HIV and AIDS: The myth and the virus

[Slut_boy]

I am not too sure whether or not any of you have been following the recent debates at the international AIDS conference. I have been fairly actively involved in the debates, both locally and internationally - as a part of my job.

This last weekend, after a dinner party discussion, I sat down and thought about what the dissident approach to the deconstruction of the "HIV causes AIDS" debate might mean. I can see really significant problem areas arising in the law. For example: if insurance companies exclude liability for HIV related illness and death, and if the insured person has AIDS, then should the insurance company have to indemnify? Well if HIV causes AIDS then the answer is no. But if one is unsure about whether or not AIDS is caused by HIV then the answer ought to be 'yes'.

The point is that in scientific circles there is doubt. The question then is "who must prove the cause of AIDS?" and "Will they succeed in doing so?". It is my feeling that the courts of law around the world are not entitled to simply accept that HIV causes AIDS if it is not an accepted hypothesis in science. Yet they do. The courts around the world allow insurance companies to avoid liability where people die of AIDS on the assumption that AIDS is caused by HIV. But if this can't be proved then how can they do this?

Here is a simple survey. I would be interested to know how many people are of the view that HIV is the cause of AIDS (the 'popular' view) and how many support the view that the true cause is yet unknown (the 'dissident view). Please let me know - I realise that the dissidents are in the minority but I am not sure to what extent and I am interested.

If anyone wants a copy of the article that I wrote - please e-mail me and I'll happily send it onward to you. The philosophical debate around the implications of assuming a cause without empirical substantiation is fascinating. Thanks to those who are interested.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Um throw one at me... tis something that I haven't heard before and I would like to know why.

Da chef email not surprisingly Svedish_Chef@literotica.org
I always wondered if that stood fororgasm.

 

[Expertise]

Slut Boy

First off I will refer to from now on as SB. Sorry man but the other way just makes me uncomfortable somehow, any way I digress.

I am assuming you are refering to South Africas stand on the HIV/AIDS relationship.

I am sure I don't have your grasp of the subject matter but isn't it just an ostrich response to the fact that they don't have the money to adequitely combat what is bordering on a pandemic in their country.

Unfortunately (again from my limited understanding) the rest of sub-saharan Africa seems to be lineing up to follow blissfully along until an "African" solution can be found. What fucking tripe. Science is science but African politics remains African politics.

I did hear an interview on the CBC this past Sunday to the effect that the leading dissenting scientist/doctor has agreed to go to the CDC in Atlanta to "observe" the evidence and if necessary provide his rebuttal or conflicting evidence.

Fuck. That continent for all its beauty and wonderful people and potential without fail depresses me.

 

[Slut_boy]

To Da Chef,

Thanks for the interest. I have sent the article onward to you.Hope that you get it.

To Expertise,

Two things came from your response: first, I was so pleased to hear that you are aware of the international reaction to Africa's AIDS response and indeed the issues; and second, that you share a majoritarian view on that which you do know. I don't have an opinion on whether HIV does cause AIDS - because I am not a scientist, and it involves a scientific enquiry, I don't feel qualified. But the dissidents' argument poses an interesting idea in jurisprudence.

But, Expertise, I hear your view. If I may respond - should it be that the dissidents are correct then billions of dollars of public money is being ill-spent and hundreds of thousands of people have put their lives in the hands of a medical establishment that has erroneously based it's research and treatment on a premise founded upon an unsubstantiated assumption. But Expertise, if the dissidents are wrong, then their efforts to subvert the accepted approaches to treatment is dangerous and places the public at risk - therin lies the significance.

Thanks for the reply. I am interested in all / any views.I have always respected the views to come out of this BB.

 

[Expertise]

Sorry SB

I didn't read your post carefully enough. I do share the majority view though. It seems inconceivable to me that so many of the greatest scientific and medical minds would so firmly beleive in something if there wasn't an absolute preponderance of evidence supporting it. However, it has happened before.

It in no way changes my view of the real reason that South Africa and other sub-saharan nations have adopted their current views and policies.

To sum it up. There is no shame in poverty, there is great shame in denial and ignorance.

Anyway I would like to see what you have. You can send it to racoon987@hotmail.com

 

[Slut_boy]

Will do racoon *smiles*

 

[Expertise]

Embarassing ... I know. Its a long story. It ironicly enough happened in Africa too. Anyway don't ask.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I am absolutely ignorant of much regarding the medical battle against AIDS. But I do know that the best people in the world have looked at this, and if the consensus of the best people in the world is tht AIDS is probably caused by HIV then I'd put all my money on that horse.

 

[Angelique]

I'd be interested in reading your article, SB...if you wouldn't mind, forward it to me at Angelique@literotica.org

Thanks hon.

