On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:47:57 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
Scenario - A virus is harmful. A vaccine is developed and deployed.
The infection rate and death rate goes down. The virus is effectively
proven to have caused the disease.

The death rate today is largely caused by taking AIDS drugs. So a
vaccine that does not account for that is meaningless.

The death rate would plummet if they'd just stop giving AIDS drugs to
any poor slob who's unfortunate enough to test positive for a harmless
retrovirus.

And then plummet even further if certain lifestyles were modified,
until "AIDS" simply disappeared.

Scenario - A virus is harmless. A vaccine is developed and deployed.
The infection rate and death rate are unchanged.

A vaccine (depending on the kind of vaccine, of course, i.e., live,
attenuated, etc.) would probably allow for those given the vaccine to
all test positive for HIV (vaccines stimulate antibody production). If
testing positive for HIV would then require being given AIDS drugs,
there would actually be an INCREASE in deaths.

Scenario - No vaccine is ever developed or deployed. Other methods need
to be used to prove the issue.

It doesn't kill cells.

The very successful viruses do not.

Let's stick to retroviruses, okay?

Retroviruses, virtually by definition, cannot kill cells and still
survive. No cell, no retrovirus. That's why the actual retrovirus is
virtually impossible to detect, even in patients with "full-blown"
AIDS. It's quickly neutralized by the immune system. Only HIV
*antibodies* remain.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman