AIDS - a man made disease

Beruthiel

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/nov/152001.htm

a friend sent me the above website today - it's a long read - could it possibly be true, was it man made??
what do you think?

Baz_

not this ****e again... yawn

TwoShedsJackson

It's a paranoid rant by a black race supremacist.

OhMyGod

Hello,

Your article says that aids comes from a laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland, USA.

That is exactly where they say Anthrax is coming from also.

Well, according to cnn.com
http://cnn.com/2002/US/01/21/anthrax.probe/index.html

Beruthiel

ok - fair enough! first time I saw it and am new to the boards so didn't realise it had been discussed already!

OhMyGod

there you go, the laboratory which elaborate Anthrax. (and why not other ****e as u say

http://www.usamriid.army.mil/

amp

Ah yet more proof of the illumanti's grip on the worlds bio-chemical industries.

Victor

I think tha the author is over reacting. I very strongly doubt (but to honest am not 100% certain, but then who can) that man had no part in the creation of the virus. There is substantially evidence that man exacerbated the spread of the virus. AIDS / HIV kills mostly poor people, not any other particular group.

Red Moose

Hmmm. I saw a show on Discovery channel a while (so yeah of course it's true ) that many species have an immunodeficiency virus. They took an example of some tiger species that virtually all are infected with the Tiger Immunodeficiency Virus or whatever, but it barely affects them at all, if ever.

So if you consider that maybe loads of species have an equivalent virus, maybe it's just something like a screw up due to the fact that all animals are defined by DNA. Without that it wouldn't work. Also, you'll note that strict religious practices regarding promiscuity have prevailed throughout history for whatever reason. Maybe that downfall has led to a big upsurge in the spread.

Interesting take though. It's one conspiracy theory I hadn't read before, and plus, he's got lots of numbers and dates that sound good.

MiCr0

ID viruses are present in just about every animal on the planet
aids came from simian ID.

So where did HIV come from? Did HIV come from an SIV?

It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Certain simian immunodeficiency viruses bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.

For example, HIV-2 corresponds to a simian immunodeficiency virus found in the sooty mangabey monkey (SIVsm), sometimes known as the green monkey, which is indigenous to western Africa.

The more virulent strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until very recently more difficult to place. Until 1999 the closest counterpart that had been identified was the simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus that was known to infect chimpanzees (SIVcpz), but this virus had significant differences between it and HIV.

from http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

What is AVERT?

AVERT is a leading UK AIDS Education and Medical Research charity. We are responsible for a wide range of education and medical research work with the overall aim of:

• preventing people from becoming infected with HIV,
• improving the quality of life of those already infected,
• through medical research working to develop a cure for AIDS.

i know people who have studied it in depth to a genetic level and all in that link is sullbhit (typo? )

look, listen, learn!

//david

chernobyl

Was AIDs started via ..hmm alterative sex of a furry nature.

I doubt some lab created it, not without having a vaccine to cash in on an accidental outbreak.

Sand

Ive heard (from reputable drinkers:) ) that AIDs was passed from monkey to man, not by some deviancy as implied above :eek: , but rather that monkey meat is something of a delicacy for certain african cultures. Could be a load of balls, but perhaps easier on the mind than a case of monkey love:D

Shinji

Given that AIDS is only an STD in certain circumstances because of bodily fluid exchange (unlike most other STDs which are specifically spread by sexual contact) it seems pretty unlikely that it was started by a case of monkey loving

It's entirely true that some African cultures eat chimp meat, and that's probably where it came from.

Red Moose

Ah, chilled monkey-brain....now where's the snake-surprise??

There's a similar origin to CJD, which in some tribe in Africa the wife smears the brain of her dead husband on her (after he's dead of course). Prions all over the place of course......

HIV has prob been around for millenia - maybe because it's got a long period of time (10-15 years in many cases) before actual AIDS is diagnosed, and that people used to die in their 30-40s even in the 19th century, and that was a normal age to die at, that it never got noticed because basically they die of say, a pneumonia, in the mid-30s but heck so did everyone because antibiotics weren't exactly primo healthcare in 1820.

