or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Does HIV really cause AIDS?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does HIV really cause AIDS?

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
I just came across an article published in Harper's this year that I found, if nothing else, utterly fascinating. I normally wouldn't concern myself with such seemingly outlandish premises. It's a well-established fact that HIV causes AIDS, right? Well, maybe not. Scientifically, it's less concrete than you'd think. But you don't have to accept the conclusions offered in the article to appreciate how it illustrates the problems arising when government-funded medical research and the profit-motive of pharmaceutical companies collide. There's lots of interesting subjects there to discuss-- far more multi-faceted than my simple summary.
post #2 of 39
Yup, it's a fascinating area. There's definitely a casual relationship, no doubt, and while there's fairly strong evidence for a causal one, it's not concretely understood.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #3 of 39
HIV really cause AIDS after a while. But HIV test are not 100 % proof. Even histological exam are not 100 % proof at all. It's even possible that others virus produce AIDS (but we have no proof of this, it's just possible in a theorical point of vue)

Science need serious protocols, but protocols should never be done against the interest of the people concerned.

In this case, it's seems that the protocol was more important than the patient itself
post #4 of 39
The question isn't does HIV cause AIDS, it's can it cause AIDS?

The proof that most, if not all, AIDS cases are caused by HIV is clear when you consider that the drugs designed to inhibit viral targets slow down the progress of AIDS.

AIDS is, again, not a virus, it is a syndrom. Is HIV dangerous? Yes.

End of discussion.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #5 of 39
Some years back Dr. Peter Duesberg (mentioned in the Harpers article), the California based cell biologist, volunteered to be injected with HIV (provided the sample was guaranteed to be free of contaminants) in order to debunk the notion that "HIV is the cause of AIDS". I never heard what the follow up to that was.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 39
Of course we only hear one side of the story here. I'm not doubting that this woman died of drug toxicity. But you can't estimate the quality of her medical care based on the families antidotal evidence of what happened. Nor a layman's reading of her medical record. (oh and they stand to make some money by gaining good spin in the press)

In order to conduct a clinical trial it would require the consent of the hospital's IRB. And the basis of all medical research is "informed consent". If in fact her consent form is unsigned then the hospital is in big trouble. And also any adverse even during the trial has to be reported to the PI of the study in short notice and to the IRB. Hence the emails.

All that aside, people are dying of AIDS including pregnant mothers. Clinical trials are needed and not because they know everything is going to be safe and effective. It seems odd to me that they wouldn't know the risk of this drug before starting a trial on pregnant women. Her care is the sole responsibility of her doctor and so if taking her off the drug would have save her life then no one else is to blame.
post #7 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo

Her care is the sole responsibility of her doctor and so if taking her off the drug would have save her life then no one else is to blame.

You really missed the point there if you think individual failure is the issue.
post #8 of 39
I don't think I ever said that.

In this woman's case if her doctor ignored an adverse event then that's his fault. His patient is on the trail and he's supposed to look out for adverse events and take action when they are reported.

But we don't know the whole store and maybe never will. Which is the most tragic part.
post #9 of 39
Thread Starter 
What I mean is that you're missing the larger context behind the doctor's decision.
post #10 of 39
I believe the answer is "don't get aids".
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

I believe the answer is "don't get aids".

I'm gonna assume you mean "don't get HIV".
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

The question isn't does HIV cause AIDS, it's can it cause AIDS?

The proof that most, if not all, AIDS cases are caused by HIV is clear when you consider that the drugs designed to inhibit viral targets slow down the progress of AIDS.

AIDS is, again, not a virus, it is a syndrom. Is HIV dangerous? Yes.

End of discussion.

In this case, if there is two name : one for the syndroma, and one name for the virus, it's because the syndroma was discovered before the virus
post #13 of 39
Thanks for the link Shawn. Good reading.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

I'm gonna assume you mean "don't get HIV".

Well, we don't know that, do we?
post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

Well, we don't know that, do we?

But you don't "get" a syndrome. You get an infection which may or may not develop syndromes.
post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

What I mean is that you're missing the larger context behind the doctor's decision.

Trust is being lost.

In politics

In medicine

Fill in the blank.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

But you don't "get" a syndrome. You get an infection which may or may not develop syndromes.

Don't develop AIDS.
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

Don't develop AIDS.

