Does HIV cause AIDS?

**Samuel P** · January 2nd, 2010, 07:06 PM

I just watched this on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AidsHoax

It looks quite old, but it has only just been uploaded.

I'm pretty sure it's not true that "Everybody has been effected by AIDS."

Anyway, as I'm a little confused, is HIV the cause of AIDS?

Hope this is the right forum

Samuel ^_^

Related Discussions:

**skeptic** · January 3rd, 2010, 12:44 AM

Absolutely true that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The denial is a crackpot movement that has caused a lot of harm.

And no. Not everybody is affected by AIDs. AIDS is a virus disease, and you have to catch the virus to get the disease. To catch the virus, you need to get it directly into your blood.

This happens when addicts share needles without sterilising them first, so that traces of AIDS infected blood from one person is injected into the blood of a second person. It is also true that the virus concentrates in male semen. Thus, if during a sexual act, an infected man ejaculates infected semen into another person where blood vessels are ruptured, that virus infected semen can get into the blood. This is most likely to happen during anal sex, since that seriously unnatural act ruptures blood vessels, providing a route for the virus to get into blood. It happens less often when a man has vaginal sex with a woman, since there is less chance of ruptured blood vessels.

You cannot get AIDS from casual contact, since that does not inject the virus into your blood. Saliva has almost no virus, so kissing is not likely to transfer virus. And holding someone who is infected will not do it, unless there is blood to blood contact.

**Samuel P** · January 3rd, 2010, 06:25 AM

Thank you sceptic! I was aware of the fact that it cannot be transferred via casual contact, but thank you for expanding on the ways in which it can be caught.

**dnahotep** · July 21st, 2010, 09:50 AM

I just saw this documentary and I think it raises some serious questions regarding this subject.

www.houseofnumbers.com/

**dnahotep** · July 21st, 2010, 10:59 AM

If AIDS were a conventional viral disease...

1. Virus causes specific and contagious disease. It is present in every case of this disease, e.g. polio.
Over 26 infectious and non-infectious diseases, e.g. weight loss, cancer, dementia, are AIDS-defining, and many cases are AIDS virus-free. No evidence for contagiousness.

2. Short incubation periods, because infections are fast biological chain reactions (generation times: 8-24 hrs, multiplication rates: 100-1000-fold).
“HIV infections show signs of AIDS, [if at all],only within 5-10 years” (Durban Declaration, Nature, 2000). Yet, HIV replicates in 24 hrs.

3. Disease occurs, if high % of target cells is lost.
High % of T-cells lost in AIDS. But only 1 in 500 T-cells is infected.

4. Disease is self-limiting by immunity or is fatal within weeks.
AIDS is not self-limiting.

5. Viral epidemics increase and decline within months, forming bell-shaped curves.
AIDS drags on over 2 decades.“No end in sight” (Durban
Declaration).

6. Pathogenic viruses are horizontally transmitted. Transmission to newborns is likely fatal.
HIV is naturally transmitted perinatally (from mother to child) – the hallmark of harmless viruses and microbes.

7. Random in population.
AIDS highly non-random. In US & Europe close to 100% are male homosexuals, intravenous drug users and recipients of cytotoxic anti-HIV medications.

8. Preventable by vaccine.
No AIDS vaccine in sight. Yet, numerous virus vaccines have been developed since Ed Jenner’s pox vaccine in 1793.

Conclusion: AIDS is not a viral disease
AIDS fails all 8 predictions of viral disease or epidemic including Koch’s postulates.
Thus AIDS is not a viral disease or epidemic.

**dnahotep** · July 22nd, 2010, 04:01 PM

With regard to the charge that HIV is present in 100% of AIDS cases and that this proves HIV causes AIDS, here are five points that challenge this idea followed by some detailed information on each point.

1) HIV was not found in 100% of the original AIDS cases - less than half tested positive for markers used to indicate HIV infection.

2) Since HIV tests cannot identify or quantify the presence of HIV itself, it is not known how many people with AIDS actually have HIV.

3) Public health agency records show thousands of cases of "HIV negative AIDS," and that AIDS diseases commonly occur in people not diagnosed HIV positive.

4) The definition for AIDS requires positive HIV status (by test or assumption) which forces a 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS - a person with AIDS diseases cannot be put in the AIDS category unless s/he meets the "entry requirement" of testing HIV positive.

5) Correlation does not prove causation, just as mere presence at the scene of a crime does not prove criminal behavior.

Here are the details:

1) HIV "co-discoverer" Robert Gallo's original 1984 paper, the one commonly believed to establish HIV as the cause of AIDS, in fact showed that he found positive antibody test response in 88% of AIDS patients, not 100%, and that he found what he characterized as HIV in less than half the AIDS patients he studied.

While this is old news, it's important. According to normal, ethical rules of science, in order to claim a microbe causes a disease, that microbe must be found in 100% of the cases of that disease. Gallo found indirect evidence that he characterized as HIV in only a small portion of AIDS victims. We can't say "Gallo found HIV" because he was not actually able to isolate the virus from any of his AIDS patients. Gallo's inability to find the alleged cause of AIDS in people with AIDS is what led him to appropriate a cell culture supposedly containing HIV sent to his lab by Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasture Institute in France. This swiped cell culture, rather than the true discovery of a new virus, was the basis of the claim made at the 1984 press conference by the US Department of Health and Human Services that "the probable cause of AIDS has been found."

The same day as the press conference, Gallo used proteins he found in Montagnier's culture to file a patent application for the first HIV antibody test. A few weeks later, Gallo's discovery announcement and patent filing became the focus of an international dispute settled by the highest ranking officials in the US and French governments. The agreement they reached gave Gallo and Montagnier credit as co- discoverers. This historical perspective is important because Montagnier later admitted that he was never able to produce a purified sample of HIV. This means that the proteins used to test for HIV antibody response are not specific or unique to HIV.