PostmanPat

Another theory is that the AIDS virus came from the variation polio vaccine batch used in Africa and in parts of America. It was derived from the kidneys of the Green monkey which were diseased. The pharmasutical company obviously denies responcibility as they would be responcible for the deaths of millions of people. It's a plausible explaination if the regions of the first outbreaks are examined.

scipio_major

There's a similar origin to CJD, which in some tribe in Africa the wife smears the brain of her dead husband on her (after he's dead of course). Prions all over the place of course......

As far as I know the first incidence of CJD in humans was observed amougst the canibal tribes of New Guinea (That place north of Austrailia with New Ireland of it's coast). They got it from eating the brain stem of enemies killed according to New Scientist. As for when I'd assume that it was sometime in the first half of the 20th century.

Fade to Credits
Scipio_major

Biffa Bacon

HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS. If HIV does in fact cause AIDS, it behaves totally unlike any virus ever known to man. It is more likely that AIDS is caused by high-risk behaviour such as drug-taking and homosexuality. AIDS in Africa is simply a misdiagnosis of existing illnesses.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS. If HIV does in fact cause AIDS, it behaves totally unlike any virus ever known to man. It is more likely that AIDS is caused by high-risk behaviour such as drug-taking and homosexuality. AIDS in Africa is simply a misdiagnosis of existing illnesses.

HIV is the pre-cursor to AIDS, as far as I know. it lowers your immune-system to such a low state that when you get infected by one of up to 25 different "opportunist" viruses (eg. the common cold), you become AIDS category because your body cannot fight it effectively

You appear to have a very closed view of things if you think that drug-taking and homosexuality are the sole causes.

Martyr

I don't know if its a man made disease, I believe it is..
Because I know that AIDS was discussed in a book about Chemical and Biological Warfare published in 1969.
Considering that most of the western world only became aware of the Virus in the early 1980's, you have to question its origin rather than make ridiculous statements such as Castor Troy.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS. If HIV does in fact cause AIDS, it behaves totally unlike any virus ever known to man. It is more likely that AIDS is caused by high-risk behaviour such as drug-taking and homosexuality. AIDS in Africa is simply a misdiagnosis of existing illnesses.

As far as I know, in most medical circles, this argument holds about as much water as the other two classics :

1) It has never been proven that smoking causes cancer
2) It has never been proven that smoking is addictive.

Either you're trolling, or you're believing very carefully selected medical articles which conclude that we cannot be 100% certain.

No case of AIDS has ever been found in the absence of HIV. HIV has been found in the absence of AIDS. No other vector or combination of vectors has been identified which fits the data to any appreciable degree.

Therefore, with the statistical numbers available, HIV is at the very least a prerequisite for AIDS, if not the cause itself. While this may not be 100% proven in a medical sense, the probabilities are so high that it is a basically accepted medical "fact".

Originally posted by Average Joe
I know that AIDS was discussed in a book about Chemical and Biological Warfare published in 1969

Was it? I've heard this before, but I thought that all these discussions were looking at immuno-deficiency as a condition due to its prevalence in nature in general, and were speculating about the possible use of such a disease as a form of warfare?

Take a counter-example : scientists have theorised about "perpetual motion machines" for centuries. Does that mean that if one is created that we can say "its been around for hundreds of years - even Da Vinci discussed them" ? I dont think so.

The most plausible possibility I've heard which supplies the necessary vectors for the dispersal of the condition is the polio vaccine PostmanPat mentioned.

Hmmm - maybe Occy has some useful thoughts on the matter.

jc

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Average Joe
I don't know if its a man made disease, I believe it is..
Because I know that AIDS was discussed in a book about Chemical and Biological Warfare published in 1969.
Considering that most of the western world only became aware of the Virus in the early 1980's, you have to question its origin rather than make ridiculous statements such as Castor Troy.

The earliest known case of what is now known as AIDS was diagnosed in a sailor in Portsmouth in 1958. What has my statement about what a load of utter tripe that 'article' is got to do with anything?

As for it being ridiculous, if you regard statements such as

What this writer wants to add is that AIDS represents the most potent medical weapon in the armory of Europeans to annihilate, decimate and castrate Afrikan, Hispanic and Asian peoples under the rubric of European supremacy.

Why and how was AIDS created The AIDS virus was created 'as a political/ethnic weapon to be used mainly against Blacks2- and the United States controlled World Commission 'decreed' that 2.7 billion non-white people must be eliminated from this planet by the year 2000.3

to not be an example of moronic racist rhetoric, then what is?