Fine.
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo

Some years back Dr. Peter Duesberg (mentioned in the Harpers article), the California based cell biologist, volunteered to be injected with HIV (provided the sample was guaranteed to be free of contaminants) in order to debunk the notion that "HIV is the cause of AIDS". I never heard what the follow up to that was.

Needle sticks from people positive for HIV have led to HIV infection and AIDS. If the 'donor' was HIV negative then no HIV infection and no AIDS. In other words, the test has been done - by accident - and supports the overwhelming conclusion that AIDS is the results of HIV infection.

Can other viruses cause immune impairment? Yes, but HIV cuases AIDS, no doubt.
post #20 of 39
Warning rant follows:

Not to harp on this or discourage discussions of this, however as a gay man article's like this and groups that believe what the article implies really piss me off.

I have seen many gay men die of HIV related infections. I have seen many gay men live with the awful side effects of the medications they had to use to stay alive. When crap like the above, which has absolutely ZERO peer reviewed evidence, is spouted at todays gay youth and then they make the decision based on false science and speculation to put their lives and others lives at risk, I have a huge problem with it. Any scientist who spouts off this crap is ethically and morally bankrupt. Even if they believe HIV does not exist, which some do, they are extremely irresponsible to present this information as if it is up for debate.

I have a very close friend who specializes in infectious deceases. And yes, according to every peer reviewed scientific study HIV leads to AIDS.

Okay end of rant...
post #21 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState

Warning rant follows:

Not to harp on this or discourage discussions of this, however as a gay man article's like this and groups that believe what the article implies really piss me off.

Well, I neither know what this article is "like" since you're comparing it to unnamed articles that only you seem to know nor what it "implies" since you didn't specify your inferences. I can't read your mind, FreeState.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState

I have seen many gay men die of HIV related infections. I have seen many gay men live with the awful side effects of the medications they had to use to stay alive.

That's terrible and I sympathize with you completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState

When crap like the above, which has absolutely ZERO peer reviewed evidence, is spouted at todays gay youth and then they make the decision based on false science and speculation to put their lives and others lives at risk, I have a huge problem with it.

Now, this is what upsets me.

Your first stated objection to the article, that the information it describes isn't peer-reviewed, is vigorously addressed within the article. Since you don't respond to the discussion of that at all, I'm going to infer that you didn't read the article. Do you think that's an accurate inference? You're not being fair here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState

Any scientist who spouts off this crap is ethically and morally bankrupt. Even if they believe HIV does not exist, which some do, they are extremely irresponsible to present this information as if it is up for debate.

I don't think that does justice to anyone but uninformed AIDS denialists.

There's a series of stories about the perhaps prejudicial peer-review process concerning AIDS topics challenging the status quo and how that relates to receiving governmental funding for scientific research. The role of pharmaceutical companies is also an issue.

If you engaged the issues with a little more depth I'd appreciate it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState

I have a very close friend who specializes in infectious deceases. And yes, according to every peer reviewed scientific study HIV leads to AIDS.

Okay end of rant...

Apparently.

Why does the article say that's so?
post #22 of 39
I agree with FreeState. This whole "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" bullshit do a lot of harm. You know it's true when some African Dictator of the month uses it as justificaiton for slowing down AIDS prevention in his and other countries. How many millions of people get killed because of this stupid notion?
post #23 of 39
I have a deeper look in that article (I just read the first part in my first attempt)
Here is some interesting quotes

Quote:
So-called community AIDS activists were sprung like cuckoo birds from grandfather clocks at the appointed hour to affirm the unwavering AIDS cathechism: AIDS drugs save live

AIDS catechism ? Nobody involved in medecine or heath statistic ignore that AIDS drug save live. Yes AIDS drug save lives, but unfortunately have sideback effects.

Quote:
In 1987, Duesberg published a paper in the journal Cancer Research entitled Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality. He was, at the time, at the top of the field of retrovirology, having mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses and defined the first cancer gene in the 1970s. He was the youngest member, at age fifty, ever elected into the National Academy of Sciences. In this paper, which in the words of his scientific biographer, Harvey Bialy, sealed his scientific fate for a dozen years, Duesberg argued that retroviruses don't cause cancer and concluded by detailing how and why the retrovirus HIV cannot cause AIDS.

