AIDS myth
Plastic PPRuNer
I stopped looking at this thread for a few days because I found it too depressing, perhaps, as gingernut suggests, I was suffering a sense-of-humour failure. I was also a bit ashamed of losing my temper with him, for which I'm sorry. Having seen so much AIDS and living in a country where our president's incredulity has caused and is causing so many avoidable deaths tends to make one a bit passionate.
"The disease exists. The question is: What's causing it? That's the crux of the matter."
This is what so exercised the minds of the public health workers in the early '80's when so many people suddenly began suffering from (and expiring from) opportunistic infections secondary to failure of their cellular immune systems. As I tried to explain, because of the devastating implications, many other causes apart from a transmissible agent were explored before this was accepted.
The epidemiology of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome points remorselessly towards a transmissible agent. The victims come from all countries and all different walks of life, they eat different foods, they live in different climates, the degree of environmental pollution around them varies wildly, they are well-fed or malnourished. The one common factor they all have is that they have come into intimate contact, sexually or otherwise, with body fluids from someone who already has, or subsequently goes on to develop this syndrome. These are facts that it is impossible to deny.
So logical deduction would suggest that whatever is causing this illness is a transmissible agent. And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then the chances are good that it IS a duck.
No other hypothesis, be it environmental toxins, food, soil, genetics, Coca-Cola or antibiotics even begins to fit the epidemiology as well as a transmissible agent. Thus most reasonable people would accept that the most likely cause IS a transmissible agent.
Very roughly, transmissible agents can be divided into bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa. Bacteria, fungi and protozoa are easy to find if you know where to look for them and the obvious place to look here would seem to be in body fluids. Despite intensive searches, no such bacterium, fungus or protozoan has been found.
That leaves viruses. So do we know of any viruses that selectively infect white blood cells, as the hepatitis virus infects liver cells? Yes we do, and quite a few. Among others, Mononucleosis (kissing disease, glandular fever)is caused by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)[discovered in 1964], which infects B cells (B-lymphocytes), producing a reactive lymphocytosis and the atypical T cells (T-lymphocytes).
To cut a long story short, eventually, by dint of much searching, a virus WAS identified that was only found in individuals suffering from this mysterious immunodeficiency. Cell-free filtrates from these people were able to infect and kill T-cell cultures in the lab. Cell-free filtrates from these people inadvertently given to previously healthy haemophiliacs by Factor VIII injections resulted in them developing the same immunodeficiency syndrome.
Thus it would seem reasonable to suppose that by killing their T-cells this virus was responsible for the immunodeficiency. By extension, infection with this virus is responsible for human immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and it would therefore seem reasonable to call this variant retrovirus the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
We now have a good explanation as to why people develop these severe immunodeficiency symptoms. OK, some folk don't believe that the virus exists or that if it does, that it is merely a harmless coincidental. Indeed, the thousands of electron-microscope photos from labs all over the world COULD have been faked, but it does sound just a little improbable. Again, presnce of the virus COULD be just a coincidence, but it's a very large coincidence indeed, so one has to ask oneself just how likely it is.
The thing is, that if you say, "OK, it isn't a virus, so what is it then?", it isn't good enough to say, "Uh, I dunno, but I'm sure it isn't a virus!". The evidence that HIV exists, is real and causes AIDS is so overwhelming that in order to discard it you need pretty conclusive evidence that it IS actually caused by whatever else you say it is. As is said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs" and such proofs (or even half-way believable alternative explanations) are sadly lacking.
An earlier poster very reasonably asked, "Why then, do there seem to be such a number of seemingly reputable scientists who disagree?". Part of the answer is that the numbers are actually quite small and generally their reputability does not survive close scrutiny. Ms. Culshaw is certainly extremely attractive, but her modest CV - http://math.uttyl.edu/rculshaw/vitae.htm - hardly inspires confidence in her ability to speak authoritatively on the matter. Her principal published paper - http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/culshaw.pdf - makes some bold excursions into immunology/virology (which as a mathematician, is not her field), but overall, merely re-makes the acknowledged point that HIV has a complex and varying relation to it's host that is difficult to model satisfactorily. And stating that she has been involved in HIV research for ten years is a little invidious when she only received her mathematics B.Sc. in 1996.
As to others, it's hard to know why they maintain their positions as the evidence against them mounts year by year. Certainly people like Rasnick (our president's AIDS guru) and Duesberg now make more money from speaking than they ever did in their relatively undistinguished scientific careers. Several, like Root-Bernstein, have now recanted - he now says, "The denialists make claims that are clearly inconsistent with existing studies. When I check the existing studies, I don’t agree with the interpretation of the data, or, worse, I can’t find the studies [at all]."
But there will always be people who believe bizarre things, maintaining their beliefs in the face of all evidence and against all odds.