Biffa Bacon

Check out http://www.virusmyth.net, it's a real eye-opener.

GoneShootin

how it all happened :

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Check out http://www.virusmyth.net, it's a real eye-opener.

Rampant paranoia

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

A growing group of bio-medical scientists claim the cause of AIDS is still unknown. These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless.

HIV itself is not lethal. It does not kill you.

HIV lowers your immune system to the point where it cannot repel contagion. Thus you are then considered to be AIDS "category". AIDS itself is not a virus, its a classification of how weak your immune system is, and I don't think a lot of people realise that.

AIDS doesn't kill the patient. It's the one of 25 "opportunist" viruses that does that when your imune system is so weak.

Show me ONE example where AIDS has been found in the abscence of HIV??

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lemming

Show me ONE example where AIDS has been found in the abscence of HIV??

From [url]www.virusmyth.net:[/url]
A second set of criticisms of the HIV hypothesis concerns the clinical definition of AIDS. This definition involves a list created by the CDC in 1987 of about 25 conventional diseases; if any one of these is diagnosed, and antibodies against HIV can be found in the same patient, a diagnosis of AIDS is made. The list includes not only Kaposi's sarcoma and P. carinii pneumonia, but also tuberculosis, cytomegalovirus, herpes, diarrhea, candidiasis, lymphoma, dementia, and many other diseases. If any of these very different diseases is found alone, it is likely to be diagnosed under its classical name. If the same conditions is found alongside antibodies against HIV, it is called AIDS. The correlation between AIDS and HIV is thus an artifact of the definition itself.

...and...

A critical question about the role of HIV is how it is associated with the various AIDS diseases. One widespread impression holds that many of the AIDS diseases were extremely rare before 1980, and only began reappearing with the presumed introduction of HIV. In reality, not only have all 25 of these AIDS conditions existed for decades at a low level in the population, but HIV-free instances of the same diseases are still being diagnosed today. These diseases are actually increasing in parallel with their HIV-associated counterparts. A letter by CDC researchers in the January 20 issue of "The Lancet" reports the existence of male homosexuals with Kaposi's sarcoma but without HIV. Robert Root-Bernstein, MacArthur fellow and associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University, also published a paper in "The Lancet", of April 25, in which he reviewed the existing literature on the incidence of Kaposi's prior to AIDS. Since the first recognition of this condition in 1872, a number of cases have been reported each year in the United States and Europe. Many of these were in people under 50 years of age, or even in children-not just in older men, as originally thought. A number of these cases were fatal. Some cases were associated with blood transfusions or with pneumonia, although many were apparently not connected with any other conditions. Root-Bernstein concluded that during the 1970's approximately 100 U. S. cases of Kaposi's per year could have been diagnosed as AIDS. However, Kaposi's sarcoma was not a disease reportable to medical officials before AIDS, and these cases were therefore not recognized. Kaposi's was only noticed once it was found clustered in young homosexual men in 1980-81.

A similar situation has existed for P. carinii pneumonia. First recognized in 1911, these conditions may affect a surprisingly large percentage of the population; a 1973 study of Europeans found that between 1 and 10 percent of the population had postmortem evidence of this pneumonia. Often P. carinii pneumonia has been associated with hemophilia, tuberculosis, cytomegalovirus infections, venereal diseases, and malnutrition. Patients receiving transplants, heavy antibiotic therapy, or chemotherapy against cancer have also high rates of this condition. Most cases have been associated with malnutrition rather than with underlying infectious diseases. Before the 1980's, this disease was usually diagnosed only by autopsy; this, combined with the availability of drugs to treat P. carinii pneumonia in the 1970's, caused low reporting of this not uncommon disease. P. carinii pneumonia had also probably been previously misdiagnosed as other types of pneumonia. Easier diagnosis and clustering of the disease among active homosexuals, played a large part in focusing renewed attention on this condition with the beginning of AIDS.

