What are the fallacies in the arguments of "AIDS dissidents"?
A number of people have been posting on Yahoo Answers in the STD section to promote their viewpoint that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
This is certainly not the view of the vast majority of health professionals and scientists.
I have noticed some patterns in the arguments of AIDS dissidents.
One is to call virtually any illness in a person who has HIV, "AIDS". Another is to call all immune dysfunctions or opportunistic infections "AIDS" whether or not the person has HIV.
Describing clinical syndromes as "AIDS" when they do not conform to the actual diagnostic criteria for AIDS is mischievous.
In fairness to the dissidents, they do point out that many patients in some parts of Africa diagnosed as having AIDS have, in fact, been misdiagnosed. The problem here is that the diagnostic criteria used in areas where accurate pathological testing is not available may be too broad.
However this is very different to saying that HIV is not the cause of cause of AIDS.
Jean P, I was puzzled about your eccentric reference numbering system until I realised that you cut and pasted virtually your entire answer from http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/top100_...
......Now I'll never know!
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The dissidents use many logical fallacies, but more often they just use bold lies:
1) The virus has not been isolated.
It has been. There are thousands of isolates of HIV-1 and HIV-2 that have been studied in labs all over the world.
Rodriguez MA, Chen Y, Craigo JK, Chatterjee R, Ratner D, Tatsumi M, Roy P, Neogi D, Gupta P.
Construction and characterization of an infectious molecular clone of HIV-1 subtype A of Indian origin.
Virology. 2006 Feb 20;345(2):328-36. Epub 2005 Nov 9.
Hsu M, Ho SH, Balfe P, Gettie A, Harouse J, Blanchard J, Cheng-Mayer C.
A CCR5-tropic simian-HIV molecular clone capable of inducing AIDS in rhesus macaques.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 Dec 1;40(4):383-7.
Johnston E, Dupnik KM, Gonzales MJ, Winters MA, Rhee SY, Imamichi T, Shafer RW.
Panel of prototypical infectious molecular HIV-1 clones containing multiple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations.
AIDS. 2005 Apr 29;19(7):731-3.
2) AIDS is not well studied in Africa, they just use the Bangui definition.
Bjorndal A, Sonnerborg A, Tscherning C, Albert J, Fenyo EM.
Phenotypic characteristics of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtype C isolates of Ethiopian AIDS patients.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1999 May 1;15(7):647-53.
Audu RA, Salu OB, Musa AZ, Onyewuche J, Funso-Adebayo EO, Iroha EO, Ezeaka VC, Adetifa IM, Okoeguale B, Idigbe EO.
Estimation of the rate of mother to child transmission of HIV in Nigeria.
Afr J Med Med Sci. 2006 Jun;35(2):121-4.
Li M, Salazar-Gonzalez JF, Derdeyn CA, Morris L, Williamson C, Robinson JE, Decker JM, Li Y, Salazar MG, Polonis VR, Mlisana K, Karim SA, Hong K, Greene KM, Bilska M, Zhou J, Allen S, Chomba E, Mulenga J, Vwalika C, Gao F, Zhang M, Korber BT, Hunter E, Hahn BH, Montefiori DC.
Genetic and neutralization properties of subtype C human immunodeficiency virus type 1 molecular env clones from acute and early heterosexually acquired infections in Southern Africa.
J Virol. 2006 Dec;80(23):11776-90. Epub 2006 Sep 13.
3) The antiretroviral therapies do not extend the lives of people infected with HIV.
Yes, they do:
Lima VD, Hogg RS, Harrigan PR, Moore D, Yip B, Wood E, Montaner JS.
Continued improvement in survival among HIV-infected individuals with newer forms of highly active antiretroviral therapy.
AIDS. 2007 Mar 30;21(6):685-92.
Hogg RS, Heath KV, Yip B, Craib KJ, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT, Montaner JS.
Improved survival among HIV-infected individuals following initiation of antiretroviral therapy.
JAMA. 1998 Feb 11;279(6):450-4.
Kohli R, Lo Y, Howard AA, Buono D, Floris-Moore M, Klein RS, Schoenbaum EE.
Mortality in an urban cohort of HIV-infected and at-risk drug users in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy.
Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Sep 15;41(6):864-72. Epub 2005 Aug 16.
etc...Source(s): http://www.aidstruth.org http://www.hiov.lanl.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=... http://www.hivmedicine.com/ http://www.aegis.com/ http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/ http://www.aidsinfonet.org/ http://www.knowhivaids.org/facts.html
- kulpaLv 44 years ago
The term "straw guy fallacy" is the least confusing one to bear in mind. in simple terms like, human beings call a marvelous form of issues an "analogy" whilst it truly is in simple terms a metaphor. (the 1st rule of merchandising: maximum actually everyone seems to be lazy) edit: I take it returned. some human beings do no longer even comprehend what a straw guy is. (whilst squaddies have been being experienced returned interior the days of swords and lances, the instructor establish a straw guy on a pole and had the recent recruits prepare hitting it with their swords and lances. -- It became into no longer a real enemy - it became right into a pretend enemy -- it became right into a pretend or fabricated situation - get it?
- laurel gLv 61 decade ago
It has been my experience that a person with HIV positive medical treatments, understands that the viral load and the Ct4 counts that the patient has explains whether the patient has HIV or AIDS. I do understand that when someone with HIV has a Ct4 count above 250, that his/her virus is called HIV. When the Ct4 count gets down to 250 or below, the doctors call what they have AIDS. I see a matter of numbers changing what the person HAS as a diagnosis. The viral load changes, as well, but the Ct4 count is, normally, the deciding factor in whether a patient has HIV or AIDS.
Because of this, I find it amazing that people would discount that the two are totally associated. AIDS happens when HIV gets really, really severe.Source(s): mother
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I have noticed some patterns of AIDS Apologists in their attempt to argue their position that the alleged HIV is the cause of 30 old diseases clinically redefined as 'AIDS' only in persons who test 'HIV' positive.
One is to call virtually any illness in a person who has been [mis]diagnosed 'HIV' positive as "HIV related" even if it is not officially an "AIDS-defining" event or illness.
Since by definition, the clinical syndrome popularly described as 'AIDS' requires the presence or absence of 'HIV' it is a circular construct.
CASES IN POINT:
TB+HIV=AIDS, whereas TB-HIV=TB; and Cervical Cancer+HIV=AIDS, whereas Cervical Cancer-HIV=Cervical Cancer [one of the newest AIDS-redefined illnesses]
All of the socalled "AIDS-defining" illnesses exist or occur in persons diagnosed 'HIV' negative, but they just aren't called 'AIDS' by the AIDS Apologists. How convienent!
Now, when AIDS Dissidents don't play inside these imaginary, arbitrary lines set by AIDS Apologists, people call us "mischievious." Not exactly a logical fallacy, but it is rather mischievious of the questioner to suggest that "accurate pathological [HIV] testing is not available" when there are no such accurate 'HIV' tests, especially in Africa that exist presently. This because of the endemic diseases of Africa such as TB, Malaria and Leprosy which are some of the 60+ documented cross-reactors to the socalled "HIV specific" proteins detecting a non-specific antibody response.
Here are some logical fallacies often used against AIDS Dissidents by AIDS Apologists.
Logical Fallacies Used Against AIDS Dissidents
Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some sector of the population.
Everyone knows HIV causes AIDS, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.)
Since you cannot prove that HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV causes AIDS.
Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)
The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.
If you don't believe HIV causes AIDS, you're going to die of AIDS.
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the
subject, (ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
Thousands of scientists agree there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
Fallacy of Exclusion
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the
"principle of total evidence".
Healthy HIV positive people who have never taken HIV/AIDS medications are not included in many of the studies HIV/AIDS proponents cite as evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.
Jack came down with pneumonia after an HIV positive test result. Therefore, Jack's pneumonia is AIDS caused by HIV because he tested HIV+.
Begging the Question ( petitio principii )
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
HIV causes AIDS because the evidence is overwhelming that HIV causes AIDS. Therefore, HIV causes AIDS.Source(s): 'AIDS' IN AFRICA INDEX OF PAPERS, ARTICLES http://healtoronto.com/africa.html =============================================== RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The GROUP for the SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/find.htm BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [BMJ] MODERATED ONLINE DEBATE ON HIV/AIDS http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495 [especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of Austrailian AIDS Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose other extensive archives are found here http://www.theperthgroup.com and here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/] REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH "Evidence for HIV" DOCUMENT http://www.healtoronto.com/nih INTERNATIONAL AIDS PANEL, INTERIM REPORT Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the Panel designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [AIDS Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS Apologists/Orthodoxy] http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/aids/aids... HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason] http://www.healtoronto.com ANOTHER LOOK [Breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS'] http://www.anotherlook.org MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine] http://www.informedmomm.com AIDS MYTH EXPOSED [Largest AIDS forum on MSN] http://www.aidsmythexposed.com VIRUSMYTH [Largest AIDS forum on Delphi] http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous