Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does HIV really causes AIDS?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#18 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:14 PM

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?


AIDS isn't a problem where I'm from friend
Everybody I know are healthy heterosexuals and none have AIDS
You can't deny that AIDS is predominant in gay communities and with people who live in squalid conditions ie africans
There's documented cases of people being HIV positive and never getting AIDS and there's plenty of people with AIDS like symptons who are not HIV positive
Also, there are people around the world who seem immune to AIDS
AIDS is a syndrome and there is no evidence that proves that AIDS is caused by only HIV and the evidence that state HIV causes AIDS seems to be flawed
It may be cynical but there's more money to be made 'treating' AIDS than actually eradicating it completely and we all know money makes the world go round

#19 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:16 PM

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?


I'm willing to do this challenge when HIV tests are standardized around the world

#20 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:33 PM

AIDS isn't a problem where I'm from friend
Everybody I know are healthy heterosexuals and none have AIDS
You can't deny that AIDS is predominant in gay communities and with people who live in squalid conditions ie africans
There's documented cases of people being HIV positive and never getting AIDS and there's plenty of people with AIDS like symptons who are not HIV positive
Also, there are people around the world who seem immune to AIDS
AIDS is a syndrome and there is no evidence that proves that AIDS is caused by only HIV and the evidence that state HIV causes AIDS seems to be flawed
It may be cynical but there's more money to be made 'treating' AIDS than actually eradicating it completely and we all know money makes the world go round


Look, there is tons of evidence that HIV causes AIDS. On top of everything else, there is SIV in certain simians and another HIV like virus in cats. These virus both cause AIDS like diseases in the animals they infect.

And while you say there is no evidence that proves AIDS is caused by only HIV, there is no evidence that proves that it ISN'T. Also, with the development of drugs that target HIV, people with AIDS live much longer. There is so much evidence connecting HIV to AIDS that you probably can't find one credible scientist who still suggests that HIV might not cause AIDS. (note, not quotes from the 80s, when things were much less well established. Quotes from the last few years).

You aren't simply cynical, you are looking for a conspiracy where there simply isn't one.
-Will

#21 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:35 PM

AIDS isn't a problem where I'm from friend
Everybody I know are healthy heterosexuals and none have AIDS
You can't deny that AIDS is predominant in gay communities and with people who live in squalid conditions ie africans
There's documented cases of people being HIV positive and never getting AIDS and there's plenty of people with AIDS like symptons who are not HIV positive
Also, there are people around the world who seem immune to AIDS
AIDS is a syndrome and there is no evidence that proves that AIDS is caused by only HIV and the evidence that state HIV causes AIDS seems to be flawed
It may be cynical but there's more money to be made 'treating' AIDS than actually eradicating it completely and we all know money makes the world go round

My dear, dear friend:

Of all the Hypography members I've met so far, you're the only one living up to his name so far.

#22 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:06 PM

My dear, dear friend:

Of all the Hypography members I've met so far, you're the only one living up to his name so far.

What's so confusing about AIDS=$$$$?
AIDS=fear=control?

#23 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:15 PM

What's so confusing about AIDS=$$$$?
AIDS=fear=control?

My comment wasn't about AIDS being confusing, or the $$$-implications; not at all.

It was about popular misconceptions as embodied in your previous post.

And you're wrong.

#24 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:25 PM

My comment wasn't about AIDS being confusing, or the $$$-implications; not at all.

It was about popular misconceptions as embodied in your previous post.

And you're wrong.


Well I'm happy being wrong but so far there has been no reasonable explanations as to why I'm wrong

Bottom line is I'm not so sure that HIV causes AIDS and this is after many conversations with people who have studied biology, have PHDs and who test for HIV as a job. Even if HIV does cause AIDS I'm not willing to accept it as the only cause of AIDS without any proof.

#25 Dazed&Confused

Dazed&Confused

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 01:29 PM

My comment wasn't about AIDS being confusing, or the $$$-implications; not at all.

It was about popular misconceptions as embodied in your previous post.

And you're wrong.


I'm sorry I just realized I was talking to a S.African, AIDS must be a sore subject with you
Not too worry, my country will continue to pour billions of pounds into needless research

#26 jasonchild

jasonchild

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 11:57 AM

Well I'm happy being wrong but so far there has been no reasonable explanations as to why I'm wrong

Bottom line is I'm not so sure that HIV causes AIDS and this is after many conversations with people who have studied biology, have PHDs and who test for HIV as a job. Even if HIV does cause AIDS I'm not willing to accept it as the only cause of AIDS without any proof.



