A couple of days ago I came across a 2hr video questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
Though the video has dated, the arguments have not. This is the first time I’ve ever witnessed the AIDS denialist argument (a misnomer because it’s only HIV as a cause that’s really disputed), and it was pretty convincing.
However, the theory that AIDS isn’t caused by HIV pretty much is the same as HIV is caused by AIDS. I can’t advocate a side but I do think that with the ongoing hurdles in understanding and curing this disease that a bit of fresh perspective is badly needed.
Mainstream thought has nothing to lose by allowing investigation, but it is controversial to say examine treated and untreated HIV+ groups – yet there are people who decline or accept medication by volition.
I’m not telling anyone to be lax about HIV or abandoning any treatments. I am maintaining a largely neutral viewpoint and every one is the master of their own health.
If you don’t have the time to watch the video, here’s some interesting points from it (I’m going by memory so I apologise for inaccuracies).
- There are at least 4,000 documented (at time of recording) cases of AIDS in people who are HIV negative. If the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS it should account for every single case.
- When a person is tested for HIV, they are tested for the presence of antibodies rather than the virus itself. This is curious because the presence of virus antibodies indicates immunity to it. So how can you make a vaccine without turning someone HIV+ and someone HIV+ already into the existing state?
- The HIV/AIDS hypothesis has not been peer reviewed (it was adopted by press conference) and there is no literature on HIV being a cause of AIDS; in fact some organisations offer large bounties for such data.
- HIV is seen by some scientists to be a harmless passenger virus. It resides in very few T-helper cells (for immunity) and does not destroy them, as it needs these cells to survive.
- AIDS medications like AZT (since replaced by combo drugs) have disclaimers that it’s side effects can match those of immunodeficiency. Indeed AIDS deaths have risen after awareness than before it was known.
- Gallo (the man commonly seen as behind the HIV/AIDS link) has admitted that HIV alone may not be sufficient to cause AIDS. In fact the definition of AIDS has changed radically a few times, one of which recently indicates that a cofactor virus is needed.
- AIDS is seen to be the result of recreational drug use, prescribed immune surpressants and possibly anal sex (i.e. sperm entering as foreign body to attack via the blood). In the developed world AIDS is still seen as homosexual male/drug abuser’s condition despite 80’s campaigns that it would be an enormous worldwide disaster. And it may indeed be that the immune destroying affects of hard drugs rather than clean needles are to blame.
- In developing countries (Africa, India) AIDS diagnoses are often reported in place of traditional disease names in order to qualify for funding. It is seen that due to the even gender divide of AIDS that the cause for this may simply be poor health and malnutrition. There is also a view that AIDS helps enforce a veiled racism and dependency from Western drug companies.
- There are people who are HIV+ and do remain in good health for a long period of time. Everybody inevitably dies so whether this is the result of AIDS is contentious.
- Prostitutes only really show HIV if they are also drug users.
Feel free to leave any comments – but don’t shoot this messenger! However I will add that there has always been malpractice in the medicinal world, so a healthy dose of skepticism for areas that alarm you is good mindset to be in. But I’m maintaining that I can’t support the mainstream or alternative sides unless a) HIV can eventually be treated and this corellates with being a cure for AIDS, and b) dissenters have the opportunity to prove their claims.