Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS , from my inbox

  1. Dec 23, 2003 #1
    "Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS", from my inbox...

    Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS (Excerpt) WalterNY

    1.) HIV is harmless

    HIV reproduces itself through what is called reverse transcription. Its
    receptacle attaches to the coating of the T cell and encodes its information

    (RNA) into the information contained in the gene (DNA). Like all viral that
    invade the body, at first they reproduce rapidly. In doing so they may
    indeed create cold symptoms. But the body has antibodies that seek out
    things like HIV and render it dead or harmless. When a person test positive,
    the test they took actually doesn’t find the virus itself but the antibodies
    that are in the blood and are left over after they have attacked and
    disabled the HIV. What that means is that when you test positive, it means
    your body has already encountered the virus and is now immune to it. The
    body has done its job. There are no viruses in the history of medicine that
    reemerge and re-attack the body after the bodies’ immune system has rendered
    them inactive. Even a high school student biology student would find fault
    with the HIV theory when the facts are presented. We should ask why we spent
    billions of dollars and nothing has come from it. Nothing except death.

    2.) HIV does not kill the t-cells it affects

    People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells
    that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses
    do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it
    possible to make HIV kill its host cell. AIDS researchers actually use
    t-cells to grow the virus in their reacearch because both live together very
    compatibly. It was this notion that initially made Duesberg and over 600
    other scientist, including 181 that have advanced degrees question the whole
    thing in the first place. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Viruses that
    kill a cell couldn’t cause cancer. If HIV were a killer cell then those with
    AIDS indication diseases would not have some form of cancer as some of the
    defining diseases do.

    3.) HIV does not infect enough t-cells to cause AIDS.

    After a retrovirus is brought under control by the immune system, the virus
    particles become dormant and begin to disappear. Before long the virus can
    hardly be found at all. I have posted before HIV only effects up to 1 cell
    per thousand and sometimes only 1 cell per 100,000 thousand. But t-cells
    reproduce at up to 5% per day. Simple mathematics proves that HIV can in no
    way infect enough cells to bring down the immune system. In fact, the HIV
    scientists even admit that this low t-cell amount is difficult to explain.
    Of course they can’t. It isn’t true. Very few t-cells that are infected by
    HIV can actually be found in the sickest persons. Gallos original hypothesis
    that this is all based on is the equivalent of saying that a person who
    nicks himself shaving is going to die. You are losing 1/1000 of your blood
    but you are not going to die.

    4.) HIV has no AIDS causing gene.

    HIV simply has no specific gene or unique genetic reason to cause AIDS. All
    retroviruses have only three major genes and six minor genes. Because the
    genes are so limited in these very simple viruses, they need all the genes
    to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically.
    There are 50 to 100 of these retroviruses in everyone’s body and they are
    all (including HIV) kept in check by the immune system. It would be
    extremely rare for genes which such similar genetic sequences to act any
    different than other almost identical genes. If HIV causes AIDS then why can
    ’t the others cause the same intense problems. It simply doesn’t make sense.

    5.)There is no such thing as a slow virus

    They say that HIV takes up to 12 years to cause AIDS. They use words like
    migrate, mutate, replicate, reactivate, and hibernate. They give HIV magical
    powers that no other virus in the body has. Actually the words come from
    people like Gallo and Gajdusek who used this magical theory to by time when

    their hypothesis didn’t work. They based their slow virus hypothesis on
    studies of Epstein Barr virus and Herpes virus, but these are very different
    than is HIV. In both cases large amounts of virus can be found that cause
    specific problems related to the disorders. But HIV is dormant. How does a
    dormant virus cause 30 unrelated diseases ten years later? None of which are
    specific to HIV itself. We are buying lots of time for something else to
    cause AIDS at this point. They have a safety net. There is not even a shred
    of light at why it would take ten years for this to happen. It has never
    happened with any other virus in history. No one even bothers to ask that
    question from the HIV/AIDS side.

    6.) HIV is not a new virus so it would not cause a new epidemic.

    They assume that since AIDS has grown dramatically since 1981 that HIV
    virus must cause it. They tell you about green monkey bites and promiscuous
    gay flight attendants but science fails to ask a simple question, How old is
    HIV? Using what science calls Farrs law we can assume that it is very old.
    What Farr said was that when a new virus comes along it spreads
    exponentially, like a flu epidemic. But since HIV was detected only
    1,000,000 Americans ever have it each year (CDC). So if it is in 1 million
    people every year for ten years and simply doesn’t grow exponentially (as it
    doesn’t) it can’t be new. HIV is older than the country you live in. It has
    been and is in many people and there offspring for centuries according to
    Farrs law.