Root-Bernstein has collected similar data on cryptococcocsis, cytomegalovirus disease, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy prior to the AIDS epidemic.

ykt0di9url7bc3

i heard that AIDS was developed to stop promiscurity

interesting article....shame that there is a lot of circumstance and personal fealings in it........

but one thing i know.....AIDS IS NOT BEING TACKLED BY WESTERN GOVERNMENTS AS THEY WOULD ATTACK COUNTRIES TAKING OIL SUPPLIES!!!!!

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

From [url]www.virusmyth.net:[/url]
A second set of criticisms of the HIV hypothesis concerns the clinical definition of AIDS. This definition involves a list created by the CDC in 1987 of about 25 conventional diseases; if any one of these is diagnosed, and antibodies against HIV can be found in the same patient, a diagnosis of AIDS is made. The list includes not only Kaposi's sarcoma and P. carinii pneumonia, but also tuberculosis, cytomegalovirus, herpes, diarrhea, candidiasis, lymphoma, dementia, and many other diseases. If any of these very different diseases is found alone, it is likely to be diagnosed under its classical name. If the same conditions is found alongside antibodies against HIV, it is called AIDS. The correlation between AIDS and HIV is thus an artifact of the definition itself.

Hole number 1:
As stated above, if you have HIV antibodies in your blood works, and you are found to have one of the above listed virii, you are Aids category. I should like to point out that all of the above mentioned virii ARE members of the listed 25 opportunist virii that I spoke of before

Lemming

Hole Number 2:
Use of the words "transplant" and "blood transfusions". I don't think I need to elaborate there.

Hole Number 3:
More mention of listed "opportunist virii" such as pneumonia. I'll say no more

Lemming

Just an observational question more than anything

Why do you believe (and take seriously) a website that has such a fundementally incorrect statement on its front page:

A growing group of bio-medical scientists claim the cause of AIDS is still unknown. These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless.

As I said before, HIV in itself is not lethal.

I also find the use of the word "heretics" a rather dubious and sensationalist word to use in this context.

Furthermore, I would like to know "who" this 'growing' group of bio-medical scientists are, and how large their numbers are.

I would also like to know why they consider the HIV and AIDS phenominon as "harmless". Would they like to have it themselves? No?? Why not? It's obviously harmless - they said so.

seamus

That article is a load of toss and should have no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. The points made at the start about it not being venereal, condoms not protecting from it, is bull. While it can be reasonably argued that direct links between unprotected sex with HIV carriers and infection cannot be made, the science of statistics gives us proof the only way it can - through probability.
'Annihilation of non-European population'. OMG. Bullied in school were we? These kind of claims are anger misdirected, that's all. I've read similar arguments with 'American' in place of 'European' and 'Homosexual' in place of 'Afrikan'.

It also mentions some experiments at a place called 'Tuskegee'. OK, some experiments probably did go on there, but I see nowhere in the article that a link between them and HIV. I see an apology for people who died in those experiments, but again, no emntion of HIV. That's just crafty writing...read it again...the apology is irrelevantly placed

As for the rate of spread of HIV - he's using figures based on western values. In impoverished Africa, protected sex in underheard of, gang rape is epidemic, and men may sometimes have many wives, whether at the same time, or because of concurrent wives dying in childbirth. I'm not giving a solid fact reason as to why, but it's certainly more plausible than it being done maliciously.

Not many HIV cases known of before the 70's? Well, uh maybe because medical science in the 50's was way behind what it was in the 70's even, never mind today. Many diseases and disorders were unknown until 20 years ago, and many are still being discovered as we speak. It was far more common for people to die of 'causes unknown' back then, and they were less inclined to investigate further.

I do accept though that it didn't just happen by chance. Something had to set it off, after all it had been dormant/not infectious for millions of years. Perhaps it was a mutated strain of the polio virus or the smallpox virus defending its species from the impending annihilation, and hence the seemingly exact coinciding of the events.

Just my 2c

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lemming
Hole number 1:
As stated above, if you have HIV antibodies in your blood works, and you are found to have one of the above listed virii, you are Aids category. I should like to point out that all of the above mentioned virii ARE members of the listed 25 opportunist virii that I spoke of before

i.e. by definition, HIV causes AIDS. This does not mean that HIV does in fact cause AIDS.

Hole Number 2:
Use of the words "transplant" and "blood transfusions". I don't think I need to elaborate there.

Hole Number 3:
More mention of listed "opportunist virii" such as pneumonia. I'll say no more

Please do. I don't follow your points.

