Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does HIV cause AIDS?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 1 of 13 (86207)
02-14-2004 12:22 AM


I read a book called Dancing Naked in the Mind Field by Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize Winner in 1993 for discovering the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Very interesting book, but not what I want to talk about.
In it I heard for the first time the suggestion that HIV does not cause AIDS. He explains in the book about his search for a reference paper that establishes that HIV is the most likely cause for AIDS. He says he has never been able to find it, and he's asked everyone.
The following quote is from www.virusmyth.net:
quote:
Although more than 75,000 scientific papers have been published on AIDS, no paper has seriously considered all relevant evidence and attempted to prove that HIV causes AIDS. Some papers respond to specific objections but begin by assuming that HIV causes AIDS, which is the very question at issue. If such a paper were possible to write, it would have been written, and been the most widely cited scientific publication of this century. Since such papers do not exist, it is impossible to refute or substantiate the arguments they might contain. Papers on HIV and AIDS exist, of course, but they assume HIV causes AIDS, which is the very question at issue.
Of course, one immediately wonders about the amount of study that AIDs patients have had and why they all have the HIV antibody if it has nothing to do with AIDS. That site goes on to say:
quote:
You don't need to be a medical scientist to see at once that HIV is associated with every AIDS case: if you have tuberculosis and no evidence of HIV, you are a tuberculosis case; if you have the same disease and show a HIV positive antibody test, then you are an AIDS case. By definition, this would mean that every official AIDS case would have an antibody to HIV.
I know that Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis can be a crackpot, who is at least somewhat pro-LSD and thinks that he was saved from a bad accident involving laughing gas by a woman passing by on an astral projection trip. This is not good for his credibility. However...
Can anybody refute his claim that there is no good original study showing that HIV is the likely cause for AIDS? Do any of you scientists know anything about the scientists who have signed on with the folks at Peter Duernsburg and the folks at virusmyth.com?
I've researched this with Google searches, but I'm a bookkeeper, not a scientist. I did find a medical journalist who agrees with this guys, but not much else addressing their claims. It's always a little scary when people are claiming to be shut out of scientific journals (probably means they're really crackpots), but there are some pretty impressive (to me) names involved here.
Any info?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2004 6:50 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 1:11 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2004 11:04 PM truthlover has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 13 (86240)
02-14-2004 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
02-14-2004 12:22 AM


It's been a while since I've looked into this, but the obivous area to check on is the haemophiliacs (and others) who have contracted AIDs through blood products. There's really no explanation for this other than an agent transmitted by blood.
And relevant to the evolution-creation debate Philip Johnson is in the HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS camp and uses the same sorts of arguments there as he does against evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2004 12:22 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 13 (86283)
02-14-2004 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
02-14-2004 12:22 AM


Well it is an interesting argument to make that HIV is not the cause of AIDs.
Here's where I think there is evidence against his argument. The Nairobi prostitutes who have gained a resistance to HIV have prevented them from getting AIDs. Their immune systems actually knock out the virus completely. So clearly HIV is necessary for AIDs.
And because of this fact, here's the way I look at it. Certainly HIV is A cause of AIDs. That is it IS associated with every case, and its not like there has been any case of someone having AIDs before HIV infection. So I think the real argument/question is if HIV is the SOLE cause of AIDs. Perhaps it takes more than the HIV virus alone.
The nairobi prostitutes could not discount this second line of inquiry as their immune systems may also knock out the other viruses or bacteria that in combination create AIDs.
I do question the profitability of science getting detoured in searching for "yet another factor". If it is true then there could be benefits (if it is easier to knock out than the HIV factor). But clearly (as the prostitutes have shown) if you knock out HIV that will be enough, so why not concentrate on that first?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2004 12:22 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Trixie, posted 02-14-2004 3:59 PM Silent H has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 4 of 13 (86305)
02-14-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
02-14-2004 1:11 PM


Koch's Postulates
In the 19th Century, Koch put forward what are now known as Koch's Postulates and they are the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to identify an organism as thecausative agent of a disease. These conditions are as follows;
1. The specific organism should be shown to be present in all cases of animals suffering from a specific disease but shold not be found in healthy animals.
2. The specific microorganism should be isolated from the diseased animal and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media.
3. This freshly isolated microorganism, when inoculated into a healthy laboratory animal, should cause the same disease seen in the original animal.
4. The microorganism should be reisolated in pure culture from the experimental infection.
I've found a few sites on the internet which deal with HIV and Koch's Postulates and one of the better ones can be found at
The page you’re looking for isn’t available | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the link between HIV infection and AIDS is so strong that it's wishful thinking causing some to doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 1:11 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 4:11 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 13 (86309)
02-14-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Trixie
02-14-2004 3:59 PM


