Great! Now if there actually was a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, this might really be a great step forward.

#1 There's not?

Great! Now if there actually was a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, this might really be a great step forward.

Sure there's not.

I'm sure you would have no reservations about injecting yourself with a high-titer sample of HIV.

If you didn't seroconvert in a few months, you could go collect your Nobel prize and rub it in the faces of academia. Otherwise, the human race would be rid of yet another idiot, and no one would mourn your inevitable passing.

Now if there actually was a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, this might really be a great step forward.

Are you the type of person that likes to make other people big eyed with your intellect? Make 'em go "REALLY??? WOW!! I didnt know that!!!" By saying things that are the opposite of what is widely held belief? It sounds like it. My teenaged daughter says stupid shit like that alot, trying get attention by her statement.

But, nevermind, I will apologize if you post some proof there is no link that HIV causes AIDS. Even though almost every medical source says it does..

Let me rephrase,

That HIV leads to AIDS. Not everyone with HIV progresses to AIDS. So, you will have to show me someone who was healthy and all of a sudden went into full blown AIDS.

That HIV leads to AIDS. Not everyone with HIV progresses to AIDS. So, you will have to show me someone who was healthy and all of a sudden went into full blown AIDS.

#5 | POSTED BY BOAZ

First off, thank you for the link Richard. Second, I don't think you (much like most of the common people of the world) understand what AIDS actually is. AIDS is a made up definition, not a true disease like lung cancer, etc.

AIDS is defined by a serious of diseases that occur with the presence of the HIV antibody. One of these diseases (very common for AIDS) is Kaposi's sarcoma, which had first been identified in 1872 (way before the first case of AIDS). Now, if you have Kaposi's sarcoma without the HIV anti-body, you are said to have Kaposi's sarcoma. If you have Kaposi's sarcoma with the HIV anti-body, you are said to have AIDS. At the end of the day, the disease is identical and can and does occur without HIV. So then, how can we say the HIV causes Kaposi's sarcoma and thus AIDS? The whole reasoning is illogical. This same definition holds for the other 22 'AIDS defining illnesses' which ALL can occur in the absence of HIV. At most, HIV has a correlation with AIDS, but as I said, the entire definition of AIDS is completely illogical. As a result, we have pissed away billions of dollars trying to stop HIV when HIV doesn't have a proven causal relationship with AIDS.

Hope this helps.

At the end of the day, the disease is identical and can and does occur without HIV.

No one is saying these diseases CANT occur without HIV. The immune deficiency just makes it easier for these to occur. I bet without HIV, there would be alot less cases of Kaposi's Sarcoma. That just doesnt occur like the flu.

I bet without HIV, there would be alot less cases of Kaposi's Sarcoma. That just doesnt occur like the flu.

Really? You know this how exactly? The same holds true for TB, which was an epidemic in the past...way before AIDS. Do you at least understand now what AIDS truly is? I hope you at least got that down.

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1][2][3]

Notes and references
1. ^ Sepkowitz KA (June 2001). "AIDS--the first 20 years". N. Engl. J. Med. 344 (23): 1764–72. doi:10.1056/
NEJM200106073442306. PMID 11396444.
2. ^ Weiss RA (May 1993). "How does HIV cause AIDS?". Science (journal) 260 (5112): 1273–9. PMID 8493571.
3. ^ Cecil, Russell (1988). Textbook of Medicine. Philadelphia: Saunders. pp. 1523, 1799. ISBN 0721618480.

Hiv almost certainly leads to AIDS. Jock go preach your bs elsewhere.

AIDS is a made up definition, not a true disease like lung cancer, etc.

That is somewhat true. A Syndrome is actually a collection of symptoms, not a disease.

However, if viewed over a long enough period of time that certain symptoms always go along with a syndrome, then that does become an unofficial disease.

For example, nobody dies from AIDS; they die from other illnesses that AIDS stopped their bodies from properly fighting off.

However, if viewed over a long enough period of time that certain symptoms always go along with a syndrome, then that does become an unofficial disease.

When a disease can and does occur without the component that we say causes it, I think that pretty much puts a bullet into the causality argument.

#13 | Posted by kanrei

Correct. HIV is a virus that attacks the immune system in our bodies. If it progress far enough it sends your body into immune deficiency or AIDS. Then another disease such as the flu comes along and kills your off.

All separate disease but chained together make a deadly cocktail.

First off, thank you for the link Richard.

I don't know why you're thanking him. The link doesn't show what it claims to show. The only evidence they have is that there are people with lymphocytopenia or immunodeficiencies. That's no mystery. It doesn't provide evidence that those immunodeficiencies were acquired.

AIDS is defined by a serious of diseases that occur with the presence of the HIV antibody.

There are certain AIDS-defining illnesses that are opportunistic infections which rarely if ever strike immunocompetent individuals. The CDC also defines AIDS by CD4+ T cell counts. What's your point? When these things occur in a previously healthy individual who is HIV+ it indicates an acquired immunodeficiency. I'll give you one guess at whta AIDS is an acronym for...

