Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory? [Archive]

View Full Version : Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?

Pages : [1] 2

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 08:43 PM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?

Jimbo07

9th June 2008, 09:16 PM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?

Wikipedia is your friend

teh HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV)

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 09:46 PM

Wikipedia is your friend

teh HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV)

I am sorry, that is just a statement that HIV exists. I was looking for evidence.

Jimbo07

9th June 2008, 09:51 PM

I am sorry, that is just a statement that HIV exists. I was looking for evidence.

I'm assuming the scanning electron micrograph doesn't count (most likely due to Photoshopping)?

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 09:54 PM

I'm assuming the scanning electron micrograph doesn't count (most likely due to Photoshopping)?

There is no picture of HIV.

portlandatheist

9th June 2008, 09:57 PM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?

Jesus Christ. Here we go....

pchams

9th June 2008, 09:58 PM

Some internet trailers must be so far away from the post office and libary that they still live in the 1980's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HIV-budding-Color.jpg

Take a course (http://www.phs.utoronto.ca/faculty_template_new.asp?GetFile=tMyers)

AntiTelharsic

9th June 2008, 09:59 PM

At least now we know he's trolling with the black hole stuff.

Jimbo07

9th June 2008, 10:03 PM

There is no picture of HIV.

Okay, I'm not going to make a snarky response in this post. I have to admit that I am genuinely confused... what about it is not a picture of HIV? If that's not it, what would be? What would you consider to be evidence for HIV? Any other virus?

:confused:

robinson

9th June 2008, 10:06 PM

An important note, HIV is not a real virus. It should be HIR or HIRV, not HIV. Because it is a retrovirus. Which means it can't reproduce by itself, it has to be produced by a host cell.

robinson

9th June 2008, 10:07 PM

But back to the topic.

I thought it was obvious a long time ago HIV wasn't a threat to most people.

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 10:08 PM

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 10:09 PM

Okay, I'm not going to make a snarky response in this post. I have to admit that I am genuinely confused... what about it is not a picture of HIV? If that's not it, what would be? What would you consider to be evidence for HIV? Any other virus?

:confused:

What in that picture do you think is HIV, and what does the caption tell you?

Jimbo07

9th June 2008, 10:37 PM

What in that picture do you think is HIV, and what does the caption tell you?

I honestly do not understand what is going on here... if I say a colour, does it show that I don't know what I'm talking about? I haven't asserted anything! I really, truly, do not understand your point. What is evidence for a virus?

GreyICE

9th June 2008, 10:50 PM

I honestly do not understand what is going on here... if I say a colour, does it show that I don't know what I'm talking about? I haven't asserted anything! I really, truly, do not understand your point. What is evidence for a virus?

I can explain his point:

JdG: Some commonly held scientific belief is retarded.
Everyone: Um, what you said contradicts anywhere from 300 to 1500 years of science, not to mention observation, practice, practical methodology, theory, and calculations.
JdG: All you have is ad homs. None of you have addressed my point. You're all really stupid. I'm going to make this as dismissing as possible so you'll respond because I'm so damn good at trolling.

Put him on ignore, call it a day. He's an obvious troll, and I am really shocked you guys keep falling for that. That's just about the third or fourth troll ever invented, and I'm talking Usenet here.

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 10:51 PM

Put him on ignore, call it a day. He's an obvious troll, and I am really shocked you guys keep falling for that. That's just about the third or fourth troll ever invented, and I'm talking Usenet here.

Ohh, you also can not evidence HIV.

:gnome:

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 10:53 PM

I honestly do not understand what is going on here... if I say a colour, does it show that I don't know what I'm talking about? I haven't asserted anything! I really, truly, do not understand your point. What is evidence for a virus?

There is no evidence of HIV. We have only found parts that we assume when put together are HIV and we do even find these supposed parts in the majority of AIDS patients.

Should not HIV be easily found as the AIDS patients live many years with the disease and as such the virus should be very prevalent within the body? This is generally the natural course of a virus.

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 10:58 PM

Some commonly held scientific belief is retarded.

Science is based upon belief?

See, here is where you have evidenced that your science if no different than the Mormon's belief in magic underwear.

Jimbo07

9th June 2008, 11:02 PM

I'm going to make this as dismissing as possible so you'll respond because I'm so damn good at trolling.