And this article was wrong. Even the nobel prize status do not prevent you to be wrong from sometime to time.
The number of scientific studies coming from everywhere proving that HIV give AIDS is astounding.
If Dr Duesberg think that HIV do not give it, I will suggest him to innoculate it to himself

Some people that AIDS is related to malnutrition, and it's a fact that starvation is common in africa. I will argue that starvation existed before AIDS and that AIDS do not existed before HIV. There is also in our occidental countries many cases of AIDS involving people who don't have any malnutrition problems.
So AIDS do not existed before drug therapy, that's what imply this article

The mechanism of the infection is very well known now.


After reading this article I came to the conclusion that this article is DANGEROUS, because it's denial. The MAP of HIV patient without drug therapy is superposed to the MAP of AIDS, and by extreme hazard the patients who take drug therapy live longer.

YES HIV do not give AIDS : no need to protect others ! no condom. Spread the HIV worldwile
post #24 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc

So AIDS do not existed before drug therapy, that's what imply this article

Wrong--

The article explicitly states that AIDS existed under less-glamourous traditional names that do not garner large pharmaceutical expenditures (paraphrased poorly).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc

The mechanism of the infection is very well known now.

I'm not sure what that means-- but some fairly significant part about how HIV causes AIDS is poorly understood according to the article.
[/QUOTE]
post #25 of 39
This article is crap. HIV leads to AIDS.
There is also differents forms of immunodeficient illness among animals like FIV.

The AIDS is studying by thousands of searchers among the world. The conspiracy theory of the drugs companies poisoning people in order to get billions $ is a really sad joke. It's a dangerous diffamation. Doctors are not only guided by greed. If someone said to me : that I am only interest in money, and that I do whatever bad to people to have some, I will be very angry. And I am not alone here ...
All people involved in AIDS have witnesses the difference between before drugs and after. Drugs prolonge life, but have sideback effects like loosing the fat especially in the cheeks. Before drugs, people after a period of incubation died of AIDS.
Drugs reduce the level of the HIV virus in the blood, and raise the level of CD4 : it has been scientifically proven hundred of times.

The problem with the web, is that you can find whatever you want. One day you will say an article explaining that you are a bastard, with many good arguments in. And you will feel like an idiot that you are really the son of your father and your mother

Ask the author of this article to inoculate himself the virus, to prove he is right. Let him endanger himself and not the people who will believe this article and will not protec themselves anymore from HIV.
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Wrong--

The article explicitly states that AIDS existed under less-glamourous traditional names that do not garner large pharmaceutical expenditures (paraphrased poorly).

Sorry but I never hear of this syndroma before AIDS under any non glamourous name. HIV did not exist before the seventies, and is probabily a mutation of SIV. You can test HIV in serum, even some decade later.

There isn't also a better explanation than a microbiological agent, to explain the epidemiologica propagation of AIDS.
post #27 of 39
This reminds me of the global warming denying cabal. It sounds exactly the same and just as unintelligent. Despite 100s and 100s of experts and 1000s and 1000s of peer reviewed papers, we still have some that in the face of overwhelming expert opinion choose to believe ignorant opinion.

People die when you lie.
post #28 of 39
I used to wonder who in world bought those books they advertise on Saturday afternoon infomercials about the entire medical community just being out to take your money and you could have perfect health if you just bought my book! Now I know..........
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #29 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo

This reminds me of the global warming denying cabal. It sounds exactly the same and just as unintelligent.

Well that's just astounding if you think that article was "unintelligent" because frankly, I found it difficult to wrap my head around all the issues it put forth. And again, Harper's is a well-respected magazine that found it compelling to publish, which certainly has some weight in my mind.

Did you read it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo

Despite 100s and 100s of experts and 1000s and 1000s of peer reviewed papers, we still have some that in the face of overwhelming expert opinion choose to believe ignorant opinion.

I don't know if Duesberg's position is "ignorant." He certainly is a scientific expert and what motivates him is exactly in line with scientific goals-- completely different from what motivates global warming deniers.
post #30 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Sorry but I never hear of this syndroma before AIDS under any non glamourous name.

(That would be the point...)

(Well, not AIDS as a syndrome but the diseases it encompasses)

Although I'm not saying I personally don't believe HIV causes AIDS because I have no scientific understanding here at all. And when in doubt I believe in scientific consensus and the peer-reviewed process. But at the same time there are compelling related issues involved.
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

(That would be the point...)

(Well, not AIDS as a syndrome but the diseases it encompasses)

Although I'm not saying I personally don't believe HIV causes AIDS because I have no scientific understanding here at all. And when in doubt I believe in scientific consensus and the peer-reviewed process. But at the same time there are compelling related issues involved.

