Send response to journal:
In his Rapid response July 14th, Christopher Noble wrote:
"Surely you must see how implausible it is to claim that a wide range of factors all cause AIDS (the list put forward by denialists includes antibiotics, corticosteroids, semen, benzene, malnutrition etc...) and completely coincidentally they all cause HIV tests to be positive."
Christopher Noble doesn't seem to remember that AIDS, far from being a single disease, is a syndrom including more than 30 of them. That a wide range of factors causes a wide range of diseases doesn't seem improbable to me. Does Christopher Noble think that malnutrition or benzene and antibiotics in large quantities can not do any harm to the human body and its immune defense system?
On to the fact that all AIDS cases cause HIV tests to be positive (besides being false, you don't even have to be HIV+ to have AIDS nowadays), it seems important to state, once again, that if the definition of AIDS includes "positivity to HIV-antibody tests", you cannot use the (not quite) 100% correlation between seropositivity and AIDS as an argument for causation. That's just basic logic, it shouldn't have to be said here.
If HIV has to be proven the cause of AIDS, among other possible causes, then a definition of AIDS must be used, that does not include the presence of HIV.
Can Christopher Noble give such a definition of AIDS?
Saying that HIV causes AIDS in fact means "HIV is the cause of AIDS- defining diseases if and only if the HIV-antibody test is positive". But this is weird. All these diseases can existe without HIV. If somebody HIV+ gets one of the diseases, how does anyone know if he caught it because of HIV, or if he would have caught it anyway, for other reasons? Why can't a seropositive person have any disease not linked to HIV? And so, how can you prove HIV is the cause of AIDS anyway?
One other thing about HIV. It is said to be 100% deadly, even though some people HIV+ since the tests exist, Long-Term Non-Progressors (LTNP), are still alive today. The time taken by the virus to really attack the body, supposed to be up to 20 years now, being the same as the age of the tests (which is of course one of the weirdest thing about this virus), shows that HIV doesn't seem to kill everybody who got it. There's no reason to say that HIV kills every person it infects.
HIV tests are HIV-antibodies tests. They are supposed to show if somebody has been in contact with the virus. Saying that somebody positive for the antibodies is positive for the virus necessarily means that the body is assumed not to be able to fight HIV, hence that LTNP cannot exist. They do, so I'm not sure how HIV-antibodies tests is supposed to prove anything. Yet, a positive result can make perfectly healthy people on medications like AZT which are more than dangerous.
I know these tests are far from being useless and worthless, as they are indeed strongly correlated to AIDS-defining deseases. But that doesn't prove anything, if the presence of the virus in the body, not its antibodies, cannot be proved. It would be much safer to say that the antibodies detected by the test cause AIDS, at least they're sure to be in the bloodstream.
These are only some of the reasons I don't believe in the paradigm HIV=AIDS=Death. I don't feel I have to give another theory that would better fit the facts. I'm just saying, this is nonsense. The sort of nonsense which brings lots of money to one kind of people, and kills or prevents to save another kind. The fact that one kind is made of big pharma execs, the other ones of drug addicts, homosexuals, Africans seems, to paraphrase Christopher Noble, "completely coincidental".
Competing interests: None declared