NationStates Jolt Archive

The general theory that has been taught (at least in the US) for the past 15 years or so was that HIV leads to AIDS. However, there is a lot of evidence that casts serious doubt on this, and there has been for many years. All these were paraphrased from http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html which has many other facts that cast serious doubts on the prevailing AIDS hypothesis:


If HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, then it must be abundant in AIDS patients, based on the same criteria as for other viral diseases. However, in a majority of patients, only HIV antibodies were found (no HIV, that is).
If HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, then all patients with AIDS would also have HIV. However, there are at least 4621 HIV-free people who do have AIDS.
How can HIV cause immunodeficiency by killing T-cells? Retrovirusis depend on viable cells to replicate their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA. T-cells cells infected in vitro thrive.
How can HIV cause AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace? In AIDS patient, less than 1 in 500 of depleted T-cells are or have been infected by HIV.
All virii are most pathogenic before anti-viral immunity. However, AIDS is observed only after anti-HIV immunity bas been established.
How can HIV need 5-10 years from establishing anti-viral immunity to when it causes AIDS? HIV replicates every day, creating 100 new HIVs/cell. It is also most active within weeks after the infection.
HIV is supposed to be transmitted via sexual contact. However, only 0.1% of sexual contacts transmit HIV.
No doctor has ever contracted AIDS from a patient in the last 22 years in the US although there were 816,000 AIDS patients. There is no AIDS epidemic in prostitutes.
If AIDS spread randomly in a population, why are 2/3 of the US patients with AIDS homosexual?


Do you think HIV causes AIDS?

I think Chuck Norris causes AIDS

Jesus Christ. Those "points" are so insipid and, in many cases, utterly false, that they make my eyes bleed.

Wow. Just wow. Now I'm scared. At first, all I had to do to not get AIDS was use a condom. Now I'm not sure. Thanks. Thanks a lot for scaring the shit out of me.

If HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, then it must be abundant in AIDS patients, based on the same criteria as for other viral diseases. However, in a majority of patients, only HIV antibodies were found (no HIV, that is).

Um. HIV antibodies indicate exposure to HIV. Learn some virology.

If HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, then all patients with AIDS would also have HIV. However, there are at least 4621 HIV-free people who do have AIDS.

Wow, 4621? So exact? Smells like bullshit to me.

How can HIV cause immunodeficiency by killing T-cells? Retrovirusis depend on viable cells to replicate their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA. T-cells cells infected in vitro thrive.

They don't. HIV reproduces in T-cells, killing them in the process. It's called the lytic cycle.

How can HIV cause AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace? In AIDS patient, less than 1 in 500 of depleted T-cells are or have been infected by HIV.

This makes no sense.

All virii are most pathogenic before anti-viral immunity. However, AIDS is observed only after anti-HIV immunity bas been established.

Because HIV is a long term disease that takes quite a bit of time to settle in. AIDS is a symptom of HIV (highly developed, untreated), not a separate disease in and of itself.

How can HIV need 5-10 years from establishing anti-viral immunity to when it causes AIDS? HIV replicates every day, creating 100 new HIVs/cell. It is also most active within weeks after the infection.

Because the human immune system is obscenely powerful and it takes a lot to destroy it.

HIV is supposed to be transmitter via sexual contact. However, only 0.1% of sexual contacts transmit GIV.

No shit. Same for all other STDs. They don't have 100% infection rates, or we'd all be dead. Our immune system isn't that weak, you know.

No doctor has ever contracted AIDS from a patient in the last 22 years in the US although there were 816,000 AIDS patients. There is no AIDS epidemic in prostitutes.

Rubber gloves. And yes, yes there is an epidemic in prostitutes.

If AIDS spread randomly in a population, why are 2/3 of the US patients with AIDS homosexual?


Anal sex increases the chance of contracting AIDS dramatically. It spreads like wildfire. That said, in Africa most AIDS cases result from heterosexual contact.

Jesus Christ. Those "points" are so insipid and, in many cases, utterly false, that they make my eyes bleed.

They're not utterly false. Did you even read the paper? There were three full pages of citations. Would you like to disprove any of them, or just say they are untrue?

