AIDS requires either S@xual intercourse of an exchange of blood (fluid),
There is the association, but no proof of causation. Virtually 100% of AIDS cases are associated with illicit drug use. Thus, you cannot prove that it is the contact rather than the drugs that is causing AIDS.
This is getting a bit ridiculous illicit drugs are the misuse of legal drugs, if drugs were the cause, people who are proscribed high doses of morphine or whatever would also contract AIDS.
therefore since it was first and prominently a male h*mosexual transmitted disease it precludes the s*xually inactive or non needle sharing drug habits. This is well documented.
Yes, the association is documented. However, association does not necessarily prove cause.
Do you really believe that the only proof of AIDS is this association!
But few disease remain contained forever, they breakout, they can and do get transmitted to females (prostitutes or not) and visa versa.
But AIDS is not "breaking out" into the non drug-using population. Don't confuse HIV seroconversion with AIDS. Yes, HIV is contagious. But HIV does not cause AIDS.
AIDS has broken out, and that breakout is commensurate with the local governments action (or inaction)
Show me some proof to back up your claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, because frankly what you state seems to come straight from an AIDS conspiracy website
. I would like to see some reputable mainstream science.
If AIDS is not a disease then how come you can be infected with AIDS if you have a blood transfusion from an infected person if you practice a healthy lifestyle??? By your reasoning if AIDS is a lifestyle affliction there is nothing to transmit!
You're confusing HIV seroconversion with AIDS. I don't know of one case of a full blown AIDS resulting from a blood transfusion to a healthy, previously non-immune suppressed individual.
I am confusing nothing, the fact that I transpose AIDS and HIV is nothing more that assuming you know what is meant (AIDS=HIV), yes we can go through a long laundry list of which is the symptom which is the disease. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure you know exactly what is what so lets get to the facts, i.e. if you are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) retrovirus
do you deny that you will (very likely) contract AIDS. If so:
a. what is causing AIDS, post evidence greater than some demographic correlations (I would like to se some actual medical science.
b. What does HIV do of not cause AIDS?
Forewarned is forearmed, the medical authorities have not been sitting on their hands, massive public education programs on the problem has worked in the west, contrast that with Africa where the predictions have largely come true.
Are you suggesting that man's efforts are the reason AIDS has been
contained?" Realistically, do you think that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes can be attributed to condoms?
Yes, partly due to practicing safe s@x and partly due to who associates with who.
African AIDS is a totally different disease and should not be discussed with American/European AIDS. The vast majority of cases in AFrica aren't even tested for HIV.
Please provide a citation for this claim, I am assuming of corse that you mean it something greater than variation in the HIV, see the wiki
Three groups of HIV-1 have been identified on the basis of differences in env: M, N, and O. Group M is the most prevalent and is subdivided into eight subtypes (or clades), based on the whole genome, which are geographically distinct. The most prevalent are subtypes B (found mainly in North America and Europe), A and D (found mainly in Africa), and C (found mainly in Africa and Asia); these subtypes form branches in the phylogenetic tree representing the lineage of the M group of HIV-1. Coinfection with distinct subtypes gives rise to circulating recombinant forms (CRFs). In 2000, the last year in which an analysis of global subtype prevalence was made, 47.2% of infections worldwide were of subtype C, 26.7% were of subtype A/CRF02_AG, 12.3% were of subtype B, 5.3% were of subtype D, 3.2% were of CRF_AE, and the remaining 5.3% were composed of other subtypes and CRFs. Most HIV-1 research is focused on subtype B; few laboratories focus on the other subtypes.
The genetic sequence of HIV-2 is only partially homologous to HIV-1 and more closely resembles that of SIV than HIV-1.
Why should AIDS only have been around for 25years if it is a lifestyle affliction?
It's been recognized for 25 years. It's been around as long as the lifestyle has existed. Cocaine addicts have been known for decades to succumb to immune deficiency.
Can you back this claim up with some medical confirmation or is this speculation?
There is more than one strain of AIDS, and some individuals can cope with the affliction better than others (good evolutionary analogy there), Small pox, Bubonic plague, all have their survivors, what you are stating is to be expected.
Please expand upon this and why you think it relevant, because the WikiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s explination seems most convincing
IF Kaposi's Sarcoma is due to an infectious agent, it should exist in female AIDS patients, non-G*y hemophiliacs with AIDS, and non-G*y IV drug users with AIDS. It is not. Therefore, there must be something in the G*y lifestyle that causes its emergence. That is simple logic. THis sort of deductive reasoning is used in medicine all the time to conclude causation of disease.
First, Kaposi's Sarcoma is rare it was that increasing manifestation in weakened immune systems that lead to investigations on the cause of AIDS. See this link http://hivinsite.ucs...doc=kb-06-02-01
From the site In 1981, the emergence of Kaposi sarcoma (KS) among young G*y men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco heralded the beginning of the AIDS pandemic.(1,2) Previously recognized as an uncommon malignancy of elderly Mediterranean men, African children, and Ashkenazi Jews, KS became the most common neoplasm of AIDS patients. Nearly 40% of persons infected with HIV in the mid-1980s developed KS,(3) and the condition rapidly became associated with the "face of AIDS," portrayed in popular film, theater, and print media. By the end of that decade, the number of new KS cases began to decline, perhaps due to the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART). The widespread use of effective ART in the United States and Western Europe has resulted in a 3-fold decrease in the incidence of KS as compared with the early years of the HIV epidemic.(4,5) However, other AIDS-associated malignancies have declined, leaving KS the most common AIDS-associated malignancy.(6) Furthermore, KS continues to be a common affliction among persons with HIV worldwide. In 1994, Chang and Moore established that a novel human herpesvirus, human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), also known as KS-associated herpesvirus, was responsible for the development of KS.(7) This chapter includes a review of the virology and epidemiology of HHV-8 and its relationship to the development of KS and other AIDS-related neoplasms.
You are again confusing AIDS with HIV. The chimps did in fact develop antibodies to HIV, but none developed any symptoms of AIDS.
<moved> The comparison of AIDS to tertiary syphilis is invalid. In the first place, tertiary syphilis develops only after years of clinically apparent syphilis. The current thought is that tertiary syphilis is actually a hypersensitive/immune reaction.
So if one has an immunity or partial immunity to a disease, it that reason to claim the disease does not exist? Really Springer
this is getting just a little too Ã¢â‚¬Ëœtwilight zoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ for my tastes, I would like to see you post some scientific evidence from established medical authorities to all these claims you have been posting over the last few days. I feel this is a little too close to the claims portrayed by AIDS or anti-vaccination conspiracies websites IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve looked at in the past. If this is your agenda then IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll ask you to honestly let me know now.