Why do you believe (and take seriously) a website that has such a fundementally incorrect statement on its front page:


quote:

---

A growing group of bio-medical scientists claim the cause of AIDS is still unknown. These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless.

---

There are three statements there, which do you believe is incorrect? All of them sound reasonable to me.

I also find the use of the word "heretics" a rather dubious and sensationalist word to use in this context.

I'd imagine the word "heretics" is used because they are usually just shouted down, ignored or even threatened if they challenge the prevailing orthodoxy on AIDS, similar to how heretics were treated by the Church centuries ago.

Furthermore, I would like to know "who" this 'growing' group of bio-medical scientists are, and how large their numbers are.

Here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/whistleblowers.htm
and here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm

I would also like to know why they consider the HIV and AIDS phenominon as "harmless".

No one is saying that AIDS is harmless, just HIV.

Would they like to have it themselves? No?? Why not? It's obviously harmless - they said so.

Here is one response to just such a challenge (see http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdpolicyrep.htm):
But both of us (Peter Duesberg and Bryan Ellison) would be quite willing to carry out the Fumento test: if he will arrange for sufficient national publicity, if he would be convinced by our action, and if he will thereafter help us bring exposure to our viewpoint, we will indeed be quite happy to have ourselves publicly injected with HIV. Perhaps Fumento will also be willing to check on our health status in the year 2000, or after whatever additional time is eventually added to the virus's latent period.

I don't know if anything ever came of that though.

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
i.e. by definition, HIV causes AIDS. This does not mean that HIV does in fact cause AIDS.

Uh wtf?? AIDS is a state of being as a result of being infected with the Human Immunodeficiecy Virus. As Lemming said, as person is classed as an AIDS category by having one of 25 certain diseases and the HIV antibodies present in the blood. Therefore to be defined as having AIDS, you must have contracted HIV first. Therefore people defined as AIDS victims are so as a result of contracting the HIV virus, therefore HIV causes AIDS. I think you're tying yourself up by using sentences like that above.....I'm still trying to understand how you came up with that conclusion...
Maybe you're thinking of the fact that it's not known as to whether contracting HIV always results in AIDS. AIDS is always a result of contracting HIV, but we don't know if you will always develop AIDS if you have contracted HIV.

i.e. by definition, HIV causes AIDS. This does not mean that HIV does in fact cause AIDS.

No one is saying that AIDS is harmless, just HIV.

I refer to my above argument. AIDS is not a living parasite/pathogen. Being defined as having AIDS is fatal, yes, and HIV does not kill you. But it's shown that HIV weakens the human immune system (hence the name). So it is harmful. There is no argument.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by seamus
Uh wtf?? AIDS is a state of being as a result of being infected with the Human Immunodeficiecy Virus. As Lemming said, as person is classed as an AIDS category by having one of 25 certain diseases and the HIV antibodies present in the blood. Therefore to be defined as having AIDS, you must have contracted HIV first. Therefore people defined as AIDS victims are so as a result of contracting the HIV virus, therefore HIV causes AIDS. I think you're tying yourself up by using sentences like that above.....I'm still trying to understand how you came up with that conclusion...

Try this:
AIDS is a state of being as a result of being called Bob. As Lemming said, as person is classed as an AIDS category by having one of 25 certain diseases and being called Bob. Therefore to be defined as having AIDS, you must be called Bob first. Therefore people defined as AIDS victims are so as a result of being called Bob, therefore being called Bob causes AIDS. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that it's not known as to whether beign called Bob always results in AIDS. AIDS is always a result of beign called Bob, but we don't know if you will always develop AIDS if you are called Bob.

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Try this:
AIDS is a state of being as a result of being called Bob. As Lemming said, as person is classed as an AIDS category by having one of 25 certain diseases and being called Bob. Therefore to be defined as having AIDS, you must be called Bob first. Therefore people defined as AIDS victims are so as a result of being called Bob, therefore being called Bob causes AIDS. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that it's not known as to whether beign called Bob always results in AIDS. AIDS is always a result of beign called Bob, but we don't know if you will always develop AIDS if you are called Bob.

