AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

Maybe something other than homeopathy once in a while? Alright, here's my beef with AIDS: Its not a disease or a condition, it is first of all a definition.

Example: If you got HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got AIDS. If you don't have HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got tuberculosis.

Ergo, we have
-Tuberculosis ("Immune Deficiency") without HIV+
-HIV+ without disease ("Immune Deficiency")

Doesn't that mean that HIV might not cause of any "Immune Deficiency"?

But halt! Studies have shown that HIV causes AIDS and only HIV positive people can get AIDS?!

Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes, when one is HIV positive, people who are HIV positive *will* develop "AIDS" eventually, since most people get sick once in a while. Vice versa, no HIV negative person will ever develop AIDS. Because of the definition of AIDS.

Thus, we can empirically "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, using this circular definition, when in reality an HIV infection may not cause anything more than a slight fever 4 weeks after infection.

 

[Rob Lister]

I bet 1000 posts that this is a troll.

 

[robinson]

Alright, here's my beef with AIDS: Its not a disease or a condition, it is first of all a definition.

Yes, but that isn't the entire situation. All syndromes are made up things. When a group of symptoms are labeled a "syndrome", it is a way of talking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndrome

Example: If you got HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got AIDS. If you don't have HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got tuberculosis.

That is correct. Except for one small fact. AIDS is a label, a name, it does not exist, except as a definition. The definition has changed over time, and may change again. But you are quite correct, in that what you have will change, according to what a Doctor believes. If you have TB, and test positive for HIV, you have AIDS. If 10 minutes later it is discovered they had the wrong test result, and you test HIV-, now you have TB.

See? It is labeling, it doesn't mean anything more than what somebody believes it does.

Ergo, we have
-Tuberculosis ("Immune Deficiency") without HIV+
-HIV+ without disease ("Immune Deficiency")

Doesn't that mean that HIV might not cause of any "Immune Deficiency"?

No.

Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes, when one is HIV positive, people who are HIV positive *will* develop "AIDS" eventually, since most people get sick once in a while. Vice versa, no HIV negative person will ever develop AIDS. Because of the definition of AIDS.

Part of that is true. You can have all the symptoms of AIDS, and not have AIDS, if you test HIV-

Likewise, you can have no symptoms, but test HIV+, and some people will claim you have AIDS, or will get AIDS.

But your reasoning,

"Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes"

, does not match the current definition of AIDS. You need to do some research.

Thus, we can empirically "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, using this circular definition, when in reality an HIV infection may not cause anything more than a slight fever 4 weeks after infection.

In reality, there is a bit of controversy over this. Be prepared, it will get ugly.

Many people who test HIV+ have never come down with AIDS. As the years went by, the definition of AIDS changed, and now they say it might be twenty years before you get AIDS. Maybe 30 years.

But the definition of AIDS is what AIDS is. As you said, it is a definition, and it is subject to change, and it is not to be confused with reality, which always defies our attempts to be 100% correct.

There is good evidence that A LOT of people who become HIV+ will get sick with the diseases that AIDS defines as AIDS. But there are also people who have tested HIV+ for many years, and have not exhibited any symptoms of AIDS.

It is strange.

Now go forth, and troll no more.

 

[Rob Lister]

quote from a pm I just received from troll Dab --

It isn't really helpful to a thread if the first post is something like that. I suggest you edit away the pointless abuse, and instead, come up with a point.

I raise my bet to 2000 posts.

 

[kellyb]

Cwazy twolls...

To feed or not to feed, that is the question....

 

[Rob Lister]

oh, feed on. they need food too.

 

[andyandy]

oh, feed on. they need food too.

it's a bit harsh to label someone a troll based on one post - HIV and AIDS is an interesting and complicated topic - and i am looking forward to learning more about it....

this from wiki seems a helpful graph (if accurate)

perhaps as Robinson said, you shouldn't get too hung up on labels.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

 

[Dabljuh]

A mostly thoughtful answer. Allow me the rebuttal. I approve of your answers to my statements until this point:

Originally Posted by Dabljuh View Post
Ergo, we have
-Tuberculosis ("Immune Deficiency") without HIV+
-HIV+ without disease ("Immune Deficiency")

Doesn't that mean that HIV might not cause of any "Immune Deficiency"?

No.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. If you can have "Immune deficiency" as defined by the AIDS definition minus the HIV requirement, and you can find HIV without any sort of "Immune deficiency", then this really does beg the question of whether HIV does cause any immune deficiency at all.

Further, if you use a circular AIDS definition such as the CDC's, it is impossible to disprove that HIV is the causative agent for "AIDS".

Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes, when one is HIV positive, people who are HIV positive *will* develop "AIDS" eventually, since most people get sick once in a while. Vice versa, no HIV negative person will ever develop AIDS. Because of the definition of AIDS.

Part of that is true. You can have all the symptoms of AIDS, and not have AIDS, if you test HIV-

Likewise, you can have no symptoms, but test HIV+, and some people will claim you have AIDS, or will get AIDS.

But your reasoning,

"Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes"

does not match the current definition of AIDS. You need to do some research.

Actually no I don't, I did do my research. I merely chose not to go into too much detail as not to confuse the lay person with technical descriptions. The definition of AIDS is actually a lot more complex, the CDC definition (which is the most important definition in the western world) defines AIDS as being HIV positive AND having one of 20something "AIDS defining diseases", or alternatively, having a CD4 count of below 200/ml. (link to CDC definition) Interestingly, the CD4 count was found not to have any validity in determining the integrity of a human adult's immune system.