Re: Koch's Postulates
quote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the link between HIV infection and AIDS is so strong that it's wishful thinking causing some to doubt it.
I agree. The best Kary can say is that maybe something else works along with HIV, but then he might as well postulate invisible monkeys work along HIV. If HIV is always there when AIDs develops, and is NECESSARY for AIDs to develop, then the rest is essentially mental masturbation.
You post was quite enlightening though. Very concrete and to the point. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-14-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Trixie, posted 02-14-2004 3:59 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 6 of 13 (86337)
02-14-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
02-14-2004 12:22 AM


It's very simple, truthlover:
virusmyth.net is a bogus site, much like Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, etc.
I happen to have in my biology textbook from the mid-80s a radio micrograph of HIV attacking a white blood cell. What more does one need in order to show that HIV causes the destruction of the T4 blood cells that results in AIDS?
Oh, how about the fact that nobody with AIDS doesn't also have HIV? Nobody. Not a single person with AIDS doesn't have HIV. And don't be disingenuous and respond that the definition of AIDS requires HIV so of course there aren't any. The reason why is because before we knew what HIV was, we had a definition of AIDS. After we discovered HIV and came up with a way to test for it, we found that every single one of the people with AIDS also had HIV.
We are still waiting for Duesberg to follow through on his boast to inject himself with HIV in order to show that it doesn't cause AIDS. He said he would do it a decade ago and still he hasn't managed to have the courage of his convictions.
But if you want specifics, try here (from the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases):
The Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS
It is replete with links to the primary literature showing the connection.
[This message has been edited by Rrhain, 02-14-2004]

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2004 12:22 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 02-15-2004 12:52 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 02-15-2004 1:05 AM Rrhain has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 7 of 13 (86350)
02-15-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rrhain
02-14-2004 11:04 PM


I happen to have in my biology textbook from the mid-80s a radio micrograph of HIV attacking a white blood cell. What more does one need in order to show that HIV causes the destruction of the T4 blood cells that results in AIDS?
First, on your disingenuous comment: I can't really be disingenuous on this issue, because I'm of the opinion that people shut out of peer-reviewed journals are shut out (in general) because their science is bad, not because the journals are biased against them. I'm not in any way sold on virusmyth.com, and I hope my post made that clear.
But, on the above, am I missing something? I thought the reason they tested for the HIV antibody in the 80's was because they hadn't isolated the virus. Do they really have a picture of the virus attacking a white blood cell that's from the 80's?
The reason why is because before we knew what HIV was, we had a definition of AIDS. After we discovered HIV and came up with a way to test for it, we found that every single one of the people with AIDS also had HIV.
This would have been good enough for me in the past, but scientists with a lot more knowledge than me were being "disingenuous," as you put it, and suggesting that what you say here isn't true.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that this is true, but not just because you say it. There are links in the posts before yours that seem to me to say that this quote of yours is true. You provided a link, too...thank you. I wish my google searches had turned those sites up, too, but apparently I was searching on the wrong words or something. I looked pretty hard, I thought, but clearly I didn't do a very good job, so that's why I asked what I did.
It looks like y'all are right, at least to me, and I suspected that's what I would find by asking, as, like I said, the "I'm blocked out of the peer-reviewed journals because of prejudice against me" is almost a certain sign that your science is bad. Looks like that's true in this case, too.
Thanks for the help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2004 11:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 1:37 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 02-16-2004 6:04 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 8 of 13 (86354)
02-15-2004 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rrhain
02-14-2004 11:04 PM


I need to ask about this, too. This statement was in your link and in the other one I looked at:
quote:
With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection.
"Virtually all" means almost all, not "all." Why are they saying "virtually all."
Again, I am not saying I agree with Mullis and Duernsburg. It seems clear that they have avoided giving all the facts. An honest, unbiased skeptic would give all the facts, and Mullis and Duernsburg have left out some awful pertinent facts in presenting their case. However, I have got to ask about the "virtually all" statement. What about the exceptions? Is there an explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2004 11:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 1:53 AM truthlover has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 13 (86357)
02-15-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
02-15-2004 12:52 AM


