"HIV" necessary for AIDS? 25 October 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Biophysicist
Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, 6001,
Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso, Sam Mhlongo, Todd Miller, Christian Fiala

Send response to journal:
Re: "HIV" necessary for AIDS?

"HIV" necessary for AIDS?

In his rapid response: "Re: Questions to Nicholas Bennett and Peter Flegg", 11 October, Peter Flegg wrote: "In his rapid response: "Re: "HIV" is not sufficient nor necessary for KS", 8 September, Christopher Noble wrote: "Nobody is saying that HIV infection is a necessary or sufficient cause of any of the AIDS indicator opportunistic infections or malignancies". Chris Noble has previously attempted to correct the Perth Group misunderstandings on this issue with perfect clarity. Why they continue to misquote him as saying "HIV is not necessary for AIDS" when he actually says something quite different (see 1st para above) escapes me. Realisation of this renders their questions redundant."

In his rapid responses: "Re: Repeat, the origin of CK and RT activity", 11 October, Nicholas Bennett wrote: "In his post of 8th September, Christopher Noble states: "Nobody is saying that HIV infection is a necessary or sufficient cause of any of the AIDS indicator opportunistic infections or malignancies". Which is true. The Perth Group twist this to mean: "If AIDS can develop in the absence of "HIV", what are the other agents which cause AIDS". Mr Noble did not say AIDS can exist in the absence of HIV, he said the AIDS-opportunistic infections can exist in the absence of HIV".

An agent is said to be necessary if the disease cannot develop in its absence. Cigarette smoking is not necessary for lung cancer, because lung cancer can appear in non-smokers. Other agents, for example, asbestos, can also cause lung cancer.

If, as Christopher Noble stated, "HIV" is not necessary for "any of the AIDS indicator opportunistic infections or malignancies", then there must be other agents which cause the AIDS opportunistic infections and malignancies.

(i) What are the other agents which cause the opportunistic infections and malignancies which signify AIDS?;

(ii) Why, for twenty years, have the "HIV" experts claimed that "HIV" is the only agent which causes the "AIDS-OI" and malignancies, for example in gay men, haemophiliacs and drug users?;

(iii) Why, for the past twenty years, has "HIV" been the only agent considered in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of the "AIDS-OIs" in gay men, haemophiliacs and drug users?

Competing interests: None declared