They're not utterly false. Did you even read the paper? There were three full pages of citations. Would you like to disprove any of them, or just say they are untrue?
Hint -

Citations don't mean shit, especially when you've got the weight of the entire medical community telling you that you're wrong.

HIV and AIDS appear to be seperate.

Though its really weird how they get these.

They're not utterly false. Did you even read the paper? There were three full pages of citations. Would you like to disprove any of them, or just say they are untrue?
The paper is on a .com website. That says it all. If you don't see why, then your understanding of science is more pathetic than it appears, after falling for one of the most ludicrous and dangerous beliefs ever. It's the medical version of Scientology.

However, there is a lot of evidence that casts serious doubt on this

no, there really isn't.

Though isn't it a bit weird?

No HIV, but AIDS? Even for a scientific perspective this would throw our ENTIRE hypothesis off.

Though isn't it a bit weird?

No HIV, but AIDS? Even for a scientific perspective this would throw our ENTIRE hypothesis off.
Of course, since that claim is utter bullshit, it changes nothing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl

Read.

Um. HIV antibodies indicate exposure to HIV. Learn some virology.

Yes, AIDS patients had HIV, but they did not have it anymore.

Wow, 4621? So exact? Smells like bullshit to me.

Read the paper. It was based on a survey and it was a very low estimate.

This makes no sense.

Again, read the paper. I have not said it as well as has been said in there.

Because HIV is a long term disease that takes quite a bit of time to settle in.

Yet it is most active during the first couple of weeks.

No shit. Same for all other STDs.

Name one other STD that has an equally low transmission rate.

*snip*
Take a class in virology. I really don't have time for this.

Of course, since that claim is utter bullshit, it changes nothing.

It's not "utter bullshit." There have been cases reported since 1986. I believe the disease is called "CD4 lymphocytopenia."

The paper is on a .com website. That says it all.

No, I gave a link to the paper on a .com website. It is also in the Indian Academy of Science:

http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/jun2003/383.pdf

Thank you CSW.

First of all, it is a bit easier to contract HIV through anal sex than through vaginal sex, mainly because women don't pass fluids onto men and because the vagina is designed to fight off infections. The anus is not so well equipped, tiny tears occur in the rectum due to straining too much with a tough one, and due to sex of course, then there's more serious problems, like hemorrhoids and anal fissures that allow a direct pathway into the blood stream.

Secondly, HIV is a disease of the immune system, so it can't be killed off by natually occuring antibodies. Therefore, yes, you find antibodies which attack the virus, but you would also find the virus in the same sample.

Thirdly, doctors are extremely strict on handling blood and other possibly infected bodily fluids. I cannot give birth to my baby in a hospital in the US unless I consent to a HIV/AIDS test - doctors in this day and age will not risk handling fluids from a person who they have no details of medical history on. I also work in a biology lab, and we work with live animals. If that's anything to go by, needle sticks are EXTREMELY rare. In the nine months I've been working there, not a single needle stick has been reported by any of the 15 people who handle animals on a daily basis. And most of us aren't as well trained in this as doctors/nurses/health care providers are.

Just because a T-cell thrives does not mean that it functions. Cancer cells thrive too, they don't have any function other than to kill the patient.

The rate at which HIV 'becomes' AIDS is different in every patient, depending on envionmental factors - medication, and how diligent the patient is, repeated exposure to other sources of HIV and AIDS, exposure to other infections, health previous to infection, etc, etc, etc. Some HIV positive people, sticking to their daily regimen of pills can remain AIDS free for many, many years, even have children who are free of the virus. The 5-10 year time line you've given is a very poor estimate.

And finally, if you or anyone else can point out a HIV patient who NEVER, EVER develops AIDS, even after decades, and lived their lives to a ripe old age without AIDS related problems, or an AIDS patient, who, after regular testing for many years, never showed any sign of of the HIV virus and who IMMEDIATELY developed AIDS after being exposed, then you have an arguement.

Check out the NIH (national institutes of health). Here's something for you -
What is AIDS? AIDS is the most serious stage of HIV infection. It results from the destruction of the infected person's immune system. Your immune system is your body's defense system.
of your immune system fight off infection and other diseases. If your immune system does not work well,
are at risk for serious and life-threatening infections
cancers. HIV attacks and destroys the disease-fighting cells of the immune system, leaving the body with a weakened defense against infections and cancer.

