Hiv

[HonestJoe]

Because of the supposed ethical restrictions, scientific testing has not been done. The underlying mechanisms are not understood.

As I said, the testing to understand the biochemical mechanisms doesn't require live human subjects so that aspect isn't limited by those ethical issues. Nothing is a 100% certainty in this field but you can't dismiss the research that has been done out of hand.

But the fact that AIDS is contagious does not mean that therefore HIV is the cause!

Again, AIDS is a set of symptoms. You can't catch a set of symptoms. The cause of AIDS is contagious. That in itself doesn't mean HIV is the cause of AIDS but HIV is certainly contagious and is clearly related to AIDS. I'd suggest that if you're going to state (remember, you didn't ask a question, you made a definitive assertion) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, you either need to provide definitive evidence against it or offer evidence for a more likely alternative. You've not even tried to do that and I'm frankly not convinced you're capable eve if the evidence existed.

Any medical research who dared to deny that HIV causes AIDS has been discredited. No matter how highly qualified they might be. Anyone who doubts the theory gets beaten into oblivion. That alone should make you wonder.

Don't you wonder whether that could just be that those denials are proven wrong? If I deny any commonly accepted scientific fact and have that denial rightly dismissed, does that automatically render that scientific fact wrong?

 

[Good4Nothin]

As I said, the testing to understand the biochemical mechanisms doesn't require live human subjects so that aspect isn't limited by those ethical issues. Nothing is a 100% certainty in this field but you can't dismiss the research that has been done out of hand.

Again, AIDS is a set of symptoms. You can't catch a set of symptoms. The cause of AIDS is contagious. That in itself doesn't mean HIV is the cause of AIDS but HIV is certainly contagious and is clearly related to AIDS. I'd suggest that if you're going to state (remember, you didn't ask a question, you made a definitive assertion) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, you either need to provide definitive evidence against it or offer evidence for a more likely alternative. You've not even tried to do that and I'm frankly not convinced you're capable eve if the evidence existed.

Don't you wonder whether that could just be that those denials are proven wrong? If I deny any commonly accepted scientific fact and have that denial rightly dismissed, does that automatically render that scientific fact wrong?

There is no proof one way or the other. The decision that HIV causes AIDS, and that ARV drugs control HIV and prevent AIDS, has been a political decision. We are told that science is not political, that science discovers truth. But that is very often not how it works.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

There is no proof one way or the other. The decision that HIV causes AIDS, and that ARV drugs control HIV and prevent AIDS, has been a political decision. We are told that science is not political, that science discovers truth. But that is very often not how it works.

What evidence do you have to suggest that the "decision" that HIV causes AIDS is "political"?

This is just more conspiracy theory nonsense. You have to support your claims - not just malign the other side. Make your argument. Support it with facts, not aimless suspicion.

 

[Good4Nothin]

What evidence do you have to suggest that the "decision" that HIV causes AIDS is "political"?

This is just more conspiracy theory nonsense. You have to support your claims - not just malign the other side. Make your argument. Support it with facts, not aimless suspicion.

Since you ignored the argument that I already explained, does that mean you expect me to repeat what I already said? Or does it mean you don't agree with what I said?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Since you ignored the argument that I already explained, does that mean you expect me to repeat what I already said? Or does it mean you don't agree with what I said?

You have yet to say what you claim to have said. Perhaps you believe you did, But I do not think what you said means what you think it does.

 

[Good4Nothin]

It seems impossible that medical science would settle on a theory that has no evidence. We have so much faith in medical science. But, for example, medical science has decided that high cholesterol is the major cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Without evidence. And that cholesterol-lowering drugs should be given to everyone whose cholesterol is above a certain limit.

It's the same kind of thing that happened with AIDS. In both CVD and AIDS, drugs are recommended to everyone who is supposedly at risk.

I don't think it's a conspiracy to sell drugs. But since fortunes are being made on the diseases, there is very little incentive to doubt the theories. The theories are pleasant for medical doctors -- HIV and high cholesterol are both easily diagnosed with blood tests, easily treated with pills.

The drugs are VERY toxic and do not actually cure or prevent the diseases. But never mind, the theories make everyone happy. AIDS has been conquered, just take your pills.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Since you ignored the argument that I already explained, does that mean you expect me to repeat what I already said? Or does it mean you don't agree with what I said?

I did not ignore your posts - I read them.

In none of your posts have you offered any evidence to support your affirmative claims.