    7.) HIV fails Koch’s postulates (pronounced like the slang for a penis).

    This is a universal law in science. It states 1, the germ must be found in
    all cases. But there are 10-20% of people that have AIDS and don’t have HIV
    at all. When it can be found it is in extremely small amounts and dormant.
    Number two states that the germ must be isolated from the host and be able
    to be grown in a culture. But it takes huge amounts of cell tissue to find
    it, then a difficult chemical process is necessary to reactivate it. The
    third postulate states that HIV must be able to be injected into a healthy
    host and must thrive in that host. But HIV injected in Chimps which have
    similar DNA to use does not live in these animals. It fails to live when
    injected in any other animal and yes people. Human health care workers who
    are injected with HIV accidentally, very very rarely get AIDS unless they
    use drugs. The statistics of the CDC prove that. The HIV orthodoxy have
    stated that Koch’s postulates are old and outdates but it has stood the test
    of time. In fact those that have ignored it have all met peril. In the case
    of Beri-beri, Scurvy, Pelegra, SIMON, and the failed Virus-cancer program,
    all ended in a dismal failure. All were supposedly infectious but were not.
    And Robert Gallo was responsible for the ridiculous virus-cancer
    investigation. All the researchers ignored Koch’s postulates and were proved
    to be wrong as a result. Looking at the population study AIDS fails also.
    The population studies that the CDC releases every year prove by themselves
    that HIV does not cause AIDS.

    8.) AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for 12 years.
    If a disease does not spread it is not contagious and must be caused by
    something else. AIDS is still in its original risk groups of gay males, IV
    users, Hemophiliacs and drug transfusion patients make up of over 97% of all
    AIDS cases and the other less than 3% suffer from immuno deficiency at
    random and happen to be infected by HIV. If AIDS is caused by a virus the 3%
    group would grow but it doesn’t. In 1984 the army started to test new
    recruits, they found that HIV infection was evenly distributed 50/50 amongst
    men and women, and has remained that way. It should follow that AIDS should
    be spread 50% male and 50% female, but nine out of ten AIDS cases are still
    male. A germ related disease should be spread evenly and it is not. This may
    explain why drug use is more related to HIV infection. In the US over 80%
    of all psychoactive drugs are used by males. Amongst women, 60% use hard
    drugs. Health care workers have not begun getting AIDS. There are a handful
    of cases and even these are disputed. AIDS has to do with specific medical
    risks and behavior than HIV.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 23, 2003 #2
    9.) International comparisons differ greatly.

    AIDS statistics are totally different here than in a country like Africa. In
    the US it is 90% male. But in Africa it is evenly split at 50% male and 50%
    female. AIDS remains among the 97% risk group in the US but in Africa AIDS
    has no risk group and is found randomly. Only 62% of the cases of AIDS
    diseases in this country are microbial, but in Africa over 90% are
    microbial. AIDS diseases not germ related are at 38%, but in Africa less
    than 10% are not germ related. This simply doesn’t make sense. Over 14
    million have the virus in Africa. Because of the malnutrition and other
    health conditions conducive to AIDS, statistics from Africa should be 14
    times higher than the US but is the opposite. People in the US develop AIDS
    10-20 times faster. WHO and CDC data confirm that from 1987 to 1996. Last
    year numbers show that the CDC reported official AIDS cases in the US at
    513,486 and the WHO reported that 442,735 Africans officially had it. Why
    would the AIDS epidemic behave differently in the industrialized world? The
    answer is simple, DRUGS. You guys who think AID is decimating the population
    in Africa are wrong. If tens and thousand of people are dyeing in Africa,
    where are these people? Philip Krynen and his wife Evelin are in Tanzania
    (thought to be the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak). They are rather
    interesting French people who belong the “the Group”. After being there for
    a few years to help supposed AIDS orphans, supported by money from France,
    Philip stated that there was no AIDS in Africa. It was something that the
    outside world invented. These kids were not orphans but were left with
    relatives while parents went to find work in the dry seasons. Anyone
    interested in speaking with him personally, please contact me and I will get
    you in touch. The AIDS diseases that these people are suffering from are
    nothing more than existed since the beginning of time but have all been
    grouped into this ridiculous word , AIDS.

    10.) AIDS occurs without HIV infection and most who are positive, never
    develop AIDS.