Yes, there are cases of AIDS that do not come from HIV. However, the way you've put the pole, you are asking if HIV causes AIDS. Yes, it does, but do so other things, hence the non-HIV caused AIDS cases. What you said is like saying "Does eczema cause rashes?" and saying "No, because contact with Poison Oak causes rashes." THEY BOTH CAUSE RASHES (except in the few lucky people who aren't allergic to poison oak). Similarly, HIV causes AIDS as do the other things that cause AIDS. It isn't an "either/or" case, it's a "both" case.

No, I gave a link to the paper on a .com website. It is also in the Indian Academy of Science:

http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/jun2003/383.pdf

This looks like BS to me. In the introduction to his paper, one of the reasons listed to prove that HIV is not connected to AIDS is "Why would only HIV carriers get AIDS who use either recreational or anti-HIV drugs or are subject to malnutrition?" I'm sorry, but there is no possible way that every single person who has gotten AIDS is uses "either recreationational or anti-HIV drugs or are subject to malnutrition". There is no way that could be true with every single person who has gotten AIDS.

There is a huge amount of evidence and scientific proof linking HIV to AIDS.

And I would add more, but alas, I must leave...

True. Though to what extent?

It's not "utter bullshit." There have been cases reported since 1986. I believe the disease is called "CD4 lymphocytopenia."
Notice that "CD4 lymphocytopenia" and "Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome" are not the same word.

Actually, you know that a lot of professional scientific journals charge a fee for papers? Or demand membership? Unless of course the paper is an old one...

Must find out about Biosci....

Here it is:

http://www.ias.ac.in/j_archive/jbiosci/volindex.html

Interesting, no volume 28....

Notice that "CD4 lymphocytopenia" and "Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome" are not the same word.

Yet they have exactly the same syptoms. It's not the same thing because it was thought that HIV causes AIDS, and since the people with CD4 lymphocytopenia did not have HIV antibodies, they could not have had AIDS.

Notice that "CD4 lymphocytopenia" and "Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome" are not the same word.

No, and they aren't the same. However, in an NIH article about the definition of AIDS, it mentions about CD4 T-cell count, which I'd imagine is related (I'm not a doctor and consequently do not understand some of the things the NIH talks about, since that is the official website for healthcare professionals in the US).

This is the website with the definition, since it might well be useful for this debate. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/1.htm

Sorry that this will probably be a double post, but it didn't seem right to put this in the previous post.

YES, HIV causes AIDS. Why? Because, apparently you now cannot be diagnosed with AIDS UNLESS you have HIV.

What are the AIDS-defining conditions? In December 1992, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the most current list of AIDS- defining conditions*. The AIDS-defining conditions are:
• Candidiasis
• Cervical cancer (invasive)
• Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Cryptosporidiosis
• Cytomegalovirus disease
• Encephalopathy (HIV-related)
• Herpes simplex (severe infection)
• Histoplasmosis
• Isosporiasis
• Kaposi's sarcoma
• Lymphoma (certain types)
• Mycobacterium avium complex
• Pneumocystis carinii/jiroveci pneumonia
• Pneumonia (recurrent)
• Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
• Salmonella septicemia (recurrent)
• Toxoplasmosis of the brain
• Tuberculosis
• Wasting syndrome

People who are not infected with HIV may also develop these diseases; this does not mean they have AIDS. To be diagnosed with AIDS, a person must be infected with HIV.

Thank you NIH. And yes, I did change the color of the last bit, but not the content. For the page I got this from, go here: http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/TestingPositive_FS_en.pdf

That makes sense...though, how do we kill both of them off?

That makes sense...though, how do we kill both of them off?

Heh, if we knew that, we'd have a cure for AIDS...

We have a way to fight it but not kill it.

We have a way to fight it but not kill it.

Which is better than nothing, but certainly not a cure.

Though isn't it a bit weird?

No HIV, but AIDS? Even for a scientific perspective this would throw our ENTIRE hypothesis off.
Actually, since all aids is is a collection of symptoms, there could also be other causes that result in aids. However, the majority of what causes aids is HIV.

Yes, AIDS is caused by HIV.

