HIV not causing AIDS

a reply to: AaarghZombies

a reply to: Kenzo

No amount of articles, opinons etc can change people who dont want to accept new concept .

I agree. Its amazing some people cling on to outdated views of AIDS when the evidence is overwhelming that it is cause by HIV.

www.rki.de...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Kenzo

No amount of articles, opinons etc can change people who dont want to accept new concept .

I agree. Its amazing some people cling on to outdated views of AIDS when the evidence is overwhelming that it is cause by HIV.

www.rki.de...

Consensus is not a substitute for proof and has never been.

The 'overwhelming' claim is just a distraction and not a valid one.

So the challenge is again presented here. Who has been credited for proving that HIV causes AIDS and it is the sole cause of the syndrome. If he/she was known then they would have been famous by now with many prizes and grants on their name.

What is the mechanism by which HIV kills the T-helper cells that it infects?

Why is it taking a very long period of time between infection and the onset of AIDS? Viruses don't wait for 5 or 10 years or even longer to become pathogenic. With viruses it takes a few days to a few weeks before the symptoms are seen. It doesn't take a decade.

What you have called 'outdated views' are still there and their questions unanswered.


On another note correlation isn't the same as causation but far from it. The papers by Gallo cited in your link don't prove causation but correlation. In addition there are many who are HIV+ but don't belong to the risk groups and its very unlikely they will ever get AIDS. Furthermore there are people with AIDS without having HIV. The condition is called Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia.
Finally there are those who classified as having AIDS as their CD4+ blood count is below 200 per cubic millimetre, constantly, and they don't have to have an HIV infection.

a reply to: ScepticScot


Martin Delaney, Project Inform


The same Project Inform that promote the AIDS drug coctails to desperate people who think their saviour is the AIDS drugs.

The HIV Drug Book

Project Inform, the USA's leading community based AIDS treatment information and advocacy organization, presents the first comprehensive, user-friendly guide to all the drugs most used by people with HIV/AIDS. Formatted for quick reference and written in nontechnical language, the handbook features an extensive master index (from AZT to Zantac, as well as the most recent and experimental drugs). The drug descriptions are categorized by their specific uses in treating the wide spectrum of HIV/AIDS related symptoms and illnesses. Features include: - drugs listed by brand, trade, generic, popular, scientific, experimental, and code names -drugs grouped by types of treatment, like antiviral, antibiotic, anticancer, antifungal, immune-based, psychoactive and much more -the latest experimental therapies for each category -drug side effects, glossary of terms, color photos, and essential information on treatment, dietary and vitamin supplements, assistance and government programs, hotline numbers and specialized children treatments. The HIV DRUG BOOK is written expressively for people with HIV/AIDS, their caregivers, friends and family, and will be invaluable for physicians who must struggle with the overwhelming demands of this rapidly changing field.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Here is right science$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ We do promote this because it helps to sell the drugs$$$$$$$$$


AIDS inc .

a reply to: Kenzo

So promoting evidence based medicine.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


So you didn't read the link?

In early 1983, French researchers isolated a previously unknown retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a person with early symptoms of AIDS, although they did not yet have enough data to prove the virus was the cause of AIDS. In the spring of 1984, Gallo and his team of U.S. researchers submitted a comprehensive series of four scientific papers to the journal Science, papers that were fully peer reviewed (and later subject to one the most intensive review processes ever given to scientific articles) [2,3,4,5]. The four papers described how the virus was routinely found in people with various symptoms associated with AIDS and was absent in those who lacked either symptoms or AIDS-associated risk factors. The papers concluded to the satisfaction of most scientists that HIV was the cause of AIDS and went on to describe new methods for growing the virus in large quantities and for creating a blood test to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus.

There have been decades of further research since.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


So you didn't read the link?

In early 1983, French researchers isolated a previously unknown retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a person with early symptoms of AIDS, although they did not yet have enough data to prove the virus was the cause of AIDS. In the spring of 1984, Gallo and his team of U.S. researchers submitted a comprehensive series of four scientific papers to the journal Science, papers that were fully peer reviewed (and later subject to one the most intensive review processes ever given to scientific articles) [2,3,4,5]. The four papers described how the virus was routinely found in people with various symptoms associated with AIDS and was absent in those who lacked either symptoms or AIDS-associated risk factors. The papers concluded to the satisfaction of most scientists that HIV was the cause of AIDS and went on to describe new methods for growing the virus in large quantities and for creating a blood test to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus.

There have been decades of further research since.

I have seen the link and it gives no answers to the questions I have asked you. It's the old good propagation of a narrative.

At the bottom of the link the author states that because Gallo showed correlation then this can be taken as proof of causation...
This argument is not true and has never been true in any settings.

The question remains the same:

Who has proved that HIV causes AIDS?
If it was Robert Gallo then he would have had a Nobel Prize for his discovery.

The 'satisfaction' of the scientists as your link says it's not the same as proof. Indirectly your link admits there is no proof but there is some sort of consensus. But consensus is not a substitute for proof.

You need to read before you post on the matters.

The claim that AIDS cannot occur without HIV in your link is also false.

The condition of AIDS without HIV is called

Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia

Good that you provided this link though as it exposes further the arguments made in favour of the hypothesis.

Still the author and yourself make the same mistakes. Of course you have copied something you don't really understand but that's another issue. Correlation and causation are two very different things.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

There is overwhelming proof that HIV cause AIDS. We have correlation, mechanism and lack of plausable alternative.