Nice to hear that. The medical consensus is very, very large on this issue.
There is not always medical consensus. For Duesberg, there is also example of famous scientist, who suddenly turned crazy, like the Dr Benvenist in France.

The article was very long, and perhaps too much long. It has some good stuff in it, but it has an agenda wich only appeared at the end.
I am for good practice in medecine, especially when it come to medical essay, and this aera must be controlled by FDA and other agencies like that all around the world.
Drugs have side back effects unfortunately, and the science research must going on, in order to have efficient drugs with less cons.
Drugs also be less expansive for Africa, and it's starting to be the case, for the sake of millions of people living in Africa.
At last people should not forget, that even that tritherapy prolonge life, it do not cure AIDS, have sideback effects, and that prevention is the only way to be safe right now.

In the future a vaccin will come, but we will be must be aware that it will not work in more than 50 % of the case.
post #32 of 39
post #33 of 39
Gammer,

English?

Thanks
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #34 of 39
Thread Starter 
Yeah I didn't start this thread as an open forum for AIDS denialists either..
post #35 of 39
Quote:

Dude, conspiracy theorists are on the way out.

Speaking proper English, on the other hand
post #36 of 39
Quote:

OK, I looked at the first one on the list. My simple expert opinion is that the woman hasn't got a clue what she is talking about. She may know more about mathematics than I do (she has published three articles on mathematical modeling of HIV infection), but she doesn't know squat about molecular biology. I wonder how she got a job at the University of Texas at Tyler (not that I ever heard of the place, but it is a job).
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship

Trust is being lost.

In politics

In medicine

Fill in the blank.

Fellowship

Seek and ye shall find, young Shawn.

And be thankful you're blessed to have people in your life who'll tell you the truth.

But it's still up to you to recognize it.

(Hope all is going well Fellows)
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #38 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazychester

Seek and ye shall find, young Shawn.

And be thankful you're blessed to have people in your life who'll tell you the truth.

But it's still up to you to recognize it.

(Hope all is going well Fellows)

Yep. That was me. Combing the internet salivating on the words of AIDS denialists. You got me. Figures one of the AN folk wouldn't read the thread. For the record, I believe in the scientific consensus (HIV causes AIDS) and even a well-written article published in a hugely legitimate forum like Harper's Magazine doesn't change that. There are a host of complex issues that the magazine article talks about, but you just want to reduce it to whatever age-old narrative you cribbed that little line from. Maybe it's easiest for you to understand the world that way?
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Yep. That was me. Combing the internet salivating on the words of AIDS denialists. You got me. Figures one of the AN folk wouldn't read the thread. For the record, I believe in the scientific consensus (HIV causes AIDS) and even a well-written article published in a hugely legitimate forum like Harper's Magazine doesn't change that. There are a host of complex issues that the magazine article talks about, but you just want to reduce it to whatever age-old narrative you cribbed that little line from. Maybe it's easiest for you to understand the world that way?

No, actually I read the thread ages ago when it first appeared, and the entire article. The article is crap and Harper's is not a "hugely legitimate forum" when it comes to such issues by any stretch of the imagination. The article is about the conduct and ethics of medical trials. The fact that a patient died of drug toxicity after being incorrectly diagnosed with HIV does nothing to prove one way or the other whether HIV causes AIDS. Two separate incidents resulted in this woman's death:

1. She was incorrectly diagnosed HIV positive. False positive HIV results in pregnant women are a well-documented and recognized phenomenon. Regardless of that, a second test to confirm the initial result should always be conducted anyway. If the failure to do so doesn't amount to medical negligence under US law, I would be very, very surprised. But you're the budding lawyer so that can be your homework, Oh Spiteful Young 'Un.

2. Having been the victim of negligence, or an incorrect diagnosis if you prefer, this woman was then administered a drug that caused a toxic reaction resulting in her dying.

Having said that.....

Is there a causal link between HIV and AIDS?

Absolutely.

Does it follow HIV always leads to AIDS or that AIDS is always caused by HIV?

No.

What has any of that got to do with what Fellows was saying?

Nothing really.

In the meantime, to effectively block paths of transmission that are the microbial equivalent of a frickin' high-speed, super-freeway (that is, blood-to-blood or body fluids-to-blood transmission), everybody should adopt sensible practices like using condoms and not sharing needles.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Does HIV really cause AIDS?