Whats really interesting is the theories on the origin of HIV. Some people actually believe that the CIA introduced the virus. Also interesting is the anomaly that makes southern Africans so likely and susceptible to the disease; which is only compounded by the very high rape rate in those nations. A real life disaster on a continent wide scale.

The jewish world government causes aids with the laser it took from the roswell aliens.

I think Chuck Norris causes AIDS


you my sir, turned my days sum value of "wtf did i get up this morning" into "extremely worthwhile and productive"

Just a question for any doctors etc., but can the HIV virus be spread through insect bites (such as mosquitoes) like it can through contaminated needles?

'Casting doubts' on what is thus far THE paradigma for dealing with AIDS, without advancing a better and more effective paradigma is a very irresponsible move. It puts a great number of lives at risk, for no conceivable benefit.

Persons who even attempt to do so, should, imho be tried for... conspiracy... to commit crimes against Humanity. Perhaps an LD50 dose of HIV-virus would be a very fitting punishment indeed.

'Casting doubts' on what is thus far THE paradigma for dealing with AIDS, without advancing a better and more effective paradigma is a very irresponsible move. It puts a great number of lives at risk, for no conceivable benefit.

He does offer an alternate theory on what causes AIDS. Clinging to a flawed hypothesis is a very irresponsible move. That would put a great number of lives at risk, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies. How do you account for the African AIDS "epidemic" to be random, but the US and EU AIDS "epidemic" to heavily target homosexuals and IV drug users?

He does offer an alternate theory on what causes AIDS. Clinging to a flawed hypothesis is a very irresponsible move. That would put a great number of lives at risk, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies. How do you account for the African AIDS "epidemic" to be random, but the US and EU AIDS "epidemic" to heavily target homosexuals and IV drug users?
Oh look, you're back. Did you read the articles from real scientists disproving that crap you posted, like I asked?

Jesus Christ.
Good point you're bringing there - now there's the true cause for Aids, stupid beliefs like Christianity! :D

Tsk. Everyone knows that shagging a monkey 'leads' to AIDS.

He does offer an alternate theory on what causes AIDS. Clinging to a flawed hypothesis is a very irresponsible move. That would put a great number of lives at risk, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies. How do you account for the African AIDS "epidemic" to be random, but the US and EU AIDS "epidemic" to heavily target homosexuals and IV drug users?

Counterquestions equates evasions.


Now, either this guy has a better, more effective paradigma, right now, or his very attempt to criticise is highly irresponsible to put it mildly.

Maybe, if, and look-at-it-from-another-angle-artists cannot be prosecuted, persecuted, hunted and haunted severely enough.

Alternative Medecin equates MURDER in the first degree.

He does offer an alternate theory on what causes AIDS. Clinging to a flawed hypothesis is a very irresponsible move. That would put a great number of lives at risk, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies. How do you account for the African AIDS "epidemic" to be random, but the US and EU AIDS "epidemic" to heavily target homosexuals and IV drug users?

Actually, there's a very good reason for both. The main condition that defines AIDS is the supression of the immune system. For homosexuals and IV drug users, a large portion of the population uses recreational drugs, which can cause supression of the immune system, creating all the problems that would be associated with AIDS.

In Africa, it's a bit different. What's one thing that's prevalent in Africa that can cause immune system depression? Malnutrition. So really, if you are a doctor in some poor area in Africa and some person presents showing signs of immunosupression, are you going to diagnose them with malnutrition and get no money from the World Health Organization or are you going to diagnose them with AIDS and get lots of money from the World Health Organization?

Now, either this guy has a better, more effective paradigma, right now, or his very attempt to criticise is highly irresponsible to put it mildly.

Let's say there was a mystery disease, and people thought using leeches to suck a person's blood would cure them of the disease. However, research showed that the disease could not be cured by bloodsucking and that bloodsucking did more harm than good. Should the bloodsucking continue just because there is no alternate theory?

Oh look, you're back. Did you read the articles from real scientists disproving that crap you posted, like I asked?

He teaches at Berkeley. Not a real enough scientist for you? Or do you just prefer newspaper articles with no citations over a scientific paper?

