasons.

drkitten · 20th September 2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Depends on how you define aids. There are people with compromised immune systems for all kinds of reasons.

There are also test mistakes. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere, someone, got an incompetent tech who used the wrong reagent and got a false negative.

ponderingturtle · 20th September 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

There are also test mistakes. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere, someone, got an incompetent tech who used the wrong reagent and got a false negative.

Sure. But if you go by a rigid definition of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. By those words any environmental cause of a destroyed immune system could count.

Travis · 20th September 2009, 05:32 PM

I think the "Acquired" part pretty much necessitates a pathogen induced immune system deficiency.

Vic Vega · 20th September 2009, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Depends on how you define aids. There are people with compromised immune systems for all kinds of reasons.

Could you please provide us an example where a disease of the immune system is called AIDS when is not caused by HIV?

Personally, I've never seen it.

Skeptic Ginger · 20th September 2009, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

I think the "Acquired" part pretty much necessitates a pathogen induced immune system deficiency.

Toxins and unknown etiologies are also possible. But currently, I don't know of any medical providers who would refer to any acquired immunodeficiency that wasn't caused by HIV as AIDS. Prior to the HIV-AIDS pandemic, yes, but not now.

When AIDS was first recognized, it was called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome because it presented as numerous different opportunistic infections. The immune system deficiency was recognized but it wasn't clearly defined. Then, just having a low white blood cell count really wasn't a clear description of how the immune system was failing. Now we have a clear picture of exactly what in the immune system is going wrong.

My point is, AIDS was a descriptive label, but not really a disease name. Now it is the disease name. So we aren't likely now to use the descriptive label for non-HIV diseases. You would likely see a label of secondary immunodeficiency as opposed to primary (not acquired), or just immunodeficiency from 'X' such as malnutrition or chemotherapy for example.

Dr. Tobias Fünke · 21st September 2009, 04:27 AM

Also, the immune deficiency caused by HIV often manifests itself through rather (for want of a better word) specific infections.
People who suffer a breakdown of their immune system due to chemotherapy, for example, do not regularly get P.carinii-pneumonia or Herpes-encephalitis.

ponderingturtle · 21st September 2009, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

Could you please provide us an example where a disease of the immune system is called AIDS when is not caused by HIV?

Personally, I've never seen it.

Sure, but it is a matter of semantics. The words that make up AIDS do not specify HIV, just aquired in some fashion. Now sure it is not used in general in this fashion, but it would not really be wrong to do so.

JJM · 21st September 2009, 03:47 PM

I cut/pasted and lost all control over formatting. The NIH (probably CDC, too) have online information such as:

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

Brian-M · 21st September 2009, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Why not none?

I was tempted to say that, but I decided on more cautious wording. On a site like this, if I claimed that no-one ever develops AIDS without first being infected by HIV, someone would ask me to back up that claim... and I can't.

As you can see, people on this thread are already arguing about the exact definition of AIDS, and without a clear definition specific claims can be hard to substantiate.

Eos of the Eons · 21st September 2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Tobias Fünke

Also, the immune deficiency caused by HIV often manifests itself through rather (for want of a better word) specific infections.
People who suffer a breakdown of their immune system due to chemotherapy, for example, do not regularly get P.carinii-pneumonia or Herpes-encephalitis.

And how long is the breakdown of the immune system due to chemo? It's not as prolonged compared to the way actively reproducing HIV taking down your T-cells is.

19th September 2009, 10:45 AM	#1
ScottXSI Scholar Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 61	HIV and the Cause of AIDS http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/cause/index.htm http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap1.htm http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/stop/index.htm I've been reading through these article's and they seem to me like utter ********, but then again I dont know much about the disease. Anyone with more medical knowledge care to chime in?