How could it be that far of a stretch? Human-Immunodeficency-Virus being a precursor to Auto-Immune-Deficency-Syndrome. Sure, there HAS to be other causes that ravage the white blood cell count in people...but the corellation between the two seems to be nigh but undeniable (in my opinion). And really, does squabbling over this issue on an interenet forum really bring about ANY change (regardless of direction)? Doesnt seem to.

Not too worry, my country will continue to pour billions of pounds into needless research


Please do.

#27 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 03:09 PM

I'm sorry I just realized I was talking to a S.African, AIDS must be a sore subject with you
Not too worry, my country will continue to pour billions of pounds into needless research

You do that.

And also, while you're at it, keep telling yourself that your country's doing that for some higher altruistic purpose.

The only reason your country, or more to the point, pharmaceutical companies protected by your country's borders, will spend a single dollar on AIDS research is if they expect to get at least a thousand back, for every dollar spent.

They're not doing it to do anybody a favour. And, if you ever see your esteemed prime minister, mr. Blair, do another public appearance with one of those silly, pointless, ludicrious and stupid AIDS ribbons on, know for a fact that he's doing it only, and ONLY, because his PR officer told him to do it.

Do you have any idea of the dynamics involved in AIDS, as experienced in a large percentage of the population?

Unwed mothers, with no support system, dying in droves and letting their kids fall into an insufficient social security system - their kids being, by the way, also HIV positive, also maturing to full-blown AIDS within a couple of months of birth? The argument can be made that it's slum-bunnies squirting out a couple 'o babies and that they'll never amount to much et cetera - but this is armchair bullshit. You go down to the squatter camps and see for yourself.

Did you know, for instance, that in Botswana, there's a booming market in second-hand coffins? A guy croaks, gets buried, and withing 48 hours of his burial, his casket has been dug up, the stiff thrown back into the hole, the hole covered up nicely, and the coffin sold on the black market? For the simple reason that people are dying faster than the coffin manufacturers can build boxes.

And all the while this is happening, we have a bunch of conceited people reasoning if HIV actually causes AIDS or not.

It does.

Make your peace with it - it's not an intellectual exercise.

And besides - your country might be spending a heck of a lot of bucks on research, did you think for a single second that they'd give it to us (Africans) for free? We'll have to pay through our necks to get it, that's why Thabo Mbeki's supporting generic medicine for AIDS, tuberculosis, etc.

#28 jasonchild

jasonchild

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 03:39 PM

I am of the opinion that major pharmacutical companies should, in the interest of preserving mankind (or even insofar as PR goes) allow AIDS meds to be produced in African countries. This means building plants and training workers/staffing the plants with Africans. Money > human life. This has been the view of buisness (and even many governments/empires) for eons, since the fall of the barter system, and in my opinion is QUITE flawed. If by some way I engage in a research project that would help ease/relieve the suffering of others...well...hell...I would be hardpressed to want to make an obsecne amount of money off of it. I have stated this before; I dont mind paying! Some day I could (or will) need the aid of my fellows. The issue of AIDS in Africa is a glaring example of an overall lack of compassion.

This attitude of blaming the problems (not only of AIDS, but crime, violence, etc) on "slum-babies, drug additics and social waste" gets no one ANYWHERE. If that is how you wish to view the world then live in your little gated communities and hide from reality. Tell yourself that these problems could never strike your nation, your people, your family, yourself.

#29 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 01:22 PM

I am of the opinion that major pharmacutical companies should, in the interest of preserving mankind (or even insofar as PR goes) allow AIDS meds to be produced in African countries. This means building plants and training workers/staffing the plants with Africans. Money > human life. ...

I really do appreciate the sentiment here, but this comparison of money to life is a little off the topic. The issue is who pays.

There is no intrinsic reason why we would choose to force any private company (pharma or otherwise) to directly subsidise the AIDS treatment program. A typical pharmaceutical firm spends about 3/4 of a billion dollars to launch a new drug. If they did not get a payback, they would not invest the $3/4 billion.

In the case of antiretrovirals, they have a market price. Even if someone gives medications to African countries for free, you can be sure that the primary issues for the pharmas is that the black market would reroute those medications back to the West, where they would cannibalize the paying market. I am certain that pharmas would rain inexpensive/free meds on Africa if there was any chance of stopping the black market smuggling of drugs back into western markets.

