Are we wrong about AIDS?

Doomriser · Post by **Doomriser** » 2002-08-01 04:53pm

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

Found this on the internet.

Your comments/criticism/analysis would be nice.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-08-01 05:07pm

I remember all the way back to fourth grade where we were taught about AIDS HIV. And I remember Magic Johnson. In 4th grade we were told that after getting HIV you got AIDS and died. So why isn't Magic dead. He has had HIV for years now and has shown no real signs of failing health.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-08-01 05:24pm

Cause Magic has that weird strain: Rich man's AIDS.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-08-01 05:43pm

Since I don't know squat about Biology its hard to tell.

I did google search for Dr. Kary Mullis and its interesting to note
that he testified at the OJ Simpson trial.

Also, I noticed this guys name shows up almost only on webpages refuting that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Again, I dont know enough about biology to have an educated guess.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-01 06:33pm

Intresting his sponsers for that website are several Netherlands companys and a spanish firm, Nothing else

Also it should be noted besids there are several vartiaons of HIV one of which nearly one third of Tailand is infected with, Given the 2000 Birth to death ratio(4.221 Deaths per 1 Birth) I'm inclided to belive that HIV is a problem as 70%+ cases over there go un-treated, Along with Afria who could see as much as a 20% Popluation Loss in the next twentys years due to AIDS and are even more worse off

Also it should be noted AIDS is a side effect killer, If we took AIDS sufferes and stuck them in bubbles they could lead perfectly heathy lives because what kills you is not the HIV, Rather its the lack of White blood cells to kill invading viruses and batericas that gets you

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-01 08:45pm

This is downright sick. Most conspiracy theories are benign, but spreading this garbage could get people killed.

I would challenge these fools to inject themselves with HIV. If it's as harmless as they claim, they should have no objection.

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2002-08-01 09:32pm

I'm no expert on the subject, but this how I think it works.

You contracts HIV, which destroys white blood cells. Without white bloodcells, your body had no defense against even something as minor as a cold. Whereas a person without HIV might recover from a cold in a three or four days, it can be fatal to an HIV victim. So until you catch something else that can take advantage of your defensless body, you have HIV, once you do catch something to take advantage of it, you have AIDS.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-01 09:35pm

Almost but not quite my no-medicly inclined friend

As most people would do OFF to Aids.org which provides the following information

WHAT DOES "AIDS" MEAN?

AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome:

Acquired means you can catch it;
Immune Deficiency means a weakness in the body's system that fights diseases.
Syndrome means a group of health problems that make up a disease.
AIDS is caused by a virus called HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus. If you get infected with HIV, your body will try to fight the infection. It will make "antibodies", special molecules that are supposed to fight HIV.
When you get a blood test for HIV, the test is really looking for these antibodies. If you have them in your blood, it means that you have HIV infection. People who have the HIV antibodies are called "HIV-Positive".

Being HIV-positive, or having HIV disease, is not the same as having AIDS. Many people are HIV-positive but don't get sick for many years. As HIV disease continues, it slowly wears down the immune system. Viruses, parasites, fungi and bacteria that usually don't cause any problems can make you very sick if your immune system is damaged. These are called " opportunistic infections".

Share and Enjoy

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2002-08-02 03:58am

So why isn't Magic dead. He has had HIV for years now and has shown no real signs of failing health.

Because it may take years for HIV to develop into AIDS. One stat I recall, that's almost a decade old, was 5-10 years. Nowadays, treatments can slow this to much longer (although not stop it).

Anyways... the backbone of "HIV != AIDS" myth is the notion that HIV is merely a symptom of a completely different ailment that isn't necessarily a STD. 'Course, no evidence for this ailment exists... but essentially they think that HIV is just step two in the process towards death, rather than step one.

Personally, if your theory relies on inventing some other mystical, unknown cause when all evidence points to a perfectly sound and rational cause, then you've got a crappy theory.

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2002-08-02 04:23am

I'm on the last year of my biochem degree, so I might have something to contribute for once. Most of this is from memory of classes on the subject. Warning: this may be long-winded.

Modern biology and chemistry have pretty much cinched the how and why of AIDS. First, a quick lesson in autoimmune function: there are 4 main types of autoimmune cells we're concerned with when it comes to HIV. B-cells, helper-T cells, T-cells, and macrophages. Each has a different function. B-cells produce antibodies; each one produces only one type, and will latch on to invading bodies if able to.

HIV's MO is the infestation and eventual destruction of helper-T cells. The helper-T cell's normal function is as a sort of attack method refiner; if a B-cell is capable of "locking on" to an antigen (normally, only one B-cell type has the ability to attack one antigen, as each produces only one form of antibody), the helper-T cell binds to it and orders rapid replication of both the call and the antibody generated by that type (which is secreted into the bloodstream to accelerate the attack and impede invader progress), selecting for the more effective "weapons" to be made and deployed against the invader. Antibodies latch onto a target, immobilizing and identifying it for destruction by macrophages (the classic "white blood cell").

Naturally, if this action is blocked by a low concentration of helper-T, the body's response becomes sluggish and it isn't able to "focus" on the invader, making the immune system useless. HIV consumes helper-T cells for its own replication and reproduces at a rate far higher than that of the helper-T itself (which is one of the most quickly produced cells in the human body). Since helper-T cells are still being produced at a high rate (and accelerated once HIV is positively identified by the body), it staves off the end for quite some time; this increased rate is still slower than HIV replication rates, however, and is a losing battle. In addition, this increased rate can't be maintained indefinitely, leading to the "crash" towards the end of an AIDS patient's life.