19th September 2009, 10:53 AM	#2
Cavemonster Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,916	All he needs to do is publish a peer reviewed study showing a significant number of patients with AIDS who are HOV negative. If the HIV deniers are correct, this should be a snap. We're waiting...
Cavemonster Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,916	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

19th September 2009, 07:04 PM	#3
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Don't confuse Scott, Cavemonster. That isn't even true. If someone were to discover there was a separate cause for AIDS, it would in no way disprove the known cause of HIV. There have been nutjob HIV deniers since the causative agent for AIDS was discovered. Some of them are people who are in denial that they are infected. One famous case of that of Christine Maggiore who recently died of AIDS. She refused to have her children tested or treated despite the fact treatment would have saved her life and was critical if the kids were infected. There's also Dr Douchebag who, like a number of other scientists who suffer from the mental disorder of bizarre thinking, has been claiming drug use causes AIDS, not the HIV virus. This site has a wealth of evidence about HIV-AIDS and an extensive debunking of the HIV denialists.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th September 2009 at 07:09 PM.*

19th September 2009, 07:34 PM	#4
ScottXSI Scholar Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 61	Well after reading a few pages on HIV denialism, it seems another case of un-proven theories tied to underlying politcal bias and big pharma conspiracy. These people appear to be working to shoe-horn evidence into a conclusion they have already made. Much like creationists really Fantastic Skeptigirl - thanks for the links, I had actually just read that article about Christine Maggiore just before I found your post. I'll have to get stuck into that last link about pseudo science.
	Last edited by ScottXSI; 19th September 2009 at 07:45 PM.

19th September 2009, 07:47 PM	#5
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,282	It's very simple... HIV is a virus that attacks the immune system. AIDS is a disorder of the immune system. We know from medical research that... Almost everyone with HIV later develops AIDS. Few people without HIV ever develop AIDS. Now, I know that this isn't proper scientific procedure... but I'm sensing some kind of connection between the two... I think it's something called cause and effect. Looking at the first link on the OP.... Quote: 6. AIDS in Africa results from malnutrition, the consequent release of endogenous cortisol, and opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the thymus and lymphoid tissue in people suffering from malnutrition has been known since 1925; malnutrition also impairs T cells functions. Feeding an adequate diet reverses these changes. It cures AIDS! Thymus size in malnourished children increased from 20% of normal to 107% of normal, after nine weeks of feeding. Quote: 9. Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the factual causes. Examples: a) The CD4+ T cells of 1,075 HIV-positive pregnant women increased from 426/uL to 596/uL in six months on a balanced diet. This also improved the outcome of their pregnancies; and With all the millions of dollars spent on trying to cure AIDS, do you really think that researchers in poorer countries have never bothered to feed their patients properly? ETA But I'm not a doctor, so what could I know?
	Last edited by Brian-M; 19th September 2009 at 07:48 PM.

19th September 2009, 08:05 PM	#6
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by Brian-M But I'm not a doctor, so what could I know? Ah, but if you were a doctor, you'd be a member in good standing of the medical establishment. No good going there.

19th September 2009, 08:34 PM	#7
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,890	Originally Posted by Brian-M Few people without HIV ever develop AIDS. Why not none?

19th September 2009, 08:40 PM	#8
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,416	Originally Posted by Delvo Why not none? It actually is none.

19th September 2009, 09:08 PM	#9
ScottXSI Scholar Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 61	^ KellyB - this is something I have been wondering for a while, if there have been any cases of AIDs were there has been no trace of HIV. You say no, got any relevant links?

19th September 2009, 09:41 PM	#10
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,956	There are other conditions that can cause catastrophic immunocomprisation that are very similar to AIDS. That doesn't mean HIV isn't the cause of what is classically termed AIDS though.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

20th September 2009, 01:15 AM	#11
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by ScottXSI ^ KellyB - this is something I have been wondering for a while, if there have been any cases of AIDs were there has been no trace of HIV. You say no, got any relevant links? There are a couple other immune deficiency syndromes. We don't call them AIDS, however. With HIV the research is at the intricate level of the genome and the molecular actions that cause AIDS. It's not some trial and error study that confirmed the viral cause of AIDS. We study HIV including the specific mechanisms by which it enters the cells, replicates, and causes cell death. That's why there has been such progress in anti-HIV drugs. And it is sad that HIV deniers have no clue how clearly we understand this virus.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th September 2009 at 01:21 AM.*

20th September 2009, 02:30 AM	#12
ScottXSI Scholar Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 61	^ Thanks for clarifying that.