 

[April]

Hmm, very thought provoking thread, SB. I didn't know that there was even doubt that HIV causes AIDS! I admit that I have been woefully uninformed on most issues lately due to personal problems. I am at a loss for words to express what I think and feel about this problem. I recently saw a news program about the HIV and AIDS problem in South Africa, and was greatly saddened by the scope of suffering and ignorance and lack of money to help people. It's just too upsetting. SB, I would love a copy of your article. April@literotica.org. Thanks so much.

 

[Siren]

Count me in SB

 

[Never]

You'll pardon me if I find it a bit odd that this question should be raised at all for, in my mind, there is no question. Of course, HIV causes AIDS. The only people with AIDS are the ones whose immune system has been weakened by HIV, everyone with HIV will get AIDS as their immune system weakens; there has never been one instance in which this was not the case.
Scientists have examined the blood of AIDS patients with microscopes that can photograph down to the nanometer. They have slideshows of HIV attacking T-Cells, infecting it, and bursting outward to attack more T-Cells. It's true, HIV is never the cause of death but it is always the cause of AIDS. I'd really love to hear the hypotheses of these 'dissonants' as I can't imagine they have anything more plausible to say than 'AIDS if a curse from God' or speculate about some unknown factor, an idea that, with so much proof to the contrary, deserved to be treated with as much credibility as the gunman on the grassy knoll.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Skibum]

I seem to recall a discussion of HIV/AIDS on an earlier thread, but we never got into this disident arguement. I do not understand why anyone would question HIV as the probable cause of AIDS. It is a fact that people who are HIV positive do develop AIDS if not treated. And, as far as I know, all AIDS patients are HIV positive. This may not be compelling evidence to some, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence to accept HIV as the cause for AIDS.

Slut Boy, could you send me the article?

 

[Slut_boy]

Well, thanks for all of the very interesting feed back. Here is something to think about. Please remember that I am not a scientist, I am a lawyer - but law is often about proof and that is why I am interested in the implications of making an allegation like "HIV causes AIDS" where there is insufficient scientific proof. Read this extract from my article, and please let me know what you think.
Deconstructing the HIV equals AIDS hypothesis: The dissident view.

The dissidents argue that it is impossible to prove that HIV causes AIDS because it has in fact never been proved that an HI virus exists at all. This is because HIV has been classified as a retrovirus, and while there is only one scientifically acceptable method of isolating and identifying retroviruses this method has never been successfully used in the study of HIV. This method apparently involves culturing cells, isolating suspected retroviral particles, and then studying these isolated particles by using electron micrographs (which are in essence photographs of the virus through an electron microscope). This is done to ensure that they do indeed possess the requisite characteristics of a retrovirus. In the initial study in which HIV was identified, the electron micrograph that was used was actually of an unpurified cell culture and not of isolated retroviral particles. Scientists appear to agree that it is impossible to identify retroviruses in a cell culture - they must, it would seem, first be isolated.

Subsequent studies in which electron micrographs were taken of isolated retroviral particles, identified as HIV, only serve to cast doubt over the accuracy of HIV's classification as a retrovirus - according to the dissidents. This is because the observed particles do not fit the description of retroviruses, which are apparently spherical in nature, have diameters of 100-120nm and are covered in 'knobs' (which are essential for locking on to the cell membrane of the host cell). The particles identified as HIV were not spherical in nature, they were they considerably larger (approximately 120-240nm in diameter) and they were smooth. But there are also other significant differences - it is characteristic for retroviruses to leave the host cell intact after replication, but the HI virus actually destroyed the host cell.

But of particular significance to the lawyer and his quest for proof, is the dissidents' claim that without scientifically isolating and identifying HIV as a retrovirus it is impossible to identify an HIV specific antibody - the basis of HIV testing. Antibodies are produced by the body's immune system in response to infectious agents (antigens), and HIV testing involves testing for the presence of HIV specific antibodies (antibodies that are produced only when the HI virus is present) in the blood. If these antibodies are present, then it is accepted that the individual has been exposed to HIV and is therefore infected.

However, the dissidents question the origin of HIV specific antibodies. Scientists involved in the initial isolation and identification of HIV used what they called an 'HIV specific antibody' to prove the existence of the HI virus. They said that, because these antibodies reacted when exposed to certain particles, the particles must be HIV. But scientists agree that the only way to prove that an antibody is specific to one antigen is to first isolate the antigen and then identify the only antibodies that are always present when that antigen is present. But, it is apparently impossible to prepare specific antibodies before the antigen to which they are specific has been isolated - how then, ask the dissidents, could it be possible to have identified an HIV specific antibody without first establishing that the antigen exists? The antigen in this case being the retrovirus.

