What scientific reasons do we have to believe in AIDS? Is the idea that "everyone knows" enough to justify this belief, and is that scientific? Or is there a chain of evidence that we can follow to an inescapable conclusion? Does AIDS satisfy the test that its supporting theories are falsifiable?
Everyone has and Immune system. People with aIDs have an Immune system which is Defficient. They were not born this way, but Acquired this problem. Hence, it is reasonable to say they have an Acquired Immune Defficiency, is it not.? You probably want to know why do we think HIV is viral, so I will answer that: One reasons is that the only medical agents that signifivcantly help are anti-viral agents. Perhap this thread can now quietly go to the bottom of the pile? If not, please someone hi-jack it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From The American Heritage Science Dictionary: AIDS All steps of this process can be tested and are tested. In itself AIDS is not a theory as you claim. It's the onset of a set of symptoms and infections typical of a person carrying the HIV virus. It's a disease. HIV being the cause of AIDS is the theoretical part, or should I say was. It is the consensus of HIV/AIDS research that HIV does cause AIDS. Stating AIDS is not caused by HIV is comparable to stating evolution does not exist. Both are extremely well researched topics with a vast body of work behind them. If you are interested to see an introduction to HIV and AIDS be sure to start with general sources such as wikipedia. pubmed books or a textbook can also be recommended to learn more about lentiviruses in general and HIV specifically.
"An infectious disease of the immune system caused by an human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)" The beginning of the idea of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is of course the definition of same. I do not believe that a good definition of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome would include a single cause of that syndrome. The words behind the acronym "AIDS" are pretty much self-explanatory. "Acquired" means that the patient gets it from somewhere. Radiation was one of the big known causes of immune deficiency before 1981. So was syphilis. There are also simple physical exhaustion, starvation, dehydration, chemical exposures like immune suppressing drugs and various chemicals found in industrial settings, and diseases like malaria. A scientific definition of AIDS is not valid if the definition says that it has to be caused by one particular thing. It's too obvious. It is not valid to claim that the virus can be infered by the symptoms when the symptoms can be caused by other causes of immune suppression, and when the symptoms can be caused by other known diseases. If we are not working with a valid definition of AIDS, there is nowhere to go.
Here is a very non-scientific experience for the OP: Have repeated really rough sex without protection including bites into your skin with a HIV positive person. Report back 3 months later...
Well, the fact that thousands of people have died from it is a hint... The cause of AIDS is the HIV virus. Yes. HIV is sexually transmitted, and also transmitted through blood contact. All these are easily distinguished from HIV. Wrong. The scientific definition of AIDS says that it is the syndrome associated with the HIV virus. Correct. That's why tests are made for the presence of the virus. True. Well, that's sorted then.
Why do you say that the cause of AIDS is the HIV virus? What about all the other known causes of immune suppression? When those causes have known mechanisms, when the cause and effect can be proven repeatedly, there is no reason to blame all or even most cases of immune suppression on HIV. There is no reason to define AIDS as the disease caused by HIV.
I'm afraid you just turn a blind eye to the data available now. I don't really feel that there is a respond to provide any data to you because it is rather obvious you will dismiss all data. Do you really feel that you are being objective on the matter. If I showed you an experiment where t-cells were grow in culture in combination with the HIV virus in the medium, and it was clear from this experiment that HIV was able to enter the cells and affect them, would you believe it?
Because that's the definition of AIDS. What about them? Right. We only blame HIV when HIV is present. It's as good a name as any.
Circular reasoning, James. It isn't AIDS by that definition if it doesn't include the HIV virus. Such a definition assumes what should have to be proven. What does Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome mean? Every one of those words has a meaning, and put together, they do not point to a one cause/one disease definition. An immune deficiency is just as "acquired" if it is caused by X-rays or selenium deficiency.