If you find out that chainsaw jugglers average less than normal number of fingers you don't expect a genetic explanation.

The nobel prize went to

www.bmj.com...#:~:text=In%202008%20Montagnier%20shared%20half,who%20made%20the%20fundamental%20discoveries.%E2%80%9D

So if a Nobel prize is your strange standard of proof then there is one.

a reply to: ScepticScot


Only repeated claims that there is proof, but there is not really proof.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

There is overwhelming proof that HIV cause AIDS. We have correlation, mechanism and lack of plausable alternative.

If you find out that chainsaw jugglers average less than normal number of fingers you don't expect a genetic explanation.

The nobel prize went to

www.bmj.com...#:~:text=In%202008%20Montagnier%20shared%20half,who%20made%20the%20fundamental%20discoveries.%E2%80%9D

So if a Nobel prize is your strange standard of proof then there is one.

You haven't understood what is going on here and neither you have read my posts.

The Novel Prize was awarded to Luc Montagnier for the discovery of the virus.
Not for the causation of AIDS by HIV.
These are two different things.

There is nobody to get credit for the causative link between HIV and AIDS. Furthermore the statement should read as 'overwhelming evidence' and not 'overwhelming proof' as you have stated. Clearly you haven't read and don't understand these matters.

Consensus is not a substitute for proof.

Furthermore correlation doesn't prove causation. That's a mistake which is made repeatedly when people don't understand cause and effect.

Finally you can have AIDS without HIV. Which shows that HIV is not necessary and not sufficient to get HIV given that there are many HIV+ who never come down to AIDS.

AIDS without HIV

Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia

The Nobel Prize isn't a 'strange' standard of proof but you surely would expected one or many to become famous had they proven the causative link between HIV and AIDS. But there are none.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Story of the Nobel prize fir HIV.


www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org...=Fr om%20%251%24s&aoh=16684306229473&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fid%2Fwbna27049812

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not AIDS

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a rare medical syndrome in which the body has too few CD4+ T lymphocytes, which are a kind of white blood cell.[2] ICL is sometimes characterized as "HIV-negative AIDS", though, in fact, its clinical presentation differs somewhat from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[3] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.[4]

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ScepticScot


Only repeated claims that there is proof, but there is not really proof.

Feel free to belive that if you want.

Medical science will carry on successfully treating HIV regardless.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

And yet you've not included one single piece of data in your comment. Just vague assertion and accusations that you don't back up with anything that could be verified.

If you can't put up even a token amount of scientific data then you basically have nothing, and are simply trying to avoid being fact checked.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not AIDS

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a rare medical syndrome in which the body has too few CD4+ T lymphocytes, which are a kind of white blood cell.[2] ICL is sometimes characterized as "HIV-negative AIDS", though, in fact, its clinical presentation differs somewhat from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[3] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.[4]

It's the same as AIDS without HIV

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not AIDS

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a rare medical syndrome in which the body has too few CD4+ T lymphocytes, which are a kind of white blood cell.[2] ICL is sometimes characterized as "HIV-negative AIDS", though, in fact, its clinical presentation differs somewhat from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[3] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.[4]

It's the same as AIDS without HIV

though, in fact, its clinical presentation differs somewhat from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[3] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And yet you've not included one single piece of data in your comment. Just vague assertion and accusations that you don't back up with anything that could be verified.

If you can't put up even a token amount of scientific data then you basically have nothing, and are simply trying to avoid being fact checked.

I have asked questions. And by asking questions I am expecting answers.

Since HIV causes AIDS the audience needs to know who gets credited for proving the causative link between HIV and AIDS. It seems there is none.

Luc Montagnier was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the virus and not for proving causation of AIDS by HIV infection.

What is the mechanism that kills T-helper cells that are infected by HIV?
Nobody seems to know after almost 40 years into this. But yet it is postulated that HIV causes AIDS by destroying the T helper cells.

The above are not my personal opinions. These are facts.

No accusations are made by my side. I am not like some members here who start the accusations when facts and evidence don't agree with their narrative.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not AIDS

Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a rare medical syndrome in which the body has too few CD4+ T lymphocytes, which are a kind of white blood cell.[2] ICL is sometimes characterized as "HIV-negative AIDS", though, in fact, its clinical presentation differs somewhat from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[3] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.[4]

It's the same as AIDS without HIV

though, in fact, its clinical presentation differs somewhat from that seen with HIV/AIDS.[3] People with ICL have a weakened immune system and are susceptible to opportunistic infections, although the rate of infections is lower than in people with AIDS.

Still AIDS without HIV

By definition an AIDS diagnosis is given when the T-cell count falls below 200 per cubic millimetre and when opportunistic infections can occur as a result.

Are you satisfied now that there is nobody who gets credit for proving the causative link between HIV and AIDS? I will repeat that Luc Montagnier was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the virus not for proving causation.

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ScepticScot


Only repeated claims that there is proof, but there is not really proof.

It's more of a narrative.
HIV is there and could be an opportunistic infection but correlation and causation are two different things which are often confused. Still there is no proof of the causative link between HIV and AIDS.

Funnily enough Luc Montagnier who discovered the virus and got the Nobel Prize for it has been accused of engaging in conspiracy theories as he said that SARS-CoV-2 wasn't a result of zoonosis but of a lab-leak.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobel prizes generally go to the person who made the original discovery. The prize wasn't awarded to 2008 amongst some dispute over who did find it first.

Further nobel prizes may be awarded for AIDS research.