See, I didn't want to assume that, just from all of the other threads where JdG has been so mind-bogglingly wrong about everything.

I've never fully understood trolling. Is it the whole negative attention thing? I've read some on trolling and I'd guess that the motivation is really on a case-by-case basis.

Put him on ignore, call it a day.

I'm really bad for not doing that.

ETA:

There is no evidence of HIV. We have only found parts that we assume when put together are HIV and we do even find these supposed parts in the majority of AIDS patients.

This should probably be addressed, but I've realized that I've suddenly blown a lot time playing this cool web game I found while in this thread:

Virus 2 (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://hometown.aol.com/johnmscalzi/virus0223.jpg&imgrefurl=http://journals.aol.com/johnmscalzi/bytheway/entries/2007/02/23/your-friday-game-virus-2/7173&h=303&w=400&sz=55&hl=en&start=174&tbnid=-ixgH_iyRK0nLM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvirus%26start%3D162%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp% 3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)

JEROME DA GNOME

9th June 2008, 11:04 PM

GreyICE

9th June 2008, 11:16 PM

See, I didn't want to assume that, just from all of the other threads where JdG has been so mind-bogglingly wrong about everything.

I've never fully understood trolling. Is it the whole negative attention thing? I've read some on trolling and I'd guess that the motivation is really on a case-by-case basis. Haha, see, it's great now, because I don't even have to read his rain of replies. Is he calling what I said an ad hom? Is he going after the pathetic bone I chucked him by adding the word belief in my post? He's back to begging for evidence again, I'm sure, but what kind? Is it stating the evidence is insufficient for some randomly invented reason, or just going after irrelevant statements for no good reason. I'm kind of curious, then I realize I just don't care. I can imagine somehow his replies are the most retarded thing I ever read, and no matter how retarded they are, they're actually less painful than whatever he's babbling about.

He's a damn good troll, I admit, but any act repeated frequently is obvious.

As for the motivations, I think this is probably the variety that gets a thrill out of seeing everyone paying attention to him. Everyone cares what he says. And apparently there's people who keep feeding him, so whatever. I just hate when it derails an actual decent thread, like it's doing here.

learner

9th June 2008, 11:32 PM

It seems to me his motivation is attention and being able to cause affect ( probably something he is unable to in the real world) Il do, as i usualy do, and go elsewhere. Yes, it is very annoying to have a decent thread derailed. He will always be fed though!

Kevin_Lowe

10th June 2008, 12:15 AM

Back when AIDS was first linked with HIV the evidence was indeed a bit shaky and arguably overstated. Subsequent research has ironed out those problems and it turns out that the HIV-causes-AIDS people were right.

However since conspiracy nitwits don't keep up with the literature you still encounter the odd nitwit who thinks that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Capsid

10th June 2008, 02:18 AM

Take the blood from an HIV+ individual and culture it with an indicator cell line. Those cells get infected and can be confirmed by formation of syncitia, production of HIV antigen and detection of both proviral DNA and viral RNA.

OMGturt1es

10th June 2008, 03:31 AM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?

:O

WOW.

skeptigirl

10th June 2008, 03:33 AM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?Are you really that gullible, Jerome? Do you believe the handful of quacks who claim HIV is not the cause of HIV-AIDS?

geni

10th June 2008, 05:05 AM

Answer quick!

Which color is the virus?

We are talking about something about 0.1µm in size. The shortest wavelengths of light are 0.4µm in size.

volatile

10th June 2008, 05:37 AM

I am sorry, that is just a statement that HIV exists. I was looking for evidence.

So we're adding HIV to the list of things you don't believe in now, including gravity and black holes?

You are joking, right?

lupus_in_fabula

10th June 2008, 06:43 AM

... By using a specialized microscope that only illuminates the cell's surface, they have become the first to see, in real time and in plain view, hundreds of thousands of molecules coming together in a living cell to form a single particle of the virus that has, in less than 25 years, claimed more than 25 million lives: HIV.

Here’s the article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080525132345.htm).

Jimbo07

10th June 2008, 07:49 AM

There is no evidence of HIV. We have only found parts that we assume when put together are HIV and we do even find these supposed parts in the majority of AIDS patients.

Have you ever considered why people would encourage you to not talk about particular subjects?