You say there's no evidence that HIV causes AIDS. There is evidence (correlation is evidence, even if not conclusive) - but that's not the point. You can't prove your claim just by casting doubt on another competing claim.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I did not ignore your posts - I read them.

In none of your posts have you offered any evidence to support your affirmative claims.

You say there's no evidence that HIV causes AIDS. There is evidence (correlation is evidence, even if not conclusive) - but that's not the point. You can't prove your claim just by casting doubt on another competing claim.

My purpose is to cast doubt on the current theory. There is no GOOD evidence that HIV causes AIDS. And it's awfully hard to figure out, because of ethical restrictions. There are no animals that get the same disease, so animal research can't give the answer.

Scientists read into physiology sort of the way religious fanatics read into the bible. You can see what you want to see.

Does HIV infection inevitably lead to AIDS, without treatment? That's what they tell us, but how do they know? Everyone either gets treatment, or they don't come back. And what about people with HIV who have not been tested?

It is a fact that they are telling us things they can't possibly know. Doesn't that make you at all suspicious?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

My purpose is to cast doubt on the current theory. There is no GOOD evidence that HIV causes AIDS. And it's awfully hard to figure out, because of ethical restrictions. There are no animals that get the same disease, so animal research can't give the answer.

Scientists read into physiology sort of the way religious fanatics read into the bible. You can see what you want to see.

Does HIV infection inevitably lead to AIDS, without treatment? That's what they tell us, but how do they know? Everyone either gets treatment, or they don't come back. And what about people with HIV who have not been tested?

It is a fact that they are telling us things they can't possibly know. Doesn't that make you at all suspicious?

I know what your "purpose" was.

Are you walking back your claims? It sure sounds that way...

 

[Good4Nothin]

I know what your "purpose" was.

Are you walking back your claims? It sure sounds that way...

I am not here to state anything with certainty. There is no certainty on this subject. If you want to stick stubbornly to accusing me of that, the conversation is over. If you are curious, then we could explore the topic further.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I am not here to state anything with certainty. There is no certainty on this subject. If you want to stick stubbornly to accusing me of that, the conversation is over. If you are curious, then we could explore the topic further.

But you did, though.

You know your OP is still there for all to see, right?

As for "curious" - you're not looking for curious people. You're looking for credulous people.

 

[Good4Nothin]

But you did, though.

You know your OP is still there for all to see, right?

As for "curious" - you're not looking for curious people. You're looking for credulous people.

Ok, I said HIV does not cause AIDS. I should have said there is no good evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Is that enough for you? Or would you rather keep saying I can't prove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. And I said it, it's right there in the OP and can never be changed. Is that how you want to approach this? If yes, then we can stop wasting time right now.

 

[Good4Nothin]

As for "curious" - you're not looking for curious people. You're looking for credulous people.

Yes, I am looking for credulous people who accept the current theory, but are open to revising their opinion.

 

[mike2810]

2001 article, but interesting read. Good4Nothing, can you refute the article with something other than opinion?

"The Durban Declaration, signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from 84 countries, including over 125 from Canada, who are dedicated to the control of HIV/AIDS, affirms that HIV is the Cause of AIDS, and given that UNAIDS documentation states there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS, supported by findings from numerous laboratory, clinical research and epidemiological studies. "
https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Responding_to_HIV_Denialists_En_Red.pdf

 

[Good4Nothin]

2001 article, but interesting read. Good4Nothing, can you refute the article with something other than opinion?

"The Durban Declaration, signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from 84 countries, including over 125 from Canada, who are dedicated to the control of HIV/AIDS, affirms that HIV is the Cause of AIDS, and given that UNAIDS documentation states there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS, supported by findings from numerous laboratory, clinical research and epidemiological studies. "
https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Responding_to_HIV_Denialists_En_Red.pdf

Yeah I can work on it. I have read many similar things. Going out tonight, but will dig into it when I get back and/or tomorrow.

 

[mike2810]

Yeah I can work on it. I have read many similar things. Going out tonight, but will dig into it when I get back and/or tomorrow.

Good luck.
It will be interesting to see what sources you use.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Good luck.
It will be interesting to see what sources you use.

I would not use any sources from the HIV deniers like Duesberg or Mullis, even though they are/were qualified scientists. Because you would just say they are HIV deniers and therefore not credible. Anyone who doubts the theory is discredited by the medical authorities.