20th September 2009, 08:19 AM	#13
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by Delvo Why not none? Depends on how you define aids. There are people with compromised immune systems for all kinds of reasons.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th September 2009, 09:05 AM	#14
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Depends on how you define aids. There are people with compromised immune systems for all kinds of reasons. There are also test mistakes. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere, someone, got an incompetent tech who used the wrong reagent and got a false negative.

20th September 2009, 10:38 AM	#15
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by drkitten There are also test mistakes. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere, someone, got an incompetent tech who used the wrong reagent and got a false negative. Sure. But if you go by a rigid definition of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. By those words any environmental cause of a destroyed immune system could count.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th September 2009, 05:32 PM	#16
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,956	I think the "Acquired" part pretty much necessitates a pathogen induced immune system deficiency.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

20th September 2009, 05:55 PM	#17
Vic Vega Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Cradle of Liberty Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Depends on how you define aids. There are people with compromised immune systems for all kinds of reasons. Could you please provide us an example where a disease of the immune system is called AIDS when is not caused by HIV? Personally, I've never seen it.
	__________________ "The sleeping and the dead Are but as pictures. 'Tis the eye of childhood That fears a painted devil." --Shakespeare - Macbeth

20th September 2009, 06:11 PM	#18
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by Travis I think the "Acquired" part pretty much necessitates a pathogen induced immune system deficiency. Toxins and unknown etiologies are also possible. But currently, I don't know of any medical providers who would refer to any acquired immunodeficiency that wasn't caused by HIV as AIDS. Prior to the HIV-AIDS pandemic, yes, but not now. When AIDS was first recognized, it was called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome because it presented as numerous different opportunistic infections. The immune system deficiency was recognized but it wasn't clearly defined. Then, just having a low white blood cell count really wasn't a clear description of how the immune system was failing. Now we have a clear picture of exactly what in the immune system is going wrong. My point is, AIDS was a descriptive label, but not really a disease name. Now it is the disease name. So we aren't likely now to use the descriptive label for non-HIV diseases. You would likely see a label of secondary immunodeficiency as opposed to primary (not acquired), or just immunodeficiency from 'X' such as malnutrition or chemotherapy for example.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th September 2009 at 06:17 PM.*

21st September 2009, 04:27 AM	#19
Dr. Tobias Fünke Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Inane asylum. Posts: 180	Also, the immune deficiency caused by HIV often manifests itself through rather (for want of a better word) specific infections. People who suffer a breakdown of their immune system due to chemotherapy, for example, do not regularly get P.carinii-pneumonia or Herpes-encephalitis.

21st September 2009, 04:34 AM	#20
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by Vic Vega Could you please provide us an example where a disease of the immune system is called AIDS when is not caused by HIV? Personally, I've never seen it. Sure, but it is a matter of semantics. The words that make up AIDS do not specify HIV, just aquired in some fashion. Now sure it is not used in general in this fashion, but it would not really be wrong to do so.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st September 2009, 03:47 PM	#21
JJM Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,855	I cut/pasted and lost all control over formatting. The NIH (probably CDC, too) have online information such as: The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
JJM Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,855

21st September 2009, 10:04 PM	#22
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,282	Originally Posted by Delvo Why not none? I was tempted to say that, but I decided on more cautious wording. On a site like this, if I claimed that no-one ever develops AIDS without first being infected by HIV, someone would ask me to back up that claim... and I can't. As you can see, people on this thread are already arguing about the exact definition of AIDS, and without a clear definition specific claims can be hard to substantiate.

21st September 2009, 10:21 PM	#23
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	Originally Posted by Dr. Tobias Fünke Also, the immune deficiency caused by HIV often manifests itself through rather (for want of a better word) specific infections. People who suffer a breakdown of their immune system due to chemotherapy, for example, do not regularly get P.carinii-pneumonia or Herpes-encephalitis. And how long is the breakdown of the immune system due to chemo? It's not as prolonged compared to the way actively reproducing HIV taking down your T-cells is.
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!