WHAT CAUSES AIDS? It's An Open Question (June 1994)

Reason Magazine ^ | June 1994 | Charles A. Thomas Jr., Kary B. Mullis, & Phillip E. Johnson

[AdamSelene235]

If you want a real reality check drop in on the DDP (doctors for disaster preparedness) conferences. You will find dozens of MD's and scientists who reject the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Lots of interesting nuclear physicists as well. Edward Teller used to be a regular.

[David Lane]

You are part right. 'AID$' is monkey business.

[Mr. Lucky]

This thread would be more interesting, albeit only marginally, if you were a little more candid about your personal agenda.

[foofoopowder]

There should be Congressional hearings on this subject, to include the consequences of sodomy.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

What fraction of AIDS sufferers are HIV negative?

An excellent question that never seems to get answered.

[AdamSelene235]

I thought it was from having hot, monkey sex.

No, Simian Immunodeficiency was just a head fake. It has nothing to do with HIV. It was an attempt to show precedent for HIV since the only other thing with such bizarre time dynamics is, perhaps, Feline Leukemia.

[AdamSelene235]

There should be Congressional hearings on this subject, to include the consequences of sodomy.

I would expect expert testimony from the IRS.

[dangus]

What has happened in the past decade bears out the reasonableness of the article. AIDS has become more of a female disease in America, but the emergence was truly quite slow. It has never leapt into the general population. In Africa, it would be false to say that the majority of cases are in women, as the author suspected, but it is very much more in the general female population than elsewhere. Supposed time bombs have not erupted. And the search for cofactors continues. Plus, The confounding factors mentionned in the article are mostly true (I can't think of one of them to refute).

Is AIDS caused by HIV? It is certainly a prominent factor. Can HIV alone cause AIDS? It still looks doubtful. I would love to read anyone else with any more to add.

[RegulatorCountry]

I've often thought that AIDS was the result of cumulative genetic damage, brought on by continually injecting (by any number of means) foreign genetic matter into the host body, which after a period of time begins to fail in immunity due to sheer inability to distinguish its own cells from foreign cells. This is probably laughable, as I am no genetic scientist, nor a doctor in any way. But, that's what I've long thought.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You would do well to consult more recent sources (and I don't mean wacko conspiracy theory sources) to find answers to the questions that these researchers raised. They raised a legitimate question as to whether the HIV virus might be just another opportunistic infection commonly seen in AIDS patients. But they were by no means universally ridiculed, and there was serious research into whether their theory could be correct. However, after all these years in which researchers have been pretty routinely producing AIDS in lab monkeys by infecting them with the HIV virus, and not seeing AIDS develop in lab monkeys who were not deliberately infected with HIV, it seems the theory is pretty well disproven.

[One Proud Dad]

I thought you got it by touring the Hershey Highway.

[End Times Sentinel]

I thought it was sharing needles with wild rhesus monkeys.

 

NEVER share your works with rhesus monkeys, wild or domesticated.  It's not the diseases, it's that they're notorious for low quality smack cut with all sorts of awful fillers.  At least the ones I hang with.

 

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

[AdamSelene235]

However, after all these years in which researchers have been pretty routinely producing AIDS in lab monkeys by infecting them with the HIV virus, and not seeing AIDS develop in lab monkeys

Could you provide a link to this information?

[AdamSelene235]

However, after all these years in which researchers have been pretty routinely producing AIDS in lab monkeys by infecting them with the HIV virus,

I think you mean the SIV virus not the HIV virus which is harmless to monkeys.

[poobear]

There has always been controversy over Gallo's theory for the cause of the AIDS virus. Many think was both ego and also more funding for his legacy. (ego). My question, is why everyday there is something either posted or reposted regarding the many theories on the AIDS origin.

While many agree, you give some excuse or global cause for the need for more money and research is usually marked by organizations with greed, why so much attention lately? (Tin foil hat on).

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Pretty soon they will have you smoking banana peels if you are not careful.

[drjimmy]

Apparently he had enough brains cell left to invent the polymerase chain reaction.

And James Watson had enough brain cells to win the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA (along with Francis Crick). Yet his prodigious intelligence has not stopped him from promoting eugenics, saying abortion is okay to prevent handicapped children from being born. Even winning a Nobel Prize in the sciences does not guarantee that the winner is right in all things scientific.

[AdamSelene235]

There has always been controversy over Gallo's theory for the cause of the AIDS virus.

It wasn't a theory, it was a press conference.

My question, is why everyday there is something either posted or reposted regarding the many theories on the AIDS origin.

Because we've spent enough tax money on the HIV hypothesis to go to moon a dozen times and we still don't have a vaccine or a good explanation of how hiv causes AIDS.

[AdamSelene235]

Yet his prodigious intelligence has not stopped him from promoting eugenics,

You're objecting to his morals not his intellect.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with eugenics provided its noncoercive.