    The presence of HIV does not prove that HIV causes AIDS just like birds on
    power lines do not prove that power failures are caused by the birds. In
    both cases they only correlate. In science correlation does not prove
    causation. If HIV is a passenger virus that does not cause it we should see
    two things. One, People with AIDS not infected with HIV and two, people with
    HIV who do not get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening. Why do different
    risk groups develop different diseases? Why do IV users usually develop TB
    and wasting Syndrome yet gay males primarily develop KS and
    cytomegloviruses? IV drug users get the same TB and wasting syndromes
    whether they officially have AIDS or not and even lose CD-4 t-cells like
    those with HIV infection. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for something
    they have always had. In the case of gay males KS is found in many gays
    males who do not have or get AIDS. The similarity is the use of poppers and
    other immune killing medications. Something other than HIV must be causing
    AIDS. There are on record over 6000 cases of AIDS without HIV. Something is
    terribly wrong with their whole equation. Why is KS by itself KS but with a
    positive HIV diagnosis it is not KS but AIDS? Why is Pneumonia, pneumonia
    except if it has a diagnosis of HIV, then it is AIDS. What is the
    difference? NOTHING. AIDS is nothing more than 30 disease that have already
    existed with this inclusion of a mostly false HIV test. There is a
    correlation of HIV and AIDS if you ignore the cases of AIDS that don’t have
    HIV. Statistics around
    the world prove that. In Africa 97% of those in Africa who are HIV positive
    do not have AIDS. Statistics show that in this country over 1.5 million
    people are supposedly infected with HIV and yet the number of people with
    AIDS is never near half of that number. They say that there are over
    28,000,000 people with AIDS worldwide and yet less than (1,393,649) are
    officially reported to have AIDS. That is less than 5%. Even the estimates
    of the total worldwide cases of AIDS is 7,700,000, less than 28% of the
    estimated total who have been infected with HIV.
    Samo sam na brzaka pogledao delove isecka, ali evo recimo komentar na
    tvrdjenja iz prve stavke:
    Ne nije tako, iako imuni sistem deluje posle odredjenog vremena specificnim antitelima na virus, ta ista antitela ne moraju biti visoko efikasna. Npr. jedno od antitela koje stvara imuni sistem, je antitelo na membranski protein HIV-a gp120 koji je odlucujuce orudje u adsorpciji virusa na povrsinu T-limfocita (odnosno prepoznaje i spaja se sa CD4 receptorom+nekim koreceptorima na povrsini T-limfocita), ali nazalost antitelo se vezuje za nebitne regione gp120 i tako on ostaje aktivan i posle vezivanja atela (moguce je na ovaj i druge odbranbene nacine eliminisati HIV, i izbeci njegovu "inplantaciju" - retko, i kada je u pitanju infekcija manjim brojem vir. cestica + dok jos ima ko da proizvodi antitela, a to su t-limfociti). Neefikasnost sledi i posle mutacija u regionima genoma/cica koji kodiraju gp120 (inace glavni antigen), koji je i ovako dovoljno komplikovan i dobro branjen kosuljicom od secera (gp-glikoprotein).

    Sto se tice testa ni to nije tacno, koliko ja znam testiranje se klasicno vrsi ELISA testom (i kod nas npr.) mehanizam je sledeci - vrsi se detekcija antigena (tj. virusa), a ne antitela na virus. Antitela na virus se koriste vezana za cvrstu podlogu ili neki matrix i sluze za spec. vezivanje antigena, zatim se ponovo vozze antitela na virus samo ovog puta sa nekim signalnim molekulom (bojom npr.). Moguce je raditi i titar HIV antitela da bi se pratio tok bolesti, eventualno.

    Ja se ne bavim HIV virusom, niti sam direktno ucestvovao u nekim radovima sa istim, ali bi moj info trebao da bude korektan (correct me if I'm wrong).

    Sto se tice ostalih stavki (koje sam na preskok procitao), sta da kazem, deluje kao X-files, ali ja nista a priori ne odbacujem, drugo pominje se n informacija koje ja ne mogu odrediti kao tacne ili ne. Kada se iznose takve tvrdnje, zna se kako se potvrdjuju - experimentom, istrazivanjem, pa rezultatima, a ovako .....
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2003
  4. Dec 23, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OMG, it didn't take much more than to read a few sentences from the first paragraph to note the author's ignorance..

    1.) HIV is harmless

    You author fails to recognize that the virus infects T-cells and thus over time disables the immune system. The author also fails to recognize that the virus is INSIDE the T-cells, and thus the body won't recognize it as foreign. The antibodies are things that coat the antigen while in circulation, they don't go inside a cell and find out what's lurking in a seemingly harmless cell.
  5. Dec 23, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: "Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS", from my inbox...

    Who ever wrote this does not what he is taking about. Antibody does not mean that the infection is out. the antibodies migth not be effectiver at helping to remove the virus. The virus hides in the cell and it is hard to recognize for an antibody. The person also forgot about phase variation. Viruses that use reverse transcriptase are more prone to mutation and an antibody good for one variant migth not be good for the other variant.

    Then how does the flue cause the flue? It is a virus in the same family.

    Bad use of numbers and this argument I found is discriminatory.

    This is not good point to use against a disease

    I won't discuss the rest because I not a virologies. He is using the Koch postulate as an argument but even with bacteria we can have problem using koch postulate.
  6. Dec 23, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Should be: "where HIV hasn't been detected". Is it because the people don't have HIV, the test is administered improperly or is it that the test has flaws by the method of detection?
  7. Dec 23, 2003 #6
    Just another load of bull****. (pronounced like the expletive meaning bovine excrement)

    Better suited for the pseudoscience debunking forum. Or maybe theory development.
  8. Dec 23, 2003 #7
    Great :) you’ve wrote almost the same answers as I did , but not in English at and the end of the second post (cut, mistake I’ll fix that), + we’re not detecting antibodies but antigens with commonly used ELISA, second all those anybody’s target gp120 the main HIV antigen, but non of these binds to active regions, so even HIV coated with anybody is effective + there’s no anybodies when there’s no t-lymphocytes ……on and on (I must say I haven’t read all points from the mail )
  9. Dec 23, 2003 #8
  10. Dec 23, 2003 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?

    Antibodies are like bullets in the microbial battlefield. When you see bullets flying through the air, does that mean the war is over? Gah.

    - Warren
  11. Dec 23, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Found an extensive review

    If HIV did not cause AIDS would we ask try to find its origine

    A website dedicated to explaining why HIV does not cause AIDS

    The more you read to more you realise that people have misinterpreted the quote. It is only one scientist that for more proof that HIV did really cause AIDS because some basic elements were missing. The problem the people that said HIV/AIDs is a lie still use quotes from the early 1990's.
  12. Dec 23, 2003 #11
    Yes. Lot's of people unfortunately. People with HIV who are exposing it to other people. People with Nobel prizes. And the (former?) president of South Africa.

    Basically people who say HIV doesn't cause AIDS are the moral and intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers and, I suspect, have similar motives.
  13. Dec 23, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah, its really really bad when a non-biologist like me can tear it to pieces. In fact, it reads like it was written by a teenager - the grammar and language use is awful (pronounced like the slang for penis? uh huh...)
    I know it doesn't really address your question, but have you read any of what some African leaders say on the subject? Its horrifying. A hundred million people will be dead before they do anything about it. Some of those countries are going to fall apart im the next couple of decades(not like they are that stable anyway, but still).
  14. Dec 24, 2003 #13
    People who know only that HIV is a virus, and not a bit more. All the arguments make "sense" - especially to to a so called "high school biology student" because they simply haven't learnt the required knowledge.

    When I was in highschool I knew -

    HIV was a retrovirus
    It infects the immune system
    Causes AIDS

    Everything in the post is compatible with this, except for the last one which it attempts to disprove. Only later in university do you learn how the immune system detects self and non-self, how virusese hide from detection, and about the most dangerous diseases of all - pathogens that use immune cells as hosts.
  15. Dec 24, 2003 #14
    Warren, something like that, but if you see bullets it doesn’t definitely mean that battle is on, they could be on standby regime, like in your body after flue (you know that some time after it you are immune to that specific sort) , of for eg after infection with coxsackie virus, years, and years after you can detect specific IgG antibodies on virus (antibody titter), of course in small amount so you can deduce if infection is over or not …
  16. Dec 24, 2003 #15

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    You overestimate the average person.

    Remember, not everyone likes to come to sites like this and discuss topics like this. Most people prefer to hide in a cocoon of ignorance, protecting their fragile mind from learning.

    I don't mean to sound elitist or anything like that, but I am quite genuine. If you remember high school, then above all else you should remember that most people thought 'learning was uncool'...and more important than anything else, being cool was vital. With that in mind, it is quite easy to understand that most people have no idea what HIV is, how a virus works, or even how our immune system works. Imagine one of these millions of people then getting this email in their inbox...It sounds convincing because it uses all that technical jargon that they don't understand.

    Next time they have coffee with their friends it is pretty easy for them to say 'You know, I heard that HIV doesn't cause Aids...." "Oh yeah? I heard such and such on Jerry springer too you know..." and off the conversation goes.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS , from my inbox