Does HIV cause AIDS?

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 AIDSIt is replete with links to the primary literature showing the connection.[This message has been edited by Rrhain, 02-14-2004]

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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!

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!