Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does HIV really causes AIDS?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 09:45 AM

Simple question, discuss...

#2 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:14 AM

Yes. Why even bother posting if you have no views on the matter, or at least are not willing to share them?

#3 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:19 AM

Yes. Why even bother posting if you have no views on the matter, or at least are not willing to share them?


My view is that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. From what I've read there seems to be no documented proof that HIV causes AIDS and there seems to be statements made by nobel prize winners and the like that totally dismisses the HIV causes AIDS theory. It also seems that many african leaders are wising up and are actually refusing to buy HIV medication from the western world.

#4 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:58 AM

My view is that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. From what I've read there seems to be no documented proof that HIV causes AIDS and there seems to be statements made by nobel prize winners and the like that totally dismisses the HIV causes AIDS theory. It also seems that many african leaders are wising up and are actually refusing to buy HIV medication from the western world.


African leaders are not wising up to anything. What they are doing is to use it as a smoke-screen to lower their high unemployment rates.

AIDS as such isn't a disease, its a syndrome caused by HIV which destroys your immune system. When your immune system's gone, you pick up something stupid like flu, and die from it. In the lingo it's referred to as death "from AIDS-related diseases". People don't die from AIDS, and it's not a disease - its a condition referring to a destroyed immune system, which opens the doors for any kind of bug that'll eventually kill you.

South Africa's esteemed Minister of Health is personally responsible for hundreds of people dying of "AIDS-related diseases" every single day, because in her opinion, stuff like garlic works better than medication. AIDS orphans are dying in droves due to her egocentric management of her portfolio.

But the real issue, the issue she won't mention, is money. Burying hundreds of orphans on a daily basis is cheaper than to care for them for a couple of years on taxpayer's expense, after which the chances are 100% that they'll die in any case. South Africa sits with an estimated 35-40% unemployment rate, and if a good percentage of those can die, the quicker the better, the figures will look better at the next cabinet meeting. After all, the people most at risk of contracting HIV is the youth, and the fewer of them the better so that they won't clog the labour market.

That's the truth about the African Leaders' handling of the AIDS-epidemic. Some might say its criminal, but the Powers That Be see it only in terms of budgets and economic forecasts.

#5 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:09 AM

From what I've read there seems to be no documented proof that HIV causes AIDS...


Here are explanations for the most common "explanations" that AIDS is not causd by HIV.

http://www.aidsmap.c...BD3A9C04C8E.asp
http://www.aegis.org...s/mdelaney.html

The key point is of course that whereas some AIDS victims may not be documented HIV positives, there is *no other* known factor linking AIDS victims than HIV. The evidence for HIV is massive.

The "no AIDS from HIV" sources tend to be of very low credibility - and the explanations are *always* the same (and thus they have been refuted many times over) - and it has all the shapes of another hoax theory.

#6 UncleAl

UncleAl

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1212 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:22 AM

Given that many families of HIV anti-virals successfully treat AIDS, draw the obvious conclusion.

The unobvious conclusion is why we don't address the viral disase where it is weak. We intimately know its genetics. It would be trivial to synthesize a cocktail of short oligomer anti-sense peptide nucleic acids and simply turn it off. PNAs are not degraded by nucleases, readily penetrate cell membranes, and are easily bulk synthesized on Merrifield resin.

Pharma companies could still charge like sin for the product. Healthcare professionals would get in on it since the stuff must be injected IV. Say one shot/week.

#7 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 05:12 PM

African leaders are not wising up to anything. What they are doing is to use it as a smoke-screen to lower their high unemployment rates.

AIDS as such isn't a disease, its a syndrome caused by HIV which destroys your immune system. When your immune system's gone, you pick up something stupid like flu, and die from it. In the lingo it's referred to as death "from AIDS-related diseases". People don't die from AIDS, and it's not a disease - its a condition referring to a destroyed immune system, which opens the doors for any kind of bug that'll eventually kill you.

South Africa's esteemed Minister of Health is personally responsible for hundreds of people dying of "AIDS-related diseases" every single day, because in her opinion, stuff like garlic works better than medication. AIDS orphans are dying in droves due to her egocentric management of her portfolio.

But the real issue, the issue she won't mention, is money. Burying hundreds of orphans on a daily basis is cheaper than to care for them for a couple of years on taxpayer's expense, after which the chances are 100% that they'll die in any case. South Africa sits with an estimated 35-40% unemployment rate, and if a good percentage of those can die, the quicker the better, the figures will look better at the next cabinet meeting. After all, the people most at risk of contracting HIV is the youth, and the fewer of them the better so that they won't clog the labour market.

That's the truth about the African Leaders' handling of the AIDS-epidemic. Some might say its criminal, but the Powers That Be see it only in terms of budgets and economic forecasts.


People most at risk from HIV are drug users and homosexuals not "the youth" and of course AIDS isn't a disease it's a syndrome which from my understanding can be caused by anything that damages the immune system. Malnutrition and drug use can cause the immune system to be damaged beyond repair.

#8 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 05:14 PM

Here are explanations for the most common "explanations" that AIDS is not causd by HIV.

http://www.aidsmap.c...BD3A9C04C8E.asp
http://www.aegis.org...s/mdelaney.html

The key point is of course that whereas some AIDS victims may not be documented HIV positives, there is *no other* known factor linking AIDS victims than HIV. The evidence for HIV is massive.