Let's say there was a mystery disease, and people thought using leeches to suck a person's blood would cure them of the disease. However, research showed that the disease could not be cured by bloodsucking and that bloodsucking did more harm than good. Should the bloodsucking continue just because there is no alternate theory?



He teaches at Berkeley. Not a real enough scientist for you? Or do you just prefer newspaper articles with no citations over a scientific paper?


Ain't no mystery disease here - and Hannibal is right ante the bloomin' portas.
Capice?

He teaches at Berkeley. Not a real enough scientist for you? Or do you just prefer newspaper articles with no citations over a scientific paper?
He's also a crank. A known crank. Tenure is a wonderful thing, isn't it?


(Hint: Science is a JOURNAL. Journals are PEER REVIEWED)

He's also a crank. A known crank. Tenure is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Galileo was a known crank, too. I mean, the Earth going around the Sun? Preposterous -- what was he on? We should lock Duesberg up like we did Galileo.

The general theory that has been taught (at least in the US) for the past 15 years or so was that HIV leads to AIDS. However, there is a lot of evidence that casts serious doubt on this, and there has been for many years. All these were paraphrased from http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html which has many other facts that cast serious doubts on the prevailing AIDS hypothesis:


If HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, then it must be abundant in AIDS patients, based on the same criteria as for other viral diseases. However, in a majority of patients, only HIV antibodies were found (no HIV, that is).


The virus is not found in the blood stream necesarily, as it is retrovirus, which is to say it will hide its DNA in the DNA of the human cell.

If HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, then all patients with AIDS would also have HIV. However, there are at least 4621 HIV-free people who do have AIDS.

I would be interested to hear the source for this. I find that questionable.

How can HIV cause immunodeficiency by killing T-cells? Retrovirusis depend on viable cells to replicate their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA. T-cells cells infected in vitro thrive.

Quite. The most successful viruses do not kill their hosts rapidly. That is not odd. It means the virus resides in the cell, this is refered to as latency. The herpes simplex virus will hide in a nerve cell for years, only occasionally causing a cold sore. Notice that the presence of the virus causes disease without destroying the cells around it.

How can HIV cause AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace? In AIDS patient, less than 1 in 500 of depleted T-cells are or have been infected by HIV.

It would not be possible to elucidate this. I would question what you have read. If you would cite a source that would be useful.

All virii are most pathogenic before anti-viral immunity. However, AIDS is observed only after anti-HIV immunity bas been established.

Again, I refer you to the example of herpes simplex virus, the presence of an antibody response will not lead to the infection being removed from the body, this is in the nature of reterovirus.

How can HIV need 5-10 years from establishing anti-viral immunity to when it causes AIDS? HIV replicates every day, creating 100 new HIVs/cell. It is also most active within weeks after the infection.

This is false, it can go for considerable periods of time without replicating. Otherwise it would not be possible for it to be latant. In other words, it would destroy T cells rapidly and as you say yourself, this is not the case. It is a virus and cell is therefore the wrong concept and word.

HIV is supposed to be transmitted via sexual contact. However, only 0.1% of sexual contacts transmit HIV.

The stat is dubious. If it is 0.1%, that is likely to refer to all sexual contacts, in which case it will be due to people not having HIV. It is not inevitable that having sexual intercourse with a carrier of HIV will result in HIV infection, but it is the most likely route, and far more likely that 0.1%

No doctor has ever contracted AIDS from a patient in the last 22 years in the US although there were 816,000 AIDS patients. There is no AIDS epidemic in prostitutes.

These facts are made up. No first one is odd, do doctors and patients routinely have unprotected sex as part of a consultation? What relevence does this have to the role of HIV.

There is a depressing incidence of AIDS and indeed HIV in prostitutes. This is less in the developed world, which is due to less HIV and widespread use of condoms.

If AIDS spread randomly in a population, why are 2/3 of the US patients with AIDS homosexual?


There are a dispropotionate number of homosexual males with AIDS, as there are with HIV. Again the two are associated. This is because male to male sexual intercorse is the most effective method of transmission.

Most HIV and AIDS patients in the USA are now straight.

[QUOTE=Begoned]Do you think HIV causes AIDS?

Yes, and I have yet to hear a strong argument against the association.