And finally, as regards the virgin cure myth, as good a short summary as any is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and...will_cure_AIDS - "Virgin cleansing is a myth that has occurred since at least the sixteenth century, when Europeans believed that they could rid themselves of a sexually transmitted disease by transferring it to a virgin through sexual intercourse. Although the exact prevalence of this is unclear, it is believed to occur worldwide (Meel, 2003; Groce et al., 2004). Doing so does not cure the infected person, but it will expose the victim to HIV infection, potentially spreading the disease further. This myth has gained considerable notoriety as the perceived reason for certain recent sexual abuse and child molestation occurrences (Meel, 2003)".
Our (RSA) current epidemic of child/baby/toddler violations is a pretty nasty consequence of this. I've seen these injuries and they're quite horrific.
Well there you have it, and as Ripley says, "Believe it or not".
Mac
"The disease exists. The question is: What's causing it? That's the crux of the matter."
This is what so exercised the minds of the public health workers in the early '80's when so many people suddenly began suffering from (and expiring from) opportunistic infections secondary to failure of their cellular immune systems. As I tried to explain, because of the devastating implications, many other causes apart from a transmissible agent were explored before this was accepted.
The epidemiology of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome points remorselessly towards a transmissible agent. The victims come from all countries and all different walks of life, they eat different foods, they live in different climates, the degree of environmental pollution around them varies wildly, they are well-fed or malnourished. The one common factor they all have is that they have come into intimate contact, sexually or otherwise, with body fluids from someone who already has, or subsequently goes on to develop this syndrome. These are facts that it is impossible to deny.
So logical deduction would suggest that whatever is causing this illness is a transmissible agent. And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then the chances are good that it IS a duck.
No other hypothesis, be it environmental toxins, food, soil, genetics, Coca-Cola or antibiotics even begins to fit the epidemiology as well as a transmissible agent. Thus most reasonable people would accept that the most likely cause IS a transmissible agent.
Very roughly, transmissible agents can be divided into bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa. Bacteria, fungi and protozoa are easy to find if you know where to look for them and the obvious place to look here would seem to be in body fluids. Despite intensive searches, no such bacterium, fungus or protozoan has been found.
That leaves viruses. So do we know of any viruses that selectively infect white blood cells, as the hepatitis virus infects liver cells? Yes we do, and quite a few. Among others, Mononucleosis (kissing disease, glandular fever)is caused by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)[discovered in 1964], which infects B cells (B-lymphocytes), producing a reactive lymphocytosis and the atypical T cells (T-lymphocytes).
To cut a long story short, eventually, by dint of much searching, a virus WAS identified that was only found in individuals suffering from this mysterious immunodeficiency. Cell-free filtrates from these people were able to infect and kill T-cell cultures in the lab. Cell-free filtrates from these people inadvertently given to previously healthy haemophiliacs by Factor VIII injections resulted in them developing the same immunodeficiency syndrome.
Thus it would seem reasonable to suppose that by killing their T-cells this virus was responsible for the immunodeficiency. By extension, infection with this virus is responsible for human immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and it would therefore seem reasonable to call this variant retrovirus the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
We now have a good explanation as to why people develop these severe immunodeficiency symptoms. OK, some folk don't believe that the virus exists or that if it does, that it is merely a harmless coincidental. Indeed, the thousands of electron-microscope photos from labs all over the world COULD have been faked, but it does sound just a little improbable. Again, presnce of the virus COULD be just a coincidence, but it's a very large coincidence indeed, so one has to ask oneself just how likely it is.
The thing is, that if you say, "OK, it isn't a virus, so what is it then?", it isn't good enough to say, "Uh, I dunno, but I'm sure it isn't a virus!". The evidence that HIV exists, is real and causes AIDS is so overwhelming that in order to discard it you need pretty conclusive evidence that it IS actually caused by whatever else you say it is. As is said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs" and such proofs (or even half-way believable alternative explanations) are sadly lacking.
An earlier poster very reasonably asked, "Why then, do there seem to be such a number of seemingly reputable scientists who disagree?". Part of the answer is that the numbers are actually quite small and generally their reputability does not survive close scrutiny. Ms. Culshaw is certainly extremely attractive, but her modest CV - http://math.uttyl.edu/rculshaw/vitae.htm - hardly inspires confidence in her ability to speak authoritatively on the matter. Her principal published paper - http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/culshaw.pdf - makes some bold excursions into immunology/virology (which as a mathematician, is not her field), but overall, merely re-makes the acknowledged point that HIV has a complex and varying relation to it's host that is difficult to model satisfactorily. And stating that she has been involved in HIV research for ten years is a little invidious when she only received her mathematics B.Sc. in 1996.
As to others, it's hard to know why they maintain their positions as the evidence against them mounts year by year. Certainly people like Rasnick (our president's AIDS guru) and Duesberg now make more money from speaking than they ever did in their relatively undistinguished scientific careers. Several, like Root-Bernstein, have now recanted - he now says, "The denialists make claims that are clearly inconsistent with existing studies. When I check the existing studies, I don’t agree with the interpretation of the data, or, worse, I can’t find the studies [at all]."