truthlover responds to me:
quote:
But, on the above, am I missing something? I thought the reason they tested for the HIV antibody in the 80's was because they hadn't isolated the virus.
No. They test for the antibody because it is cheaper to do that than test for the virus. And, they couldn't develop an antibody test until after they discovered the virus.
quote:
This would have been good enough for me in the past, but scientists with a lot more knowledge than me were being "disingenuous," as you put it
No, not really. What's-his-face of Cydonia (face on Mars) fame used to work for JPL. Does that make him "more knowledgeable" or does that simply make him an obvious crackpot with credentials?
There was hardly any doubt in the history of the pandemic that AIDS was caused by an infectious agent, most likely a virus. And when HIV was isolated in France, pretty much everybody fell in line.
quote:
I'm perfectly willing to believe that this is true, but not just because you say it.
And you shouldn't. But the biological examination into AIDS and its etiology is voluminous. There has been so much research into this that to idly dismiss it is like...well, it's like claiming that there is "controversy in the scientific community over the validity of evolutionary theory."
There simply isn't any question. It isn't that there couldn't be any other reason...it's that we have absolutely no reason to think otherwise and overwhelming evidence justifying our position.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 02-15-2004 12:52 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 10 of 13 (86359)
02-15-2004 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by truthlover
02-15-2004 1:05 AM


truthlover responds to me:
quote:
Why are they saying "virtually all."
Because no chemical reaction is perfect. Remember the postulate: "Strongly associated." We realize that just because we have a test, that doesn't mean it's going to catch every single case.
You know those pregnancy tests? Just because the little line/dot doesn't appear/disappear doesn't mean you're not pregnant. There are women who have given birth who never tested positive for pregnancy through the chemical tests.
I'm famous for my chemical experiments not going right. Scared the hell out of a chemistry prof of mine. It was the first lab and it was the typical one of establishing procedure: You're given five chemical solutions and you mix each one with the others in order to determine what sort of reaction takes place (precipitate, change of color, sulfurous odor, etc.) Then, you're given the same five solutions but this time unlabeled and, using the information you acquired from the first part, you need to identify which is which.
Well, none of my chemicals would react. The professor came by, looked at my notebook, and asked me why I wasn't doing the experiment since I didn't have anything written down. I told him that I was doing the experiment and it wasn't very nice of him to give us stuff that was so weak it wouldn't react. He harumphed, took a test tube of mine, added some solution from two of the bottles, shake-shake-shake, and all sorts of precipitate starts falling out. Oh yeah, I reply? Watch. I take the same test tube, clean it out, take the same two solutions, shake-shake-shake, and see? Nothing!
His eyes nearly popped out of his head.
But I wasn't done. Next experiment was to create alum from a soda can. You take a piece of aluminum, run it through a chemical bath to create a salt, and then dry the crystals. The idea is to measure yield rates.
Well, the chemical solution part of the reaction was only supposed to take about 20 minutes. But with me, it was taking more than two hours. The reaction took place over a hot plate in order to make it run faster and I was in danger of boiling off all of my liquid leaving nothing to react with the aluminum square that was simply refusing to dissolve. This time, he had to go get the head of the chemistry department to help figure out what the hell was going on and how to save the experiment...especially with not enough time to complete it.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 02-15-2004 1:05 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by truthlover, posted 02-15-2004 10:45 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 11 of 13 (86532)
02-15-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rrhain
02-15-2004 1:53 AM


Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2004 1:53 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 13 (86746)
02-16-2004 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
02-15-2004 12:52 AM


quote:
But, on the above, am I missing something? I thought the reason they tested for the HIV antibody in the 80's was because they hadn't isolated the virus. Do they really have a picture of the virus attacking a white blood cell that's from the 80's?
Today, they can actually do viral counts. I think they use a quantitative PCR assay that give the results of the actual number of HIV genomes in the blood stream. It is interesting to note that whenever viral counts are on the rise, CD4+ T-cell counts go down. There is a VERY strong association between high viral counts, low CD4+ T-cell counts, and symptoms of AIDS (eg opportunistic infections). To claim that there isn't an obvious correlation within the data is disingenuous at best. In laymens terms, the virus is killing immune cells that are important for orchestrating an immune response to everyday infections. CD4+ T-cells are also called "helper t-cells". They are responsible for calling in other immune cells to the site of infection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 02-15-2004 12:52 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by truthlover, posted 02-17-2004 10:57 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 13 of 13 (86969)
02-17-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Loudmouth
02-16-2004 6:04 PM


To claim that there isn't an obvious correlation within the data is disingenuous at best.
I give in already! I surrender!
Actually, I really appreciate all the information. It was exactly what I was looking for.
Still, though, it's so disappointing to find out that a nut like Mullis wasn't on to something. This really causes some credibility problems with the shining, talking raccoon and his astral-projecting mistress who pulled the frozen nitrous oxide tube out of his mouth as she was passing by.
So sad...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 02-16-2004 6:04 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024