2) HIV tests do not detect or quantify actual HIV, and are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for diagnosing actual infection with HIV. What we call HIV tests only register antibody response to non-specific proteins or find non-specific genetic material associated with HIV.

HIV tests have never been validated against the direct finding of HIV in any person categorized as HIV positive or diagnosed with AIDS. Instead, the various tests are confirmed against each other. All the HIV tests - whether they use blood, urine, or saliva - use the proteins from Montagnier's unpurified culture as markers for HIV.

Contrary to popular belief, "viral load" tests don't detect or measure actual virus either. As the literature accompanying the Roche Amplicor Viral Load test states, it "is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm the presence of HIV infection."

In summary, it is not possible to claim that HIV is present in 100% (or any percent) of AIDS cases as it is not known how many people with AIDS actually have HIV. You may want to alert the people involved in your debate that they can earn a quick $10,000 by providing a published paper evidencing isolation of HIV to journalist Jon Rappoport. Details on how to collect the dough can be found at his web site at www.nomorefakenews.com

3) AIDS happens without HIV: Prior to 1994, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gathered data on some 4,000 cases of "HIV negative AIDS" in the US; AIDS defining illnesses appeared in the medical literature prior to the advent of HIV; the illnesses designated as AIDS occur in people who are not HIV positive; all AIDS diseases have well established causes that have nothing to do with HIV.

4) Since the 28 AIDS-defining illnesses are only defined as AIDS when they happen to people who test HIV positive, it's clear why there would be a 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS. These diseases can only be called AIDS when they happen to someone labeled HIV positive even though they can and do occur in people considered HIV negative. This circular logic renders the argument "HIV causes AIDS because it's present in 100% of AIDS cases" meaningless. The 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS is an artifact of the definition of AIDS. Here is one example you may wish to use for your debate: Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious health threat to impoverished people in the US and to the populations of many developing countries. Worldwide, TB takes millions of lives every year. Although TB is caused by mycobacteria tuberculosis and not by HIV, since 1987, people with TB who also test positive on an "HIV test" receive a diagnosis of AIDS. As you may know, TB existed prior to its inclusion as an AIDS-defining illness in 1987 and was described in the medical literature in the early 1900s.

To further clarify the point of the circular definition, take a look at cervical cancer and candida. These AIDS-defining conditions are commonly found among people in non-AIDS risk groups who do not "have HIV." Despite the fact that over 90% of women with cervical cancer are not HIV positive, cervical cancer is called AIDS in women who do test HIV positive. Although 30% of all Americans are thought to suffer from chronic candida (John Hightower, MD "The Yeast Connection") and candida is caused by a bacterial imbalance, not HIV, candida is called AIDS in a person who tests HIV positive.

5) For the sake of discussion, let's assume that positive reactions on the non-specific HIV tests indicate the presence of HIV and that all AIDS diseases occur only in people who test positive. These finding alone would not be sufficient to establish HIV as the cause of AIDS. Correlation alone does not prove causation, just as being present at the scene of a crime does not prove criminal behavior. Without proper scientific evidence that HIV can and does cause the conditions known as AIDS, we cannot know if HIV is anything more than "a witness" to AIDS. Here's an example borrowed from a science class of how we shouldn't confound correlation with causation: Technicians note that during every electric power failure, birds and other small animals are sitting on power lines, but from this observation alone they could not reasonably conclude that birds and small animals are responsible for the power failures. In other words, presence isn't enough to prove causation.

**Paleoichneum** · July 22nd, 2010, 04:07 PM

I seed lots of text with lots of specific claims...

But I see no verifiable references as to where the information is coming from and thus no way to double check the assertions.....

**i_feel_tiredsleepy** · July 22nd, 2010, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by skeptic

This happens when addicts share needles without sterilising them first, so that traces of AIDS infected blood from one person is injected into the blood of a second person. It is also true that the virus concentrates in male semen. Thus, if during a sexual act, an infected man ejaculates infected semen into another person where blood vessels are ruptured, that virus infected semen can get into the blood. This is most likely to happen during anal sex, since that seriously unnatural act ruptures blood vessels, providing a route for the virus to get into blood. It happens less often when a man has vaginal sex with a woman, since there is less chance of ruptured blood vessels.

This is slightly inaccurate, the primary infection can occur through absorption of virus particles into mucosal membranes. Also, minor tissue damage is common in vaginal intercourse as well. For an indication of infection rate: male to female transmission through vaginal intercourse is 0.8%, female to male through vaginal intercourse is 0.4%, and receptive anal intercourse is 1.7%. Which means effectively that 1/100 women will be infected from sex with an infected man through vaginal sex, and 2/100 would be infected in cases of unprotected anal sex. It does no service to anyone to overhype the less likely transmission from vaginal sex, it creates a false sense of security for heterosexual women. Moreover, it also promotes the misconception that anal sex is the primary reason why HIV is more prevalent in homosexual communities, which the infection rate actually suggests doesn't play that much of a part. The real issue is cultural, related to sexual promiscuity and a lack of use of protection, not so much to the sexual act itself.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...73309909700210

Vaginal fluids and saliva also contain low levels of HIV particles, and infection through the urethra of males is rare but does occur. A person on retroviral drugs will contain significantly lower viral loads. No known infection through saliva has been identified, but it is theoretically possible if someone has bleeding gums.

Also, avoid the use of "unnatural" it implies teleological assumptions. You might as well preface eating cereal with a spoon as a "seriously unnatural act."

The conspiracy theory junk from the other post doesn't really deserve attention.

**i_feel_tiredsleepy** · July 23rd, 2010, 01:55 AM