HIV rapidly mutates as well; new flu strains come out once or twice a year, while HIV generates sixty or more new variants in the same space of time. Previously effective antibodies quickly become useless, forcing the body to start the entire identification and elimination process over again from square one, making the problem even worse and giving the virus more time to proliferate.

Why doesn't the body simply destroy the infected cells, then? Most cells, after all, have the machinery to either destroy themselves upon being subverted or to identify themselves for destruction by T-cells (not to be confused with helper-T cells). Another effect of HIV is jamming all of that machinery in an infected cell and inhibiting the destruct signal; it would hardly be an effective virus otherwise.

We know the genetic code, replication mechanisms down to the molecular level, and the (basic) shape of the protein coat (which is always changing). We know the virus' lifecycle. We know the effects on the human body, and that when one gets one or more strains of HIV, AIDS almost eventually follows. We know all this from isolating virus DNA and protein samples and affected cells, something which the provided page claims has never happened. The evidence is on the scale of that supporting evolution or relativity, and it is unlikely that it will be overturned any time soon. They say HIV doesn't exist or is an extraneous effect of AIDS, and that the drugs kill rather than the lack of immune response; I say that these people should put their money where their mouth is and have sex with some HIV infected people. We'll see where they are in five or ten years without the drugs they so despise.

The burden of proof is on them rather than the mainstream. In addition, their "challenge" to prove HIV's existence and then connect HIV to AIDS is meaningless -- the type of proof (a pure, single type of virus (already impossible, as the coat is always changing) in sucrose solution that can then be proven to contain reverse transcriptase AND connected to AIDS) demanded is impossible to provide, just as Hovind's "challenge" on evolution is impossible to meet. Alternate lines of evidence can be followed to the proof instead, but all of these are rejected by this group because they aren't the "official" method (as if there is any one true method to doing this!).

If you want a point-by-point rebuttal of all of their major arguments, a site I found while trying to confirm that Mullis quote on their page is http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html. They also have references to journal articles relevant to the issue. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/h ... ivaids.htm contains a list of publications and lines of evidence connecting HIV and AIDS. Hope this was useful.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2002-08-02 04:24am

Well, I feel sick now. That page is utter bullshit.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-08-02 06:51am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Well, I feel sick now. That page is utter bullshit.

Read the rebuttal Datana posted, it's a good antidote :>

EDIT: Especially the link to the point-by-point rebuttal.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-02 08:15am

Hmm I've either never heard of this

just as Hovind's "challenge" on evolution is impossible to meet

Care to explain?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-08-02 08:19am

That site is even MORE offensive than Ghrahme Kennedy, John Clarke and the entire 'Creationist movement' put together

I also feel sick now after reading that bull

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2002-08-02 05:41pm

Mr Bean wrote:Hmm I've either never heard of this

just as Hovind's "challenge" on evolution is impossible to meet
Care to explain?

Kent Hovind, AKA Dr. Dino, has offered a 250,000 USD prize for a substantive scientific proof of evolution, and has gloated for years that no one has been able to meet his requirements (which are constantly moved to make them harder to hit). The nutbar is considered out of it even by other creationists. Talk.origins recently posted a FAQ on the issue. You can get a copy at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-08-02 06:18pm

Our society seems to be tring to cover up AIDS, and sweep it under the carpet.

Tring to keep someone out of the military or anyother institution or building is considered discrimination, which is bullshit.

It someone with any deadly virus other than AIDS tried to act as if they didn't there would be an uproar.

We are, in the words of some guy I can't remember, social animals, and if one of us has a communicable disease you can be assured that if proper containment procedures are not taken someone else will get it.

We're not talking about the common cold here people.

It disgusts me that anyone with AIDS or HIV is somehow given a special protected stasis just because alot of celebritys and the gay organizations give it attention.

If I am going to the same place, sharing the same food, and doing the same things with someone who has a deadly virus I for damn sure want to know about it. This especially apllies to the military. Anyone who has AIDS should not be allowed to join and if they have it should be removed. In war battlefiels transfusions are an absolute necessity, and no other person would be allowed to enter that situation if they had any deadly virus other than AIDS.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2002-08-07 12:47pm

I say that we detail the makers of that web-site for graves detail in Africa or South East Asia, then lets seen if they think that HIV/AIDS isn't a killer of epic proportions.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-08-07 02:24pm

Half of African fourteen year olds have AIDS or HIV. That is a TERRIBLE figure. On the other hand, this is one of those issues where I really want someone to do something about it, but I really don't want to be the person who goes and does it. I really don't think that many countries in Africa are salvageable as societies. Many of them face other problems, even if AIDS could be cured quickly and easily. I just think it is sad that so many children who really haven't done anything wrong are going to die because we couldn't open our pockets and give them enough money to find a cure, but I am really cynical about the whole situation. I guess what I am trying to say is that I am not convinced that they would survive for very long, anyway, even if we solved their one problem of AIDS. They have far too many issues for us to solve only one of them and then try to dust off our hands. What is needed is for the whole continent to be modernized. By that I mean that its infrastructure needs to be greatly improved, and its general health-care and education systems need to change. Its political situation needs to be stabilized, and industry needs to grow.

Make no mistake, I think the situation there is appalling, but I am also not sure that just solving the AIDS problem would change much. I think it might be treating a symptom, instead of a more insidious disease. A lot has to happen in Africa, and AIDS is just one of the issues that they face (although it is one of the most serious and pressing).