The "no AIDS from HIV" sources tend to be of very low credibility - and the explanations are *always* the same (and thus they have been refuted many times over) - and it has all the shapes of another hoax theory.


You can hardly say nobel prize winners are of a low credibility
Where's the documented proof that HIV causes AIDS?

#9 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 05:18 PM

People most at risk from HIV are drug users and homosexuals not "the youth"


isn't this a bit of an outdated-stereotypical reference here?

#10 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 09:37 PM

To my understanding HIV is an early stage of AIDS

#11 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:12 PM

People most at risk from HIV are drug users and homosexuals not "the youth" and of course AIDS isn't a disease it's a syndrome which from my understanding can be caused by anything that damages the immune system. Malnutrition and drug use can cause the immune system to be damaged beyond repair.


While it is true that HIV progresses to full blown AIDS much faster in drug users (I have a friend who is a biochemist studying exactly why this is), the only commonality between everyone who has AIDS is HIV.

Also, in Africa the AIDS demographics are quite different. Here, you would be right in that homosexual men have a larger incidence of disease. However, in Africa, women and children are actually among the largest groups of infected.
-Will

#12 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:17 PM

Here are explanations for the most common "explanations" that AIDS is not causd by HIV.

http://www.aidsmap.c...BD3A9C04C8E.asp
http://www.aegis.org...s/mdelaney.html

The key point is of course that whereas some AIDS victims may not be documented HIV positives, there is *no other* known factor linking AIDS victims than HIV. The evidence for HIV is massive.

The "no AIDS from HIV" sources tend to be of very low credibility - and the explanations are *always* the same (and thus they have been refuted many times over) - and it has all the shapes of another hoax theory.

You can hardly say nobel prize winners are of a low credibility
Where's the documented proof that HIV causes AIDS?


You should read the links that were provided, the second is particularly good. And while you say nobel prize winners have claimed this, many of those quotes are from years ago. Nowadays, we have much more evidence.
-Will

#13 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:55 PM

You can hardly say nobel prize winners are of a low credibility
Where's the documented proof that HIV causes AIDS?


Please list the Nobel Prize winners in Medicine or who otherwise are qualified to make medical statements of that kind, who have said this. I know one who won the Chemistry Nobel have fuelled the hoax by using the exact same examples I provided you with the links I posted.

#14 jasonchild

jasonchild

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:00 PM

While it is true that HIV progresses to full blown AIDS much faster in drug users (I have a friend who is a biochemist studying exactly why this is), the only commonality between everyone who has AIDS is HIV.

Also, in Africa the AIDS demographics are quite different. Here, you would be right in that homosexual men have a larger incidence of disease. However, in Africa, women and children are actually among the largest groups of infected.
-Will



HIV has been documented to be spread via blood transfusions and organ transplants when poor screening is in place. Also, technically one could actually get HIV by sharing a drink; bleeding gums in both parties will cause a high risk factor. When it comes down to it HIV could infect ANY of us...unless you live in a cave and recede from society. The real focus, imo, should be in development of medication to kill this plague. It is a plague, really, and perhaps one of the many things that could cause the massive decline in man's dominance over the earth. my opinion, however.

#15 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:49 AM

Let's say that initially, HIV was limited to the homosexual and/or drug-using community.

Let's say that only one of the homosexuals was actually bisexual.

Let's say that this individual, after having contracted HIV through homosexuality passed it on to a heterosexual individual, which is very likely, seeing as he's bisexual.

Now the spread of HIV is no longer bound by the homosexual stigma attached to it, and spreads like wildfire through the heterosexual population as well. Quite easy, and simple to understand. As a matter of fact, this happened in the eighties already. Connecting the spread of HIV/AIDS to the homosexual community is an outdated stereotype, and not valid. What is spreading HIV/AIDS is promiscuity. And that could swing both ways, doesn't matter which team you're batting for, or if you're batting for both.

I agree with Uncle Al in that there should be an easy fix for this - but what I see is that the real issue is money. All over the world, people most at risk are the poor. I know this is a gross generalization, 'cause Freddy Mercury was rolling in dough when he croaked - but he could afford anti-retrovirals. It just didn't exist back then. So - if the powerbrokers that be decide to drag their feet for a while, they might knock a reasonable size in the World Poverty problem. Or so they might think.

#16 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:37 PM

...It would be trivial to synthesize a cocktail of short oligomer anti-sense peptide nucleic acids and simply turn it off. PNAs are not degraded by nucleases, readily penetrate cell membranes, and are easily bulk synthesized on Merrifield resin....

UA-

I am not sure what mechanism you are describing here. But you can be certain that the competition among drug companies is such that if this were simple, several companies would have done it.

If it is that simple, you really ought to patent it yourself. This would be worth at least 2 billion, and probably over 20 billion. Maybe you ought to start a company and submit an NDA.

#17 Harzburgite

Harzburgite

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 06:26 PM

Where's the documented proof that HIV causes AIDS?

You seem pretty confident that HIV is not the cause of AIDS (I think I hear the sound of someone preparing to backpeddle..) So you would be quite willing to accept an injection of HIV, in order to demonstrate to those of us suspicious of your claim, that it is valid?