Now you're just talking out of your arse. Statistics shows that there is a link between being diagnosed with AIDS and contracting HIV such that it is more than just pure chance that those people 'happen' to have HIV and be diagnosed with AIDS. If they did a survey of people with AIDS, and there was a lot of 'Bob's, to use your example, it would be shown, through tried-and-tested-and-proved statistical methods that it is pure chance that so many Bobs have AIDS.
You can't make things up to argue against scientific proof....:)

Boston

Originally posted by Castor Troy


The earliest known case of what is now known as AIDS was diagnosed in a sailor in Portsmouth in 1958. What has my statement about what a load of utter tripe that 'article' is got to

not, there was the medical school in holland, or somewere like that. they were doing an eventury in the basement of hte school when they came accross a vat with a human body and preservatives in it. They opened it up and examined what the man died of, and to their amazment it was full blown AIDs. the vat was marked and sealed sometime in the 18 cencury, so aids has been around alot longer then you think.

i was watching this on some channel 4 documentary about a year ago.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by seamus
Statistics shows that there is a link between being diagnosed with AIDS and contracting HIV such that it is more than just pure chance that those people 'happen' to have HIV and be diagnosed with AIDS.

This does not prove that HIV causes AIDS. In the words of Dr Duesburg, what would be needed is:


A controlled study, in which a group of people with the virus should be compared to a group without, to see whether those with the virus develop the sickness. The groups should be matched for all possible health risk factors: equivalent types and amounts of drug use, use of antibiotics, use of AZT, exposure to previous diseases, hemophilia, etc.

seamus

I'm probably wasting my energy here, but what you're saying, is that it is pure chance that no-one who has not contracted HIV has been diagnosed with AIDS, and all of the people ever diagnosed with AIDS have had HIV present. That defies all logic and mathematical proof. I would love to hear your explanation as to why HIV just happens to be present at every case of AIDS.

In fact what am I arguing about? As lemming said, AIDS is diagnosed by the very existence of HIV antibodies, therefore if HIV antibodies do not exist, it is not AIDS. Even if it shows symptoms exactly like AIDS, is it not AIDS without the existence of HIV. Therefore a diagnosis of AIDS is caused by the existence of HIV. Therefore AIDS is caused by HIV. QED.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by seamus
I'm probably wasting my energy here, but what you're saying, is that it is pure chance that no-one who has not contracted HIV has been diagnosed with AIDS, and all of the people ever diagnosed with AIDS have had HIV present.

No. Since you must be HIV-positive to be diagnosed with AIDS no one who is HIV-negative can be diagnosed with AIDS. In other words, everyone who has AIDS must also have HIV simply because of the definition of AIDS. This is not to say that no HIV-negative people have ever exhibited symptoms identical to AIDS as I explained in an earlier post.

I would love to hear your explanation as to why HIV just happens to be present at every case of AIDS.

Try reading this:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdpolicy.htm
Essentially it says that risk-factors such as drug-taking, homosexuality and haemophilia can cause immunosuppression. Since these are also the prime means by which HIV is transmitted, it is not surprising that there is a high correlation between having HIV and AIDS (where AIDS is not defined by the presence of HIV).

In fact what am I arguing about? As lemming said, AIDS is diagnosed by the very existence of HIV antibodies, therefore if HIV antibodies do not exist, it is not AIDS. Even if it shows symptoms exactly like AIDS, is it not AIDS without the existence of HIV. Therefore a diagnosis of AIDS is caused by the existence of HIV. Therefore AIDS is caused by HIV. QED.

But not necessarily the immunosuppression characteristic of AIDS.

rachel

Is Biffa getting all these 'facts' from the one website?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Oh....Christ. And I'm not even a christian...yes folks, it's that bad. At least (thank God) there's been more than a grain of sense about before I saw this heroic attempt at flying in the face of 30 years of intensive case-specific research.

First, a noteworthy observation:

HIV itself is not lethal. It does not kill you.

HIV lowers your immune system to the point where it cannot repel contagion. Thus you are then considered to be AIDS "category". AIDS itself is not a virus, its a classification of how weak your immune system is, and I don't think a lot of people realise that.