If you have Kaposi's sarcoma with the HIV anti-body, you are said to have AIDS. At the end of the day, the disease is identical and can and does occur without HIV. So then, how can we say the HIV causes Kaposi's sarcoma and thus AIDS?

HIV doesn't cause Kaposi's sarcoma and no one is saying otherwise. HIV causes AIDS, which weakens the immune system to the point where an ordinarily innocuous herpesvirus (HHV-8) causes disease. For the vast majority of people, exposure to HHV-8 doesn't cause Kaposi's sarcoma because they have intact immune systems. The same thing goes for other opportunistic infections.

At most, HIV has a correlation with AIDS, but as I said, the entire definition of AIDS is completely illogical.

Of course it's illogical to you. You know jack shit about the underlying biology and are regurgitating some tripe you picked up on the internet.

Like I said before, if you really believe all of this shit go mainline a pure sample of HIV.

So Jacque should we stop research into MS too since it is really a collection of symptoms and not necessarily a real disease?

People don't die from MS either but might from some of the complications and side effects of that.

So, you will have to show me someone who was healthy and all of a sudden went into full blown AIDS.

First off, thank you for the link Richard.

I don't know why you're thanking him. The link doesn't show what it claims to show.

Zombie - the link shows exactly what Boaz was referring to - a person that is HIV negative but yet has 'AIDS'. Is your issue with reading or reading comprehension? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

HIV doesn't cause Kaposi's sarcoma and no one is saying otherwise. HIV causes AIDS, which weakens the immune system to the point where an ordinarily innocuous herpesvirus (HHV-8) causes disease

If that is what you are saying, then what you are saying is not supported whatsoever by clinical evidence. KS exists without HIV and has for centuries. If anything, the fact that it is 8x more prevalent in gay men than it is in women should lead you to look at perhaps 'lifestyle' being the most important factor in the disease. However, you refuse to go there as that violates your bullshit PC belief system.

"If anything, the fact that it is 8x more prevalent in gay men..."

Bullshit alert.

At the end of 2008 it was estimated that out of the 31.3 million adults worldwide living with HIV and AIDS, around half are women.

Bullshit alert.
At the end of 2008 it was estimated that out of the 31.3 million adults worldwide living with HIV and AIDS, around half are women.

First off, they have no accurate estimate for AIDS infection because Africa is 100% guess work. The AIDS deaths commonly associated there could just as easily been brought on by chronic malnutrient as HIV. Second, as AIDS is definition given to 'AIDS defined illnesses', it should come as no surprise that we have vastly different rates of infections for the different diseases - wouldn't that make you think that maybe, just maybe the diseases aren't necessarily linked?

As for my stat, it is right from the link below:

KS exists without HIV and has for centuries. If anything, the fact that it is 8x more prevalent in gay men than it is in women should lead you to look at perhaps 'lifestyle' being the most important factor in the disease.

You're mixing things and not really making coherent arguments.

KS has existed for a long time but it was predominantly seen in Mediterranean men, and even then at low frequency and usually in older ages (ie immunodeficient).

The reason AIDS is defined the way it is is because you're measuring an outcome, which in this case is suppression of the immune system to the point that run of the mill illnesses now become serious and usually fatal. That is called an opportunistic disease. There's also a threshold of CD4+ T-cell counts that has to be met as well for a patient to have AIDS.

To be diagnosed as HIV+ you have to have a positive antibody test first. Once that occurs, you have to be positive for HIV proteins (I think you have to be positive for at least 2 in the US) by Western blotting.

Your point that immunodeficiencies occur in the absence of HIV and that, therefore, the causative relationship between HIV and AIDS is less definite is absurd.

KS has existed for a long time but it was predominantly seen in Mediterranean men, and even then at low frequency and usually in older ages (ie immunodeficient).

It used to be, then it became rampant in the male homo community in the 1980's. You have no proof that HIV lead to the immunodeficiency but I know for a fact that anal sex (via anal fissures) and intravenous drug use due lead to immunodeficiency - both of which were heavily associated with the gay community in the 1980's. These are lifestyle decision that lead to 'AIDS' - much like how the various diseases in Africa which can be linked to chronic malnutrition (which again leads to immunodeficiency) can lead to 'AIDS'.

Hey anybody here beside me happy for this Israeli Doctor, and hoping like hell this develops into a real cure for the various immune problems caused by HIV?

Be nice to see the world population explosion contained one day by development and prosperity rather than epidemics and starvation.

Leave it to the Jewisah people to find a cure. They are very smart and great business minded and family oriented.

You have no proof that HIV lead to the immunodeficiency but I know for a fact that anal sex (via anal fissures) and intravenous drug use due lead to immunodeficiency

Somebody has been reading their Duesberg. Congratulations.

How about you read some real science?

There is ample evidence that HIV causes AIDS from human cases. We have animal models with related SIV viruses. We have reams of molecular data showing the mechanisms of HIV replication, latency, reactivation and T cell death/inactivation.

You may has well be arguing that gravity isn't what keeps us from floating away.

These are lifestyle decision that lead to 'AIDS'

And what of the heteros who don't use drugs but contract HIV and develop AIDS?

much like how the various diseases in Africa which can be linked to chronic malnutrition (which again leads to immunodeficiency) can lead to 'AIDS'.

