As far as I know, and believe, HIV is real and does indeed cause AIDS.
I skimmed some article earlier from LewRockwell.com questioning whether HIV caused AIDS or not but didn’t give the whole thing a read.
I just remember one thing that was pointed out was that the symptoms “change” depending on the area it’s in…well, not entirely accurate.
This comes up as something to cause suspicion when you don’t know what HIV/AIDS really does. What it does is weakin your immune system. Indeed, most AIDS patients don’t die from AIDS itself. They get secondary infections that their immune systems are no long able to combat as well as they otherwise would be and die from that. That’s why the symptoms can “change” and so on.
I also remember something about dirty water being mentioned. Yes the dirty drinking water is a problem…and it’s MORE of a problem if you have AIDS because your body is MUCH more susceptible to infection. Things that might normally get you sick for a few days could pose serious problems and may even be life-threatening if you have AIDS.
That’s why people who have HIV usually get put on a cocktail of drugs. Some are to combat the replication of the HIV virus, while others are anti-biotics or other things to prevent secondary infections by bacteria and such.
I’m sure AIDS is used to rile folks up and get foreign aid and such…but that doesn’t discredit the fact that there are people with AIDS. Helping reduce the amount of people with HIV/AIDS means that the problems of secondary infections would be dramatically reduced. So yes drinking water is a problem…but a lotta people do just fine with it over there, so it can’t be JUST the drinking water. And of course, instead of whatever government allocate more money to cleaning the water supply, they ought to deregulate their system and secure private property rights, make sure there aren’t barriers to entry, etc…and then simply allow private entrepreneurs to provide water.
As well, last I heard, the WTO granted patents to some companies for certain drugs, such as Diflucan(think that was the name), which is an anti-biotic often used to fight bacterial infections in people with AIDS. Anyways, the effect is that people in African countries MUST buy this brand of the drug if they are to buy the drug at all and are not allowed to purchase any generic versions. This means they must pay 15x more than they otherwise would, and as I’m sure most people could imagine…most people are not able to afford such a high price.
It’s really a whole system of ridiculous regulations that make things like this so messed up. But anyways…yeah. HIV causes AIDS…and having AIDS means that you are much more susceptible to getting other infections, which explains all sorts of symptoms. A lot of variation in symptoms is due to having infections while also having AIDS because your immune system is much less defended when you got AIDS.
Nobody disputes the existence of HIV. They dispute the ‘true by definition of ‘AIDS’’ link from it to tuberculosis, dementia, pneumonia, fever, impotence, etc. It’s nice that you’ve gone and regurgitated your grade-schooling understanding of this issue, but – well, I’ll leave it at that.
Go ahead and skim the link I posted: it’s a presentation, already cut up bite-size for you. Here is
and
The presentation makes a pretty good case, honestly.
From a scientific standpoint, it’s absurd more people don’t consider the possibility of chemically caused AIDS, especially when they most likely will agree that past society abuse of antibiotics has led to MRSA being far more resistant to treatment, when I remember for a small while people slightly panicking over what was causing MRSA to become stronger.
In that case, however, there is little to politically lose from agreeing to such a thing, whereas the earlier case would make rampant political waves & demolish whoever is profiting from the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
I wish I could say I was shocked, but nothing short of first contact from another planet would do such a thing, nowadays :\
The problem with AIDS is that it’s linking a real problem(destruction of the immune system) to a single cause(HIV) when there are multiple means to that end. If you want to assume that HIV is the sole cause of massive immodestruction disorder(my term, AFAIK), then the stark contrast in epidemics between the third and first worlds is most likely due to an inability on the part of the pet virus to infect the very healthy and thus it can only cause MIDD in individuals with long-term immunocompromisation.
I’m still curious if anyone here has anything to say about the last link I posted. The person who countered the arguments made by Farber seemed to do a pretty good job. And I have to be honest, Farber seemed to jump around a lot and wasn’t very coherent in spots.
No one wants to handle the link I presented?
Ah ok, makes sense now(part after what you put in bold). Anyways, HIV does cause AIDS…but like you said, if we simply look at AIDS, then there could indeed be multiple causes since it’s just symptoms.
As for nobody disputing if HIV is real, i could’ve sworn i saw someone in this thread do just that. If not, then alright, that’s good.
You’ll need to explain to me what you mean by “random” when saying the epidemic in Africa is random cus from the info i’ve seen, the occurrence of AIDS over there seems to go hand-in-hand with where the rate of rape crime is high.
I’m inclined to believe the reply to Farber that you posted. It seems extraordinary thorough in pointing out the errors in his analysis, and is almost entirely focused on refuting his arguments instead of ad-hominems.
Thanks for that link, it restores some of my faith in modern medical science.
