Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician
Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse NY
Send response to journal:
With regards to Herr Englebrecht's responses:
If referring him to previously outlined posts covering the past year is "coiling up" then so be it, but I suggest he read the entire list of rapid responses before assuming that anything I say is unsupported.
For example a very quick search for HIV mediated cell death revealed the following paper.
"Killing of Primary CD4+ T cells by non-syncitium inducing macrophage -tropic human immunodeficiency virus type 1".
Yu et al, PNAS Vol 91 pp 10237-10241 Oct 1994
Once again I suggest that if he (or others) believes something to be true simply on the basis of a few dissident websites, that perhaps they should look to see if they have not been seriously mislead.
Another example is Getchell et al, J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Apr;23(4):737-42."Continuous production of a cytopathic human T- lymphotropic virus in a permissive neoplastic T-cell line." They cloned a cell line that is resistant to HIV-mediated cell death, even though over 90% of the parental cells were killed after infection.
The latter paper is available online at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=362827&blobtype=pdf
I would also say that statements like "epidemiology is not such clear -cut proof because it's not causation it's just correlation" also highlight the problem. The correlation is PART of the causation proof. You cannot simply choose to ignore each small aspect of the proof and then ask for the proof to be presented without key components. It's a bit like saying that a car engine is useless without the wheels, so the engine cannot make the car move. Now show me a car moving without an engine.
The fact that HIV infection precedes a CD4 T cell decline that is not seen in any other human condition is proof enough. It isn't even required that HIV directly kills the T cells, even though it does. Smoking after all predisposes people to lung infections, but it doesn't directly introduce the bacterial pathogen... This is why epidemiology is in fact far more than "just" correlation. You can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a factor is bad or good without having a clue as to why that might be the case.
The studies requested have all been previously discussed here. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495 The post entitled "HIV mechanism revisited" is a fully referenced explanation as to how HIV causes AIDS, according to my current understanding.
Nick Bennett email@example.com
Competing interests: None declared