Again, this absurd notion that because there's more than one way to skin a cat, one select method doesn't actually skin the cat. It's absurd.

Also, what of the HIV+ individuals in countries outside of Africa, are they all intravenous drug users, gay men or suffering from malnutrition?

Leave it to the Jewisah people to find a cure

I'd hold off on calling it a cure.

It sounds shallow, but if this was really THAT promising, it wouldn't be in AIDS Research and Therapy.

I only hope this constitutes a real breakthrough - we've had over twenty-five years of bogus therapies, false hopes and management therapies that have huge side effects.

Thank God the worst of the epidemic is over here in the States - I lost nearly two dozen friends in the '80s. You don't see that any more so much, but that doesn't mean it's over yet.

Maybe this will be the turning point. Maybe.

Thank you Israel!

Go after herpes after HIV, please.

And on the other side of a fence this one Palestinian guy found a rock that works 50% of the time at hammering in nails!

Yay Islam!

the link shows exactly what Boaz was referring to - a person that is HIV negative but yet has 'AIDS'

No, the link shows someone who is HIV negative but has an immunodeficiency. Huge difference.

KS exists without HIV and has for centuries. If anything, the fact that it is 8x more prevalent in gay men than it is in women should lead you to look at perhaps 'lifestyle' being the most important factor in the disease.

You should note that watching certain shows on Bravo! is associated with Kaposi's Sarcoma, too. I'll stick with PCR, thank you. You can keep your antiquated superstitions and pitiful knowledge of the subject matter.

You have no proof that HIV lead to the immunodeficiency

...other than 20+ years worth of exhaustive research. There are literally volumes written on the pathogenesis of HIV.

I know for a fact that anal sex (via anal fissures) and intravenous drug use due lead to immunodeficiency

You know this for a fact, do you? And how is that? Did your preacher tell you? Let me see your evidence. Link anal sex to any sort of immunodeficiency by describing the relevant processes at a molecular level. I want to know what processes lead from the union of cock and asshole to a drop in CD4+ T cells.

I'm not asking you to do much. All I want is a body of evidence comparable to what the exists in support of a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS. It shouldn't be difficult, Jacque. After all, you know this shit for a fact.

Link anal sex to any sort of immunodeficiency by describing the relevant processes at a molecular level. I want to know what processes lead from the union of cock and asshole to a drop in CD4+ T cells.

Anal sex leads to tears in the lining of the anus. These tears can and do become infected resulting in a depressed immune system. This is the exact reason why there is a high likelihood of herpes transmission via anal sex - because you are actually exposed to blood during the sex act. If you truly do not understand this, please have your top explain it to you.

those damn jews wish they would contribute something to the world like the muslims do.

Anal sex leads to tears in the lining of the anus. These tears can and do become infected resulting in a depressed immune system.

So tears in the anus and rectum result in an infection that depresses the immune system...other than HIV?

If it's not HIV you should figure out what it is since it would be a MAJOR biomedical break through.

MORE good medical news of the day.....

Cheap vitamin pill halts memory loss in Alzheimer's

LONDON: A low-cost vitamin pill could halt memory loss in Alzhemier's disease, finds a recent study.

The tablet worth only 10 pence, comprising three vitamin B supplements, slashed shrinkage of brain linked to memory loss by up to 500 percent.

Oxford University researchers described the finding as the "first glimmer of hope" in the battle to find a drug that halts development of Alzheimer's, reports the Daily Mail.

#24 | POSTED BY LON_SEONG

Amen, Lon!
Thanks for saying this!

Nothing like a good heated debate on the effects of anal sex and fissures. Keep it up!

Anal sex leads to tears in the lining of the anus. These tears can and do become infected resulting in a depressed immune system.

No shit, sherlock. HIV is the infectious agent. If you think HIV is not the causitive agent of AIDS, specify which pathogen is responsible and why.

- How does it replicate? Where does it replicate? Why does it replicate where it does? How does it persist in the face of host defenses?
- How does the expression of specific genes by this pathogen lead to specific cytopathic effects?
- Are there any case reports where an acquired immunodeficiency develops in a patient infected with this pathogen?
- What specific observations characterize the immune dysregulation caused by this pathogen?
- What plausible mechanisms connect those observations to replication of the pathogen?
- Why does disease respond to drugs known to inhibit HIV replication?
- Why does treatment fail when a patient is infected with HIV carrying known resistance mutations?

If your mystery pathogen is HIV, all of these questions can be answered with ever-increasing amounts of detail as research continues. If you're some babbling fuckwit who spews the pseudoscience of AIDS denialism, you can't even begin to answer them.

This only goes to prove that even cancer cells want to commit suicide when they have to be in the presence of Jews.

Wow, there's a terrorist named "HIV cells"?

zombie @ #40
The pathogen is called 'lifestyle protein Gay-N1' or LPG-N1. It's like a prion that lives in the anal cavity. High concentrations found in Duesburgians, select members of the ANC leadership and Holocaust deniers.
Thabo Mbeki told me so and Ahmamadninja confirmed it.
Evidence ? Tosser is badly infected.