The great tragedy about AIDS is a legacy from the '70s. Back then there was a creeping belief in the pharmaceutical world about cancer being of viral origin: untold millions and great talents were squandered pursuing what turned out to be a dead end. Pharmaceutical companies believed that if they could pinpoint the various virus causing various types of cancers they could engineer specific antiviral drugs that would defeat many types of cancer. Almost forty years later the dubious HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccine is all there is to show in return. We wasted a full decade of research.
When AIDS hit the headlines back in the early '80s the viral theory of cancer was in retreat but still not quite beaten so the AIDS/HIV theory immediately caught on: everybody understood it wasn’t the best theory, but it was the best theory available at the time. Ever since untold millions and great talents have made some progresses but not as many as we were promised back at the end of the '80s. We may not have entered a dead end but we also may be facing an enemy we do not understand fully. The correlation between HIV and AIDS is not fully understood: being a relatively “lazy” virus (it doesn’t reproduce as fast as others, much more common and much less lethal viruses and it’s usually present in quite low concentrations) we’ve always had problems understanding how it could cripple an immune system so completely. We’ve also had problem understanding why some people carrying HIV do not develop symptoms and others do. The current ideas are three: first, HIV attacks the immune system in a way that still baffles our best minds and that doesn’t affect some people as badly as others. Second, HIV is a “second wave” attacker, waiting the moment the body is weakened by another factor (nitrite sexual stimulants, diphtheria, recreational drug abuse etc) to move in for the kill. Third, HIV simply hop on for a “free ride” on an already immunosupressed person and has nothing to do with AIDS. Given the advances in virology I would be inclined to say that number two is the best theory, though some of its mechanisms of attack are still unclear. The fact that we haven’t been able to defeat it means nothing: just look at the common cold. For all aour advances we still haven’t beat the little buggers responsible!
Correcting Gallo: Rethinking AIDS responds to Harper’s “out of control” critics
Perth Group Commentary on the Rethinking AIDS Response to the Gallo Et al. Criticism of Celia Farber in Harpers (PDF)
http://rethinkingaids.com/GalloRebuttal/Farber-Gallo-12.html
I haven’t read all of the entire RA responses but this one didn’t even address the issue presented.
That was in response to Gallo’s statement “HIV tests are widely available across Africa.”
Which is why the section is labeled “Item #12: Are HIV Tests Widely Used in Africa?”
The implication is that if certain countries have optional testing it is due to availability and cost issues.
Then they should have said that. Either way, since they didn’t, it leads me to believe that they pulled that statement out of their ass.
What does this even have to do with cost?
They merely referenced two African countries AIDS testing policies, showing that the testing is optional. I agree it is not at first clear but I can see now that is what they are implying.
Regardless I am suspect of AIDs testing be cheap and easily available in the context of the African economies ability to provide for it.
Just to be balanced:
[link=“http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html”]http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html[/link]
[link=“http://www.poz.com/articles/451_2788.shtml”]http://www.poz.com/articles/451_2788.shtml[/link]
Also, HIV fulfills Koch’s [link=“http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/How+HIV+Causes+AIDS/HIVcausesAIDS.htm”]postulates[/link] as the cause of AIDs. Modern testing techniques have found that all persons with AIDS have HIV.
AIDs-denialists also fail to explain why antiretroviral drugs reduce the mortality of people with HIV.
But I’m always open to new ideas - this is interesting.
Agreed, and I was about to bring up the anti-retroviral drugs. Good job.
yeah. No offensive but i’m not signing on to this idea HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.The Evidence seems pretty strong to me.We have to be careful to not go too far into conspiracy thinking. No doubt though its different in african than in europe considering that the local virues and pathogens cause different symptoms.If what you say about the U.N. and it’s defining of AIDs in african then their may not be a crisis at all. that’s not entirely impossible.
To Poptech:
It’s quite true the HIV/AIDS transmission rates are always higher in the gay community, but I suspect, just as many, it’s due to a lack of regard for one’s self than the mere act of anal sex (as many heterosexuals partake in the same act) that is the significant vector here. How many of those gay men actually really care if they live tomorrow? How many live in poverty or near poverty? And so on. If you do a breakdown that way, I suspect you’ll find out there’s other things also killing gay men, but for the same basic premise that I hold: lack of interest in self-preservation. And this is a bisexual tranny telling you this. >:3
I don’t think living in poverty or near poverty would be it for gays since (if i recall correctly anyways, lol) gays(in the US anyways) tend to be upper middle class people and have generally good living standards. Also gotta take into account that especially in places where a lot of AIDS is goin around, women tend to get it at a higher rate. This is in line with the fact that…without trying to get too graphic…the person recieving “fluid” is at risk of getting AIDS, and women tend to be the ones that fit this description more often.