So all I can do is try to show the scientific and logical errors in the pro-HIV reasoning.

 

[Good4Nothin]

2001 article, but interesting read. Good4Nothing, can you refute the article with something other than opinion?

"The Durban Declaration, signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from 84 countries, including over 125 from Canada, who are dedicated to the control of HIV/AIDS, affirms that HIV is the Cause of AIDS, and given that UNAIDS documentation states there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS, supported by findings from numerous laboratory, clinical research and epidemiological studies. "
https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Responding_to_HIV_Denialists_En_Red.pdf

It is the standard mainstream HIV/AIDS story. If they keep repeating that the evidence is "overwhelming" that HIV causes AIDS, that is supposed to silence all skeptics.

They state that HIV infection will progress to AIDS in about 10 years, unless treated with ARV drugs. But, as I said before, there have not been any good quality studies comparing HIV infected patients who take the drugs, vs those who take placebos. So it is not possible to know if HIV will progress to AIDS without ARV treatment, or that ARV treatment prevents HIV from progressing to AIDS.

The fact that they make these statements without evidence should make you wonder.

 

[mike2810]

I would not use any sources from the HIV deniers like Duesberg or Mullis, even though they are/were qualified scientists. Because you would just say they are HIV deniers and therefore not credible. Anyone who doubts the theory is discredited by the medical authorities.

So all I can do is try to show the scientific and logical errors in the pro-HIV reasoning.

Good luck.

 

[mike2810]

It is the standard mainstream HIV/AIDS story. If they keep repeating that the evidence is "overwhelming" that HIV causes AIDS, that is supposed to silence all skeptics.

They state that HIV infection will progress to AIDS in about 10 years, unless treated with ARV drugs. But, as I said before, there have not been any good quality studies comparing HIV infected patients who take the drugs, vs those who take placebos. So it is not possible to know if HIV will progress to AIDS without ARV treatment, or that ARV treatment prevents HIV from progressing to AIDS.

The fact that they make these statements without evidence should make you wonder.

Yet you do not show where the errors are in the linked paper I provided. You gave an opinion.

Do a search again. You will a time when some scientists stated HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Later research and findings backs the conclusion that it does. Show me where the paper I linked is wrong with your sources.

As far as your comment regarding sources. That is why I want to see yours.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yet you do not show where the errors are in the linked paper I provided. You gave an opinion.

Do a search again. You will a time when some scientists stated HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Later research and findings backs the conclusion that it does. Show me where the paper I linked is wrong with your sources.

As far as your comment regarding sources. That is why I want to see yours.

The paper you linked just repeats that the "evidence is overwhelming," without showing any.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yet you do not show where the errors are in the linked paper I provided. You gave an opinion.

Do a search again. You will a time when some scientists stated HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Later research and findings backs the conclusion that it does. Show me where the paper I linked is wrong with your sources.

As far as your comment regarding sources. That is why I want to see yours.

I had read the HIV denier's complaints about the theory. They had some valid criticisms, but they usually replaced the HIV theory with other theories that I did not think made sense. Duesberg said AIDS is caused by recreational drugs and the gay lifestyle. I think he was just grasping for some alternate explanation.

I had read A LOT of the pro-HIV articles. It seemed based on wishful thinking -- they wanted to believe they had discovered the cause of AIDS, and that therefore a cure would be discovered. As I already explained, there was only one controlled experiment that supposedly confirmed this, and it was very defective. Even if it had been good quality science, only one trial is never considered to be enough. Other researchers are expected to replicate the results. This was not attempted, supposedly for ethical reasons.

It has turned out, predictably, that the ARV drugs are not a cure. Of course they have excuses for that. And they are claiming that HIV patients who take the drugs live almost normal healthy lives. They have NO good evidence for that. As I keep saying, there are no clinical trials. They make inferences from correlational studies and computer models, but there is NO hard evidence.

I think that what they call HIV correlates with AIDS, for some unknown reason. I think AIDS is an infectious, contagious disease, NOT a lifestyle disease. There are examples of people who caught AIDS from their sex partners.

However I see NO reason to be convinced that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Or that ARV drugs treat AIDS by killing HIV. I see no reason to believe the claim that the drugs have made AIDS a treatable chronic disease (oh boy, the drug companies do love those treatable chronic diseases).

ARV drugs are seen as health-restoring medicine, rather than as poison. And there is no good evidence for that.