The point being made by the dissidents, it would appear, is that until the nature of HIV is scientifically proved, it is impossible to say that it is the cause of AIDS. There are in fact other interesting and compelling reasons put forward by the dissidents to suggest that the cause of AIDS may, in itself, not even be a virus at all (for example it is notorious that viruses can not survive outside of a host cell for more than a few hours, yet haemophiliacs have been known to contract AIDS from blood transfusions where the plasma is stored for months as a dry, flaky, yellowish powder - in which a virus could apparently not survive. How would it have been possible for the haemophiliac to get AIDS from a virus if a virus can not be so transferred?)

These are some of the unanswered questions that remain, even after the various AIDS conferences and talk-shops. Whilst these questions still remain unsatisfactorily answered by science, the legal issue of whether a court ought to be entitled to assume that HIV causes AIDS is in doubt.


Are you still convinced?

 

[CreamyLady]

Okay. But what does cause the disease that almost eats a person alive, with considerable pain, allowing the body to destroy itself piece by piece?

Somehow, I don't think it is psychosomatic in origin.

And, with all due respect, why in the hell is common humanity a matter for the courts? If people are sick, or in pain, why can't they get treatment for their illness without a nasty wrangle about who pays for it, or what causes it?

Honest to Goddess, it seems to me that we are so caught up in the nuts and bolts of Real Life, we forget about life itself, and kindness, and mercy.

I'm sorry. Who pays for it is not germane. Care, compassion and comfort is too important for conferences and what is to blame.

 

[Slut_boy]

Hey CreamyLady (you gotta love that name),

I don't know what causes AIDS. That wasn't the point of my article. My point is that AIDS is caused by something which is unknown. Most have traditionally thought it to be a retrovirus - but there now seems to be compelling indications that the cause can't be virul.

On the issue of who pays - again my point is different. Most people have life insurance. Assume that if X were to die, then X's heirs would receive a million dollar insurance policy payout. But what if the policy said, except if X dies of an HIV related cause. Lets suppose that X dies of AIDS. Are the insurers entitled to withold the million bucks from the heirs - simply on the assumption that AIDS is caused by HIV? Or must they at least prove it. If they can't prove it then surely the heirs are entitled to the money. This is the point of my paper.

 

[CreamyLady]

Sorry, Slut Boy. It's late, and I'm still pretty well lit, and life insurance doesn't mean a hill of beans to me, having been without it for years.

In the long run, what the hell difference does it make? Some disease process is at work -- no one puts themselves through the AIDS process willingly -- and people die, and the money doesn't mean beans to them, either..

For goodness' sake. Do the minute details actually matter in the long run, when the ultimate result is a death?

 

[Gingersnap]

While I realized that the debate raged on in SA I was not aware that the dissidents were to come to the CDC. I would be very thankful if you would forward the details to me. I have a lit email address. Gingersnap

 

[Slut_boy]

I am sorry CreamyLady, eventhough I still love your name, I am afraid that I can't agree with your failure to appreciate the significance of the cause of death. The reason for death, as I have pointed out here is twofold:

First, from a medical point of view. If we don't know the cause then how can we treat the disease? A simple analogy - don't give an anti-bacterial to a person who's disease is caused by a virus rather than by a bacteria.

And second, from a legal point of view, the reason for death has consequences for liability. Another simple analogy - if a policy stipulates that a wife will get a massive payout if her husband dies, then good for her if he is dead because she will be rich. But if liability on the policy is excluded if his death is the result of suicide, then it must at least be established that the cause of his death was not suicide before liability will attach.

[Edited by Slut_boy on 07-27-2000 at 02:43 AM]

 

[Sonora]

"cause of his death was not suicide before liability will attach."

I've never quite thought of suicide as a 'cause' of death. Isn't it more the 'method' of death and depression is the cause?

 

[Slut_boy]

Sonora, you are playing with my mind *laughs*

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

You're right, Sonora. Suicide, homicide, natural causes, etc. are typically referred to by coroners as the "manner of death", while the "cause of death" refers to the pathological cause of death (e.g. lethal arrhythmia, pulmonary embolus, gunshot wound, etc.)

As for the HIV and AIDS argument here, I defer to Slut-boy and other legal professionals as to what is necessary to LEGALLY prove causality between this virus and this disease, but believe me, proving such a thing to the scientific community is a FAR more rigorous process. There are mountains of evidence of support for HIV being the cause, but as I'm about to be late to the hospital, I'll "learn ya" later.

to be continued...

 

[CreamyLady]

I know the difference also, Slut Boy, between suicide and a disease process. I also, too, know the difference between method and cause of death.

What I can't understand is, when AIDS is clearly a disease, how the debate about the exact process of it affects life insurance companies. At some point, Slut Boy, this is legal hairsplitting of the worst kind.

I do understand not paying out on a suicide. I will never understand not paying out on an AIDS-related death, because the disease itself might not be caused by the retrovirus, but some other unknown agent.