USA/Africa Dialogue, No. 259: Acrobatic of the AIDS Debate II

Far more sustained and vigorous than the Moses vs George, here is another consolidation of the debate on AIDS Between Dr. Rasnick and Dr. Aluko:

Aluko had previously posed several questions to the Rasnick, Mhlongo, Geshekter AIH Group about AIDS, HIV and their connection. Rasnick chose to answer simply and directly.

You are an enigma to me. We have answer all your questions in the huge
volume of publications over the years. I sent you tons of stuff. Have
you read any of it?

That you declare me an "enigma" is a compliment, coming from a highly intelligent and accomplished person like yourself ! :-) That is my first intellectual gift of 2005 ! :-)

Let us face the facts: You have been a PSHA - Person Studying HIV/AIDS (IN CONTRADISTINCTION WITH THE MORE POPULAR TERM "PLWHA", PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS) - for probably decades now, while I have described myself as a peripheral AIDS activist interested in saving lives in the world, but particularly in AIDS' so-called epicenter of Africa. Some serendipity has brought me back to its center - these USA/Africa Dialogues, and I have been trying to catch up since.

In choosing the materials to put on my website,

I read through MOST of them: I am a very FAST reader, as well as a FAST typist ! :-) I cannot say that I have FOLLOWED ALL the arguments, but I have tried.

RASNICK:

Nevertheless, I will answer your questions below as you require with straight, simple answers. In order to accept or reject these straight, simple answers you must read the evidence.

I must not only read YOUR AIH evidence to accept or reject your thesis, but I must also read the evidence of the PIH group to accept or reject some or all of their thesis.

I don't know how else to help you.

You have been most helpful in continuing this conversation with me. You will stop being of help if and only if you cut the conversation off either because of impatience or indignation.

--------THE QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND COUNTER-RESPONSES FOLLOW ----------------

ALUKO'S QUESTION NUMBER 1:

RASNICK ANSWER NUMBER 1:

AIDS = KS, dementia, PCP, diarrhea, cervical cancer, wasting, CMV,... +
antibodies to HIV.

Without antibodies to HIV there is no AIDS, irrespective of whether a
person has any or all of the AIDS-defining diseases from whatever
cause.

AIDS = fever, diarrhea, weight-loss, persistent cough, TB among other
conventional African diseases due to poverty, malnutrition, bad water,
parasites.

HIV is not part of the definition of AIDS in Africa

ALUKO'S COUNTER-RESPONSE NUMBER 1:

I understand that these are CLINICAL indications - a total of about 26 of them according to CDC definitions, but I would prefer an HIV-free definition, because the term "HIV" begs the question.

What about the inclusion of T4+ cells count being sustainably less than 200 ? Rapid deterioration (including to ZERO) from the healthy numbers of 500-1500 ? Or T8+/T4+ ratios? Fatality-causing ? Are these quantitative indications - supplemented of course by the clinical indicators - not a better starting point ?

The presence and detection of antibodies to any virus indicates that the body's immune system was once called upon to fight a particular virus, does it not ? Is it true that even if the particular virus is no longer present, the antibodies may still be around for some time after - or remain in detectable amounts FOR EVER while the person lives ? So the presence of an antibody does NOT 100% imply the presence of the virus ?

Next, does the presence of a virus imply the presence of the disease - that is either the symptoms of the disease IN ITSELF, or in the case of an immunosuppression, the symptoms of the opportunistic diseases ? Does the presence of eggs in a woman, for example, mean that she has babies in her ?

ALUKO'S QUESTION NUMBER 2:

RASNICK'S ANSWER NUMBER 2:

ALUKO'S COUNTER-RESPONSE NUMBER 2:

Good! I now get that straight answer !

My understanding is that HIV probably has been around since time immemorial, but manifested itself when certain social and medical conditions became right in the world.

Since you say that it exists, it means that it has a biological/chemical nature that can be described, and a detection method that is repeatable, right ?

ALUKO'S QUESTION NUMBER 3:

Does HIV cause AIDS?

RASNICK'S ANSWER NUMBER 3:

ALUKO'S COUNTER-RESPONSE NUMBER 3:

But what does it do ? Does it affect T4+ cell count ?

ALUKO'S QUESTION NUMBER 4:

Does HIV cause all AIDS? etc.

RASNICK'S ANSWER NUMBER 4:

No. HIV is harmless.

ALUKO'S COUNTER-RESPONSE:

Okay, now that is a simple and BOLD statement that is EITHER TRUE or FALSE, and I appreciate that.

Okay, let us analyze the term HIV: Human immunodeficieny virus. I will like us to take out the "I" for the moment, because if it is harmless according to you, then it cannot cause immonudeficiency.

So we have a human virus that has a biological/chemical nature, can be detected repeatably, and resides in human beings - and yet are harmless, meaning that they either don't interact in any way with the human cells, or else their interaction does not in any way IMPAIR the natural functions of those cells.

My questions are three-fold here:

1. are there any other viruses, human or otherwise, but particularly human, that have been found to do this ?

2. is this harmlessness a function of viral loading at all ? That is, an otherwise healthy person might become impaired if the amount of viruses exceeds a certain amount ? Truthfully, I cannot imagine a situation where an HI is associated with every one of the 10, 50 or 100 trillion cells in the human body, and yet it remains harmless, so there must be a point because zero virus and .

3. is this harmlessness a function of the extant health status of the person - that is, if there is an unhealthiness (by some other means) in the person in question, the presence of this particular HV might worsen the person's health ?

Note that I am asking these questions, fully aware that the presence of a virus does not mean the presence of a disease. Even the inability to fight a virus (due to immunodeficiency) does not mean the clinical presence of a disease, just that there is a greater propensity for the disease to manifest itself once certain other conditions are right.

I read somewhere that "Seed is nothing; soil is everything!" - and that was compelling !

I await your responses - and/or those of others.

___________________________________________________________________________