HIV patients who take ARV drugs are likely to die from something other than AIDS-related infections or cancer. They might die from cardiovascular disease or liver disease, for example. The assumption can be made that they died from normal age-related causes, and that the drugs prevented them from dying of AIDS. HOWEVER, CVD is a typical side effect of the drugs.

It is very possible that many HIV patients are dying sooner than they would have died without the drugs. We have no way to know.

As I said before, the drugs are antibiotic (they can kill anything that lives). So they can kill AIDS-related infections, and patients' health can seem to improve. The immune system can appear to be recovering, according to CD4 and T cell blood levels. But is that really because the drugs are killing HIV and allowing immune cell counts to rise?

It sounds like a good story, and it is repeated everywhere. Just sounding like a good story should not be enough for medical science.
'

 

[mike2810]

The paper you linked just repeats that the "evidence is overwhelming," without showing any.

Granted I posted a position statement paper. What part of the opening statement of "The documents below summarise the abundant evidence that HIV causes AIDS and addresses some of the specific claims of those who assert that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and may assist you in responding to some arguments presented by those who assert that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. Also attached is the Durban Declaration, signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from over 84 countries, including over 125 from Canada, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. " confused you?

Did you miss the references?
"References Signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from 84 countries who are dedicated to the control of HIV/AIDS.

1. UNAIDS. AIDS epidemic update. December 1999. Sorry, page not found | UNAIDS
2. Hahn, B. H., Shaw, G. M., De ****, K. M., Sharp, P. M. (2000). AIDS as a zoonosis: scientific and public health implications. Science, 287, 607-614.
3. Weiss R.A and Jaffe, H.W. (1990). Duesberg, HIV and AIDS. Nature, 345, 659-660. 4. NIAID (1996). HIV as the cause of AIDS. [
etc.

And your link to sources are?

It is up to you to prove your position. One should not have to disprove it.
Seems I have done more than you have to demonstrate your opinion than you have to bolster your case.:mrgreen:

 

[mike2810]

I had read the HIV denier's complaints about the theory. They had some valid criticisms, but they usually replaced the HIV theory with other theories that I did not think made sense. Duesberg said AIDS is caused by recreational drugs and the gay lifestyle. I think he was just grasping for some alternate explanation.

I had read A LOT of the pro-HIV articles. It seemed based on wishful thinking -- they wanted to believe they had discovered the cause of AIDS, and that therefore a cure would be discovered. As I already explained, there was only one controlled experiment that supposedly confirmed this, and it was very defective. Even if it had been good quality science, only one trial is never considered to be enough. Other researchers are expected to replicate the results. This was not attempted, supposedly for ethical reasons.

It has turned out, predictably, that the ARV drugs are not a cure. Of course they have excuses for that. And they are claiming that HIV patients who take the drugs live almost normal healthy lives. They have NO good evidence for that. As I keep saying, there are no clinical trials. They make inferences from correlational studies and computer models, but there is NO hard evidence.

I think that what they call HIV correlates with AIDS, for some unknown reason. I think AIDS is an infectious, contagious disease, NOT a lifestyle disease. There are examples of people who caught AIDS from their sex partners.

However I see NO reason to be convinced that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Or that ARV drugs treat AIDS by killing HIV. I see no reason to believe the claim that the drugs have made AIDS a treatable chronic disease (oh boy, the drug companies do love those treatable chronic diseases).

ARV drugs are seen as health-restoring medicine, rather than as poison. And there is no good evidence for that.

HIV patients who take ARV drugs are likely to die from something other than AIDS-related infections or cancer. They might die from cardiovascular disease or liver disease, for example. The assumption can be made that they died from normal age-related causes, and that the drugs prevented them from dying of AIDS. HOWEVER, CVD is a typical side effect of the drugs.

It is very possible that many HIV patients are dying sooner than they would have died without the drugs. We have no way to know.

As I said before, the drugs are antibiotic (they can kill anything that lives). So they can kill AIDS-related infections, and patients' health can seem to improve. The immune system can appear to be recovering, according to CD4 and T cell blood levels. But is that really because the drugs are killing HIV and allowing immune cell counts to rise?

It sounds like a good story, and it is repeated everywhere. Just sounding like a good story should not be enough for medical science.
'

Your sources are what? You have made a lot of claims with nothing backing it up.

 

[Hamish Howl]

HIV does not cause AIDS.

Yeah, stopped right there.