The stockholders are the ones that are owed the return on the $3/4 billion dollars. No firm has an ethical right to steal from their stockholders. If individual stockholders want to fund the treatment programs, or if non-for-profit agencies want to raise funds, they can do so. In the interim, donation of discount drugs into black market countries is a recipe for economic disaster for a private pharmaceutical firm.

#30 jasonchild

jasonchild

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 03:15 PM

Indeed. Though my opinion extends to western countries as well as Africa. Any "cure" for something that has the potential to affect us all should be free, in my opinion. Sure, some will argue that funds must be spent to pay researchers, build plants and the like. Therein lies the issue; money out weighs human life, regardless of "who pays". I know, I know, we dont live in an idolized utopian world where we all help each other. I just feel, personally, that none of us are willing to sacrifice a bit of comfort in our own lives to grant some in someone elses. And yes, I am actually invested in a pharma myself.

enough of my bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberalism.

regards,

jCc

#31 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:35 PM

Treatment for HIV/AIDS starts with the acceptance that HIV causes AIDS. Once you wrap your head around that one, we can start looking at what spreads HIV.

HIV is a lifestyle-disease. Wether it be shared drug-needles, promiscuity, participating in the sex industry, or whatever.

Medically treating HIV is just postponing the inevitable. We should start with massive educational campaigns as to the risks involved in following the above lifestyles, so that we can treat the spreading of the disease at the core of the issue.

As to pharmaceuticals and western governments subsidizing meds to be distributed to African countries, that doesn't help. Corrupt African governments have been known to only supply their supporters with antiretrovirals, and let the opposition die. Corruption rules.

What is needed, is to rethink patent laws as far as patents on medication for terminal diseases are concerned. Is it moral to charge exorbitant fees for meds without which the patient will die? Isn't it morally the right thing to do to let the world have the formula for such medications? Development costs up to the point of having a working product should be tax deductible.

#32 Chacmool

Chacmool

    Making mud

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 950 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 02:58 AM

HIV is a lifestyle-disease.

What is needed, is to rethink patent laws as far as patents on medication for terminal diseases are concerned. Is it moral to charge exorbitant fees for meds without which the patient will die? Isn't it morally the right thing to do to let the world have the formula for such medications? Development costs up to the point of having a working product should be tax deductible.

I agree that more should be done to assist the development of medications that could save people suffering from otherwise terminal conditions. However, if HIV is a lifestyle-disease, does it deserve all the funding and attention it is receiving? Why aren't we spending so much money on cancer research? Or the prevention and treatment of mental illnesses? What makes HIV so special?

#33 jasonchild

jasonchild

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 11:03 AM

I agree that more should be done to assist the development of medications that could save people suffering from otherwise terminal conditions. However, if HIV is a lifestyle-disease, does it deserve all the funding and attention it is receiving? Why aren't we spending so much money on cancer research? Or the prevention and treatment of mental illnesses? What makes HIV so special?


You cant "catch" cancer from someone else. Seems obvious to me; the more contagious the pathogen the more we should find ways to fight it. Cancer is genetics going ape **** due to genetic and environmental triggers. Few people get cancer from unprotected sex...

jCc

note: you can catch HIV from infected blood, tissue and organs. as such we all have the potential to catch it, unless your faith prevents transfusion/transplants or you spend your life in a HAZMAT suit...

#34 Fishteacher73

Fishteacher73

    Coincidence of Molecules

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1646 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 12:09 PM

HIV is a lifestyle-disease. Wether it be shared drug-needles, promiscuity, participating in the sex industry, or whatever.


I agree with this statemet only to a degree. There are many whom are infected in so-called "monogomous" relationships with individuals in these groups. It is not their actions that infect them. There are many whom are infected with HIV iinfected tiissues or instruments. Again these are not "life-style" decisions. The biggest factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS is ignorance of both transmission and screening until the individual is infected with full blown AIDS.

The biggest step in slowing HIV transfer is educatiion. Period. Any anti-viral drug will be useless unless transmission rates are reduced. The virus mutates too readily to be contained by pure chemical/biologiocal means. Without education HIV will remain a problem.

As for the link of HIV and AIDS brought up earlier... An similar issue involved smoking and lung cancer. There has been no actual evience to indicate the process of lung cancer in smokers, it just has a VERY high coincidental factor. Does that mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, no, just the biology of it has not been fully unearthed as of yet, so the same is with HIV/AIDS, IMHO.