But there will always be people who believe bizarre things, maintaining their beliefs in the face of all evidence and against all odds.
And finally, as regards the virgin cure myth, as good a short summary as any is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and...will_cure_AIDS - "Virgin cleansing is a myth that has occurred since at least the sixteenth century, when Europeans believed that they could rid themselves of a sexually transmitted disease by transferring it to a virgin through sexual intercourse. Although the exact prevalence of this is unclear, it is believed to occur worldwide (Meel, 2003; Groce et al., 2004). Doing so does not cure the infected person, but it will expose the victim to HIV infection, potentially spreading the disease further. This myth has gained considerable notoriety as the perceived reason for certain recent sexual abuse and child molestation occurrences (Meel, 2003)".
Our (RSA) current epidemic of child/baby/toddler violations is a pretty nasty consequence of this. I've seen these injuries and they're quite horrific.
Well there you have it, and as Ripley says, "Believe it or not".
Mac
Last edited by Mac the Knife; 21st Jan 2007 at 17:54.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raising the level of the discussion.
Indeed, the thousands of electron-microscope photos from labs all over the world COULD have been faked, but it does sound just a little improbable. Again, presnce of the virus COULD be just a coincidence, but it's a very large coincidence indeed, so one has to ask oneself just how likely it is.
Second, I'm not a conspiracy nut (and I'm not saying that's what you suggested) so I don't necessarily believe that results were FAKED. I'm pretty cynical (and skeptical) but I'm not that bad yet.
However, I do think there is sloppy science and good science.
Once again, I have no position on this issue except that I do think pharmaceutical companies are driven more by profit than any humanitarian motivation--there's that cynicism again.
When you made the list of possible transmissible agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa) you didn't mention the drug itself.
Isn't it possible that these patients are, in fact, infected with HIV and they are, in fact, sick, BUT the drug is making them SICKER?
That's my question.
Is it such a stretch of the imagination to think that the old cliche' has come true in the AIDS battle: The cure is worse than the disease!
Thanks in advance for another sober response.
Plastic PPRuNer
The vast majority of people dying from AIDS are not receiving, nor have they ever received antiretroviral medication.
See the UNAIDS Report for 2006 on the epidemic - http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/20...rt/default.asp
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the world's pharmaceutical companies are deliberately marketing drugs to shorten the lives of AIDS sufferers, they are bought and distributed by governmental health organisations.
Many of these health organisations are not very bright or effective, but that they should not have remarked on the fact that patients given antiretrovirals died sooner than those who did not, rather strains credibility. The other possibility, that these same heath organisations are in league with their own governments to kill a significant portion of their population is even less likely.
That UNAIDS, the World Health Organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, The Red Cross etc. are also, in their entirety, dupes or paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry, strains credulity a little too far.
Many of the population in the worst affected countries are not very sophisticated, but they are not entirely stupid. Their demands for access to antiretrovirals and the large black-market for ARVs is fuelled by their empirical observations that ARVs make people with AIDS live longer and feel better.
Many ARVs have significant side effects, but I can assure you from personal experience that patients are more than willing to put up with them in exchange for fewer and milder opportunistic infections and a greater feeling of wellbeing.
ARVs do not cure AIDS (or HIV infection), but they make the disease a great deal more bearable.
Private doctors also treat AIDS patients and prescribe ARVs to patients who can afford them. They would not do so if they saw that their patients lives were shortened or their quality of life decreased. These patients are not stupid either, and would not long continue taking a drug if they could not see and feel the benefits. Admittedly this is anecdotal, but I have two friends who have been on ARVs for 12 and 10 years respectively - both lead essentially normal lives.
I cannot guess at the motives of people who disseminate such untruths, but they are either misinformed or malicious.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite so sober this time.
<<Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the world's pharmaceutical companies are deliberately marketing drugs to shorten the lives of AIDS sufferers, they are bought and distributed by governmental health organisations.>>
--Deliberately shortening lives?
<<...the World Health Organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, The Red Cross etc. are also, in their entirety, dupes or paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry...>>
--Dupes or paid agents?
Like I said, I'm no conspiracy nut so I'm not sure where all this cloak and dagger stuff comes from.
I made two assertions:
1) Pharmaceutical companies are profit-driven.
2) There's sloppy science and there's good science.
I mean, after all, even blood letting worked some of the time.
And on that note, I think I'm just about finished with this topic.
--Deliberately shortening lives?
<<...the World Health Organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, The Red Cross etc. are also, in their entirety, dupes or paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry...>>
--Dupes or paid agents?
Like I said, I'm no conspiracy nut so I'm not sure where all this cloak and dagger stuff comes from.
I made two assertions:
1) Pharmaceutical companies are profit-driven.
2) There's sloppy science and there's good science.
I mean, after all, even blood letting worked some of the time.
And on that note, I think I'm just about finished with this topic.