Alternatively, the so called Bangui definition which is used in third world countries to diagnose AIDS without expensive HIV tests, more loosely defines AIDS as having two to three symptoms of a short list, such as diarrhea, or a persistent cough.

In reality, if you want to put it as simple as possible, it comes down to this:

If you've got an HIV positive test, *or* you are a black african, you get "AIDS" by just getting sick.

 

[tkingdoll]

I thought that there was a finite list of specific conditions which, when combined with HIV, means you have AIDS (rather than the 'anything' definition we seem to have here). That's what I was taught on an AIDS awareness course. Is that no longer the case?

 

[Dabljuh]

Crap, Double post

 

[Dabljuh]

I thought that there was a finite list of specific conditions which, when combined with HIV, means you have AIDS (rather than the 'anything' definition we seem to have here). That's what I was taught on an AIDS awareness course. Is that no longer the case?

In the early 1980ies, the AIDS definition was limited to a small number of diseases such as Kaposi's Sarcoma or Fungal Lung infections which are very rare in otherwise healthy humans. Nowadays, things such as Herpes Simplex (!!!!!) are "AIDS defining diseases" according to the CDC.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Can somebody clue me in?

 

[Dabljuh]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "AIDS" probably doesn't exist, at least not in the way I was told in sex ed.

 

[kellyb]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. If you can have "Immune deficiency" as defined by the AIDS definition minus the HIV requirement, and you can find HIV without any sort of "Immune deficiency", then this really does beg the question of whether HIV does cause any immune deficiency at all.

Almost every pathogen known to infect people works the same way.
It's like asking if mumps causes mumps. Some people get mumps and never show any symptoms. Some people get all the symptoms of mumps, and there is no mumps virus there.

Further, if you use a circular AIDS definition such as the CDC's, it is impossible to disprove that HIV is the causative agent for "AIDS".

Which is why it's pretty cool that we're going off a lot more than a CDC definition. There's virology, immunology, epidemiology, etc.

Actually no I don't, I did do my research. I merely chose not to go into too much detail as not to confuse the lay person with technical descriptions.

How sweet of you!

The definition of AIDS is actually a lot more complex, the CDC definition (which is the most important definition in the western world) defines AIDS as being HIV positive AND having one of 20something "AIDS defining diseases", or alternatively, having a CD4 count of below 200/ml. (link to CDC definition) Interestingly, the CD4 count was found not to have any validity in determining the integrity of a human adult's immune system.

There are exceptions to every rule.

Alternatively, the so called Bangui definition which is used in third world countries to diagnose AIDS without expensive HIV tests, more loosely defines AIDS as having two to three symptoms of a short list, such as diarrhea, or a persistent cough.

In reality, if you want to put it as simple as possible, it comes down to this:

If you've got an HIV positive test, *or* you are a black african, you get "AIDS" by just getting sick.

If you're HIV+, and your immune system deteriorates, and you get really sick...yes, you do have AIDS.

If you want to say that the actual line of when someone crosses over from "HIV+" to "has AIDS" is a bit imprecise and arbitrarily determined, you might have a point. But that doesn't mean "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"...unless you are just wanting to play semantics.

 

[Dabljuh]

Usually I don't like semantics, but in this case, it is vital to understand the semantics of the issue since we are dealing with a circular definition.

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

but thanks to the AIDS definition, in the first case, you die *because* of the HIV.

 

[kellyb]

Usually I don't like semantics, but in this case, it is vital to understand the semantics of the issue since we are dealing with a circular definition.

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

but thanks to the AIDS definition, in the first case, you die *because* of the HIV.

Ok.
I guess to discuss this, we need to be clear on what the opposing claims are.
There are several different flavors of "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" claims.
Do you believe that the HIV virus exists?
Do you believe viruses can make people sick?
Do you believe that the HIV virus impares the human immune system sometimes?
Do you believe the HIV virus infects immune system cells?
Do you subscribe to the "harmless passenger virus" theory?

 

[Loss Leader]

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

Without treatment, HIV cuts a population's average life expextancy in half. (source).

So, the current world average life expectancy is about 67 years old. (source) Without treatment, a population's average life expectancy is 33.5 years.

Debunked.

Get back under your bridge.

 

[Dabljuh]

Ok.

Do you believe that the HIV virus exists? Yes
Do you believe viruses can make people sick? Yes
Do you believe that the HIV virus impares the human immune system sometimes? Yes, but the question is: to what extent?
Do you believe the HIV virus infects immune system cells? Isn't that the whole point of the HI-Virus? Other viruses infect other things...
Do you subscribe to the "harmless passenger virus" theory? I'm not sure what your particular branch of this theory is, but I guess: Yes.

 

[JoeEllison]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "AIDS" probably doesn't exist, at least not in the way I was told in sex ed.

I'm guessing the flaw was in the gym coach teaching the class, and not with the worldwide medical community. Just a hunch.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

but thanks to the AIDS definition, in the first case, you die *because* of the HIV.

Well, ultimately, we all die of the same thing: brain function ceases. Does that mean that cancer doesn't kill you? Of course not: underlying causes matter.

You should watch that House, MD show on the TV.