Home » Are there any scientific documents which support the assumption that HIV causes AIDS?

Are there any scientific documents which support the assumption that HIV causes AIDS?

I am expecting some documented answers. Thank you i want to thank the two first people that answered this questions, but nevertheless, i must say that their answers make them look like they are stupid, but especially the second one is also a FASCIST, cause only under a fascist regim there is no freedom of speech (and questions, are part of speech). What made me ask this question, was various things that i saw at the site http://curezone.com/diseases/aids/ so, if somebody has 1)name of the scientific publication 2) name and number of the magazine that it was published published 3) name of the author, please submit them here. the rest are kindly requested to do sth else. lots of cursing, lots of irrelevant comments and links, still no answer. for gumdropgirl6: taken from the site you suggested, http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm… “Conclusion There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS”!!! thank you for this. Proper action was taken by yahoo answers stuff, deleting two inappropriate answers. Thank you very much.

This question was not answered by a nutritionist, however another user commented.


ADDENDUM: Way to take a quote out of context, you FRAUD! You managed to miss the sentence that followed immediately: “There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. INSTEAD THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAPERS CONTAINING A WIDE RANGE OF EVIDENCE THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER, MAKE THE CASE OVERWHELMING.” You simply stopped reading after the first full stop. You also probably have no experience reading scientific literature, because if you did, you’d know that major ideas in science are supported by SEVERAL peer-reviewed sources, and that consistency in the literature is the basis for a STRONG argument. Prevailing distrust of the pharmaceutical/medical establishment has led to a wave of conspiracy theorists (aka, wearers of tin-foil hats) who do not believe in the etiological connection between HIV and AIDS. 1. Strength. A strong association, such as a five- or tenfold increase in risk, is more likely to be causal than a weak association (such as a 10% increase in risk) because a weak association is more likely to be spurious, arising from bias, confounding, or chance. However, a weak association does not rule out causality! Nonetheless, HIV is present in all cases of AIDS, which is a pretty strong association, don’t you think? 2. Consistency. If the association is repeatedly observed in different populations in different settings, it is more likely to be causal than an isolated observation. For example, AIDS has been shown to affect gays, Haitians, Africans and hemophiliacs — their only commonality would be HIV-infection. However, lack of consistency does not rule out a causal connection; some causes only work in certain circumstances, say in the presence of cofactors. These cofactors include genetic predisposition to delay onset of disease compared to other cases. 3. Specificity. The idea here is that a cause should lead to a single effect, not multiple effects. HIV –> immunodeficiency syndrome. This may have been a holdover from infectious disease thinking; it is clearly wrong in many other circumstances. For instance, smoking causes lung cancer, bladder cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. 4. Temporality. A cause must precede an effect in time. This one is ALWAYS true! HIV infection **always** precedes development or AIDS. It has never been shown that AIDS patients acquire HIV subsequent to the onset of syndrome. 5. Biological gradient. This is the presence of a dose-response gradient; if more of a dose leads to more of an effect, this supports the idea of causality. A dose-response gradient is helpful, but its absence doesn’t rule out causation (DES and vaginal adenocarcinoma, asbestos and mesothelioma) and its presence doesn’t prove causation (since it may result from confounding or bias). In this sense, there is such thing as an infectious dose. Theren eeds to be a fairly significant amount of virus in order to generate infection and subsequent disease. Exposure to one virus particle does not necessitate infection because the body’s immune response can still clear it. 6. Plausibility. The idea of causation must be biologically plausible. This may be elusive because we hold many fixed ideas; many people doubted for years that peptic ulcer disease cold be infectious in origin! OK, this is bulletpoint you take most issue with. Hundreds of scientists have worked for the past twenty-plus years elucidating the mechanism of infection from how it enters the body, where it lands (receptor sites, specific responses), how it propagates, and how it spreads. The explantations they have come up with are plenty biologically plausible (that is assuming oyu understand advanced biological concepts). 7. Coherence. The idea of causation must accord with other observations. For example, as Hill wrote, a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer was coherent with the observations that smokers had dysplasia of the bronchial epithelium, or that lung cancer was a predominantly male disease. However, the absence of coherent information does not rule out a causal relationship. Many HIV-denialist attack this point as well. AIDS is still a young disease, and there is research that needs to be done, but the evidence collected thus far has shown itself to be difficult to refute without bringing in some very far-fetched ideas that have no biological plausibility. 8. Experimental evidence. Supporting data from human or animals experiments, such a lung cancer in animals exposed to cigarette smoke, helps establish a causal relationship. Experiments have been done using animals. No matter how much you distrust the scientific community, there is no way a scientist would ever deliberately give humans HIV. that’s not just unethical, it’s beyond the pale. 9. Analogy. For example, if thalidomide can cause birth defects, perhaps other drugs taken during pregnancy can also cause birth defects. Simian immunodeficienty virus can produce AIDS-like disease in monkey. Well, maybe human immunodeficiency virus can produce AIDS in people!!! Analogy can be helpful, although the help seems limited since anybody with a little creativity can probably dream up an analogy! Duesberg falls into this category.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.