Thank you Lemming, that was one of the first succint summation of the article's biggest flaw that I've seen. As for Biffa's frantic and scurrying attempt to re-draw the boundaries of medical science based on casual observation...think again. The human immunodefficiency virus, type I, invades T-cell lymphocytes via the evolved CD4 cell receptor. Why do I bother mentioning this? Because anyone with the semblance of a clue about virology, medicine, or even evolution knows, that a specie's CD4 receptor analog isn't something you can manufacture in a lab. That's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy....in the real world it takes millions, and I mean MILLIONS of years for something even remotely this sophisticated to evolve.

The idea that this is a conspiracy would only work if white supremacists mysteriously caused a mutative genetic link roughly 280 million years ago, and created the first receptor-mutative virus. For the record, another receptor-specific virus that has evolved over millions of years is the rhinovirus or common cold...a virus that successful in other words, does not come about because we choose it to. Even anthrax is a pathogen of natural evolution...biological weapons don't involve creating new f*cking lifeforms...but taking what already exists and refining a delivery system. And considering that the easiest and most direct way of transmitting it discreetly involves personal and intimate exchange of bodily fluids on a massive and global scale reduces the possibility of its proliferation as a deliberate act to zero in my eyes.

Viruses work via populations- the theory I subscribe to (certainly the most likely if you rely on evidence-based medicine rather than hunch, counter-hunch and casual observation)- is that when Western societies underwent social reformation of their sexual habits, the virus had a unique opportunity to spread. A virus this specific needs a global change in view of behavior in order to give it a significant enough population to mutate in a remotely adaptive fashion. But enough of that, if you're interested in how the virus came about in its present anthrologis form, I could post reams of links to sites with more reams of information regarding regressive statistical analyses of the issue. How the virus first arose biologically is a matter of some debate- what is certain is that the original stable form of such a virus almost certainly was around millions of years ago, eventually evolving into a niche surrounding T-cell lymphocytes produced in the thymus, spleen and liver.

Now, to the crux of the matter- the contention that HIV does not necessarily lead to AIDS. If we're discussing the rare (and I mean rare) recorded cases of HIV-II and III victims surviving decades of being infected...yes, it's not proven, though statistically, rougly 68% of cases have resulted in AIDS- that is not a fool-proof causal link, though it is certainly compelling. If we're talking about the 96% (a conservative estimate) of the cases that the world is currently burdened with...then I can categorically state that the type I HIV present in these will lead to autoimmune deficiency syndrome.

It isn't a pathogen that leads to fatality...but it certainly contributes in a central fashion. The actual immune suppression is caused by systemic changes brought about by the virus. The body in effect, makes itself vulnerable, but only after the T-cell population is degraded to pathetic levels. Other forms of autoimmune disease also directly indicate that a T-cell count reduction leads to forms of autoimmune syndrome. However, autoimmune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is caused by the virus, even if it isn't the agent of mortality. The distinction is a petty and insignificant one in both practical, and medical terms.

As for the political connotations of the article...am I the only one who thinks the writer has an agenda here? If we are brutally honest with ourselves, the large harems of tribal women used as status and procreation symbols in large parts of African tribal culture are both the axis and vector for proliferation of disease in Africa. The idea that it was conceived in a laboratory is bull$hit to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of biochemistry and virology.

The moral of the story? Read between the lines, and look to the flaw in reasoning- in this case, it's the author's desire to provoke a political issue from a petty distinction between a virus and a syndrome resulting from said virus drawn by the writer. A distinction which would not only be laughed off by the medical world, but which does a disservice to the decades of research into the viruse's demographic origins. I personally hope the writer suffers himself to read some evidence-based medical journals and look at the facts, or they'll be a lot more to worry about than a handful of law-suits headed his way if he ever writes hardcopy of that.

Occy

MiCr0

more info:
try here

Lemming

Originally posted by seamus
Being defined as having AIDS is fatal, yes, and HIV does not kill you.

Not *entirely* true.

Contracting HIV does not mean that you WILL contract AIDS, but there's a very strong chance of that.

There are instances of people falling under the AIDS category, only to later actually beat the virus that has infected them. But they still remain as AIDS category depsite this, since their bodies have at one point fallen to such a low state of immunal defence.

Thereforem AIDS is not always a fatal condition. 99% of the time probably, yes. But not all the time.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by rachel
Is Biffa getting all these 'facts' from the one website?

Yes. But I will read up on what's contained in MiCr0's link before commenting further.