They're not utterly false. Did you even read the paper? There were three full pages of citations. Would you like to disprove any of them, or just say they are untrue?

Would you share this paper?

Galileo was a known crank, too. I mean, the Earth going around the Sun? Preposterous -- what was he on? We should lock Duesberg up like we did Galileo.
Except Galileo had some proof. Do read the papers I cited dearest.

Would you share this paper?

I cited it in my first post:

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

Would you share this paper?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12799487&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Goodness, it has been published.

I have reviewed papers prior to publication (peer review) and have never come across one as flawed as this. I would have passed it, though not without great qualification, as most people reading this would have the information to see the limits to the arguements.

It is a very poorly argued paper. As a referee I would pass it, with caveats. As an editor I would throw it out as a disgrace to the publication. I would hope it would be published somewhere, but I would not want to be associated with such nonsense.

Actually, there's a very good reason for both. The main condition that defines AIDS is the supression of the immune system. For homosexuals and IV drug users, a large portion of the population uses recreational drugs, which can cause supression of the immune system, creating all the problems that would be associated with AIDS.

In Africa, it's a bit different. What's one thing that's prevalent in Africa that can cause immune system depression? Malnutrition. So really, if you are a doctor in some poor area in Africa and some person presents showing signs of immunosupression, are you going to diagnose them with malnutrition and get no money from the World Health Organization or are you going to diagnose them with AIDS and get lots of money from the World Health Organization?

But your examples make no sense. If drug use caused immuno-suppression of this type, these symptoms would have been observable for most of the past century; instead they appear suddenly in the early 1980s. The recreational drug use statistics indicate no major changes at that time, save a slight DECREASE in use over the levels in the 1970s.

Similarly, if malnutrition were the cause of AIDS effects in Africa, we should have been seeing the cases of the disease in the most malnourished people there - Eastern and Northern Sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, the big explosion of AIDS has been in Central and Southern Africa - where malnutrition is no more of a problem than it is in South America. Further, the explosion initially occurred among the relatively well-off, not the poor

As regards the question of people with AIDS symptoms but no HIV viral load - simply, HIV is not the ONLY cause of immunity suppression. A variety of other conditions can also damage the immune system, from some types of cancers to heavy metal contamination. Technically, this is a mis-diagnosis, an unfortunately possible event - doctors are, after all, only human.

The HIV-AIDS connection is so well established, and so clear from clinical evidence, that attempting to disprove it indicates either a fool or willful disregard of the facts.

I'm not a health professional, though i did spend 7 years working at and volunteering at my local AIDS organization, so since no one else answered the mosquito question, i will. No, you can not get HIV from a mosquito bite, the main reason being that when mosquitoes bite you, they take blood out, they don't put it in. HIV also doesn't survive long outside the human body, i think it dies in under a minute.

I'm not a health professional, though i did spend 7 years working at and volunteering at my local AIDS organization, so since no one else answered the mosquito question, i will. No, you can not get HIV from a mosquito bite, the main reason being that when mosquitoes bite you, they take blood out, they don't put it in. HIV also doesn't survive long outside the human body, i think it dies in under a minute.

That's what I'm confused about, mosquitoes can spread malaria but not HIV, whereas needles do basically the same thing (don't mosquitoeas also inject saliva to stop the blood clotting?), and do spread it.

That's what I'm confused about, mosquitoes can spread malaria but not HIV, whereas needles do basically the same thing (don't mosquitoeas also inject saliva to stop the blood clotting?), and do spread it.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/aids.htm

The answer is just a google search away. Oh, and malaria is not a virus, it is a protozoon. It is a parasite that uses mosquitos as a vector - it is evolved to dwell in mosquitos.

I will not be commenting on the crap in the OP, as it's too stupid to spend time on.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/aids.htm

The answer is just a google search away. Oh, and malaria is not a virus, it is a protozoon. It is a parasite that uses mosquitos as a vector - it is evolved to dwell in mosquitos.

I will not be commenting on the crap in the OP, as it's too stupid to spend time on.

Thanks, that explained it perfectly. :)

I love people who go against a vast body of scientific evidence, armed only with a crackpot theory and one or two superficially anomalous facts

Except where they meet with success without improving their body of evidence. Viz Creationism.