“I had never heard that HIV was not the direct cause of AIDS. ”

Most people haven’t- which is the main issue. It’s a blind assumption people have, and indeed, HIV has never been conclusively linked to AIDS. Does that mean we should ignore HIV? Probably not, but we should be highly skeptical of the mass hysteria and borderline propaganda surrounding it.

“But it’s plain ignorant to look at her and say that HIV is just chillin’ in her system, and the drugs are only making things worse, using as your evidence her ability to move around and give lectures”

I don’t believe so. This woman has been through hell, for over 20 years, WITH HIV. Re-read the list of ailments this woman has endured…many people would not have survived, without the virus that supposedly destroys your immune system. I believe if HIV really did have a significant effect on this woman’s health, she would have succumb to malaria, cancer, radiation and other cancer treatments (which are f**king brutal), and so on.

It’s only a POV though, I could be wrong.

Glad you enjoyed the post. This is a complex subject though…and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it some time (if you end up taking the time to look further into it, which I recommend).

“In my research, I couldn’t find any conclusive evidence of an individual who had AIDS but did not carry HIV antibodies”

Correlation does not = causation. While that doesn’t prove the opposite, some of the greatest errors in history have been made by confusing those 2 concepts as equals. Tread carefully with statistics…

“while taking the drug regimen does often prevent it (e.g. Magic Johnson, Cathy).”

I’ve read that most anti-viral drugs are quite toxic, and doubt that HIV related drugs are the exception. In fact they could be worst of all for all we know.

Considering this, and the fact that millions of people have HIV their entire lives (and never know it since it remains dormant), and you wouldn’t catch me taking them…regardless of what a doc told me.

I turned it in today (1 week after writing and releasing this as a blog post). Will know next Monday and report accordingly.

Not just a weakened immune system, but a “dangerously low number of CD4+ T cells” along with one or two “opportunistic” infections. Certainly it wouldn’t be called AIDS if a person had a weakened immune system as a result of something like chemo. You could be right though, I’m no doctor. Perhaps the defining factor is permanence? I don’t know. But you don’t pass AIDS, you pass HIV.

I don’t think a doctor would call it “AIDS” if your weakened immune system led to you contracting a couple of infections. Some people are born with a weakened immune system, and might get sick a lot, but they don’t technically have “AIDS.” They can’t pass it on to you if you had an open wound and came in contact with their blood. That’s the reason why HIV is always associated with the term AIDS, and used interchangeably.

Based on my quick research, I think you’ve misunderstood what HIV and AIDS are. HIV is a virus that “attacks the immune system by destroying CD4 positive (CD4+) T cells, a type of white blood cell that is vital to fighting off infection. The destruction of these cells leaves people infected with HIV vulnerable to other infections, diseases and other complications.”

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/whatAreHIVAIDS.htm

The resulting (perhaps?) ‘syndrome’ (Definition: Pathology, Psychiatry. a group of symptoms that together are characteristic of a specific disorder, disease, or the like. (dictionary.com)) is called AIDS, “A person infected with HIV is diagnosed with AIDS when he or she has one or more opportunistic infections, such as pneumonia or tuberculosis, and has a dangerously low number of CD4+ T cells (less than 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood).”

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/whatAreHIVAIDS.htm

Again, I’m not an expert (as you’ve said as well) but by examining the definitions, we arrive at the conclusion that AIDS is a term used for people who have, exactly as the acronym says, an acquired immunodeficiency, meaning they have acquired an immune system that is deficient (whatever the source of acquisition may be). If there were another source of the loss of CD4+ T cells that is not HIV, resulting in a “dangerously low number” as well as “one or more opportunistic infections” (which I take to mean infections that have taken hold as a result of a weakened immune system), then the resultant syndrome would still be called AIDS.

Basically, if you could somehow remove a persons immune system through artificial means, and they caught a cold, or flu or something as a result of their weakened/absent immune system, that person would have effectively acquired AIDS.

So I agree with your position that you should always look into the facts yourself instead of going with what people say, which is a running theme in all of your posts. It also sounds like Cathy didn’t really understand her own issue either.

However, you seem to switch gears and say that Cathy’s health issues are unrelated to her having HIV, and list off a litany of other causes, while holding that all of her medications are doing more harm than good. If I understood correctly. I don’t think you’re wrong in your assessment of her poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle, I’m sure those things cause all sorts of problems that are directly (or were formerly) under her control. But it’s plain ignorant to look at her and say that HIV is just chillin’ in her system, and the drugs are only making things worse, using as your evidence her ability to move around and give lectures. For the amount of evidence you have at your disposal, you could easily (and I think it is probably the case) say that it is because of the drugs, not in spite of them, that Cathy is able to live with HIV.

Furthermore, her daughter was lucky to have not contracted HIV. HIV can be passed through breast milk. Even if there was a 1% chance of contracting HIV through breast milk, the daughter would have been lucky not to get it. If I stare down the barrel of a gun, and have a 1 in 100 chance that I might get shot in the face, the anxiety I would experience, and the release of tension if I managed to stay in the safe 99%, would be sufficient enough to count as an experience of having been ‘lucky’ even if you want to get technical on what counts as luck or whether a rational person would ever consider luck.

It makes no difference in terms of HIV infection or not if Cathy has a strong immune system. Perhaps a change in diet would bring about a stronger immune system, but that is a non issue when talking in terms of infection. The presence of HIV is determined by the detection of antibodies for the virus, not by the strength of the immune system. The syndrome of AIDS is determined, as I understand it, by the strength of the immune system as well as the presence of opportunistic infections.

It’s no myth that taking tons of drugs and going through treatments like chemotherapy can hurt you. But it’s also no myth that those things help. Chemo isn’t 100%, but it has proven effective, and the patients undergoing that treatment understand the risks involved. Another wacko treatment we use is electro-shock therapy for depression. You wouldn’t think that would work, but research and evidence show that shocking people with electricity actually brings them out of a depression. They don’t know why, but they know it works, even if it is a modern day leach treatment.

Damn you for provoking me, I’ve got shit to do still =)

Thanks Dream, great stuff.

In my research, I couldn’t find any conclusive evidence of an individual who had AIDS but did not carry HIV antibodies. That said, in most of what I did read, the statements were never absolutes. For example, sources will say something to the effect of “HIV antibodies are found in nearly every case of AIDS,” which makes you wonder why they aren’t stating it in the absolute.

I think the research paints a pretty clear picture that there is zero doubt that HIV is in some way a catalyst to AIDS, or at least highly correlated with one. Obviously if there is even a single case of AIDS without HIV it cannot be the only cause, but in examining Africa populations where the government denies the link between HIV and AIDS, 100% of people who contracted HIV developed AIDS within 40 months, and the average life span after contracting AIDS is 9 months.

Whether HIV triggers AIDS directly or piggybacks on something undetectable that triggers AIDS is essentially irrelevant for the discussion of public health though, since having HIV and going untreated does necessarily result in AIDS, while taking the drug regimen does often prevent it (e.g. Magic Johnson, Cathy).

Awesome post man.