My response to both of these points is that I am not an expert. Nor, apparently, are you. I can only argue each point so far, because we rapidly get out of the realm of my knowledge and beyond my ability to research in the 30s required for an internetz argument. What evidence there is clearly does not support your position, without either of us having to be expert in this field.

ETA: lupus, the picture with your article won't be considered evidence, presumably because nothing in it is a photograph of a single, isolated particle of the virus. :rolleyes:

Paulhoff

10th June 2008, 10:50 AM

An important note, HIV is not a real virus. It should be HIR or HIRV, not HIV. Because it is a retrovirus. Which means it can't reproduce by itself, it has to be produced by a host cell.
Daaaaaaaa, all viruses have to produced by a host cell.

Paul

:) :) :)

Upchurch

10th June 2008, 11:02 AM

An important note, HIV is not a real virus. It should be HIR or HIRV, not HIV. Because it is a retrovirus. Which means it can't reproduce by itself, it has to be produced by a host cell.
Further, a retrovirus is a type of virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Reverse_transcribing_viruses), not a non-"real virus".

FWIW

Deetee

10th June 2008, 12:19 PM

Robinson, I had you down as brighter than that.......

Deetee

10th June 2008, 12:31 PM

I have a paper copy of this article (http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v22/n7/abs/7595054a.html) in my possesion. It contains excellent photos of single HIV virions.

Another article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526175714.htm) on HIV ultrastructure.
And another (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/69/3/1778.pdf).
And another with views of HIV imaged by atomic force microscopy (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/77/22/11896?view=long&pmid=14581526).

ETA Here is the first article online (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=152888&blobtype=pdf)for you all to see.

Jerome...., enjoy!

Ivor the Engineer

10th June 2008, 12:34 PM

Deetee, I had you down as brighter than that...;)

skeptigirl

10th June 2008, 01:57 PM

We are talking about something about 0.1µm in size. The shortest wavelengths of light are 0.4µm in size.Fascinating. I didn't know that. Bacteria OTOH can grow into a colony large enough to have color. Viruses cannot since they don't form colonies.

skeptigirl

10th June 2008, 02:05 PM

Deetee, I had you down as brighter than that...;)I don't get your joke, oh wait.... nooowww I get it. Took me a minute :)

godless dave

10th June 2008, 02:43 PM

An important note, HIV is not a real virus. It should be HIR or HIRV, not HIV. Because it is a retrovirus. Which means it can't reproduce by itself, it has to be produced by a host cell.

All viruses require a host cell to reproduce. That's why viruses aren't technically "alive"; they can't reproduce on their own and don't have cells.

Retroviruses belong to a subcategory of viruses; they're still "real" viruses.

bjornart

10th June 2008, 02:50 PM

Haha, see, it's great now, because I don't even have to read his rain of replies. Is he calling what I said an ad hom? Is he going after the pathetic bone I chucked him by adding the word belief in my post? He's back to begging for evidence again, I'm sure, but what kind? Is it stating the evidence is insufficient for some randomly invented reason, or just going after irrelevant statements for no good reason. I'm kind of curious, then I realize I just don't care. I can imagine somehow his replies are the most retarded thing I ever read, and no matter how retarded they are, they're actually less painful than whatever he's babbling about.

This post just made my day. Thanks. :D

robinson

10th June 2008, 04:45 PM

All viruses require a host cell to reproduce. That's why viruses aren't technically "alive"; they can't reproduce on their own and don't have cells.

Retroviruses belong to a subcategory of viruses; they're still "real" viruses.

I may be wrong about this. I thought a regular virus could replicate if it had a cell culture (not living cells) as a medium. HIV requires living cells (and a lot of help) to replicate.

Daaaaaaaa, all viruses have to produced by a host cell.

Again, I think a regular virus can replicate of it has just the building blocks available. They don't require a live cell. A retrovirus needs a living cell to replicate, what with the cells DNA actually producing the "virus". A normal virus can duplicate itself, it doesn't require the cell's DNA to survive.

AkuManiMani

10th June 2008, 05:04 PM

What in that picture do you think is HIV, and what does the caption tell you?

Apparently, the small green particles emerging from the much larger cell.

Deetee

10th June 2008, 05:12 PM

I may be wrong about this. I thought a regular virus could replicate if it had a cell culture (not living cells) as a medium. HIV requires living cells (and a lot of help) to replicate.

Again, I think a regular virus can replicate of it has just the building blocks available. They don't require a live cell. A retrovirus needs a living cell to replicate, what with the cells DNA actually producing the "virus". A normal virus can duplicate itself, it doesn't require the cell's DNA to survive.

Cell cultures do consist of living cells.
"Regular viruses" still require the host cell's assistance to replicate. Host polymerase enzymes do the replicating.
Interestingly, retroviruses bring along their own replication enzyme in the form of reverse transcriptase (RT), but they too need a cell to replicate in.
They are termed retroviruses because the RT makes a DNA copy of the viral RNA, rather than the usual method of viral replication where DNA generates DNA, and RNA generates RNA.

JEROME DA GNOME

10th June 2008, 05:17 PM

As my question was deemed off-topic, I began a new thread to continue the talk.

HIV-Not the cause of AIDS say Respected Virologist. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115575)

AkuManiMani

10th June 2008, 05:18 PM

As my question was deemed off-topic, I began a new thread to continue the talk.

HIV-Not the cause of AIDS say Respected Virologist. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115575)

You just have a thing for underdog theories, dontcha? ;)

dudalb

10th June 2008, 07:39 PM

You just have a thing for underdog theories, dontcha? ;)

He has a thing for crackpots,period.

JEROME DA GNOME

10th June 2008, 10:34 PM

Is someone seriously challenging the notion that HIV spreads through classical missionary style sex?

Yes, people, it's God's punishment for doing something besides missionary.

Stop epic failing. We've documented pretty well that any time there's body fluid - body fluid contact, especially if that fluid rapidly enters the blood stream, there's a risk of HIV infection. It can spread through sores in the mouth, for pete's sake. We've documented spreads through pretty much every method of sex, without getting too graphic.

And no, there is no ethical double blind experiment for HIV transmission (unless you're named Mengele), so some of this stuff is pattern-based, rather than direct scientific study. On pattern-based, there MAY be a lower chance of it spreading through vaginal rather than anal, there is definitely a much lower chance of it spreading through oral, but everything I read said a larger factor was the viral concentration in the bloodstream - a much more important factor than anal or vaginal, afaik.

Do you have evidence that HIV is transfered in the ways you describe?

Maybe you are just reading the handout from the local clinic?

The Man

10th June 2008, 11:27 PM

Do you have evidence that HIV is transfered in the ways you describe?

Maybe you are just reading the handout from the local clinic?

Jerome, do you have evidence that anything is evidenced?

Taffer

10th June 2008, 11:42 PM

An important note, HIV is not a real virus. It should be HIR or HIRV, not HIV. Because it is a retrovirus. Which means it can't reproduce by itself, it has to be produced by a host cell.

That is not very accurate. An retrovirus is so named because it uses reverse transcriptase to copy its RNA genome into a DNA copy, which is then replicated. This can be either within or without the host genome.

The Man

11th June 2008, 01:02 AM

That is not very accurate. An retrovirus is so named because it uses reverse transcriptase to copy its RNA genome into a DNA copy, which is then replicated. This can be either within or without the host genome.

Not exactly, cells operate on messenger RNA replicated from the cells DNA genome. By the enzyme reverse transcriptase the viral RNA becomes part of the host cells DNA and unlike most RNA virons does not act directly within the cells cytoplasm, as so eloquently described by Deetee

Cell cultures do consist of living cells.
"Regular viruses" still require the host cell's assistance to replicate. Host polymerase enzymes do the replicating.
Interestingly, retroviruses bring along their own replication enzyme in the form of reverse transcriptase (RT), but they too need a cell to replicate in.
They are termed retroviruses because the RT makes a DNA copy of the viral RNA, rather than the usual method of viral replication where DNA generates DNA, and RNA generates RNA.

Unlike typical RNA virons a retrovirus transcribes (reverse transcriptase enzyme) that RNA coding into the normal DNA of the host cell. One of the reasons it might take so long before the viral load impinges upon the normal immune response. Also the specific cells targeted by HIV are the T3 messenger cells, a critical element of immune repose.

I must apologize as it has been about 25 years now since I read the first scientifically published accounts of the HIV virus (when Gallow was still trying to claim it as HTLV3) and I have not been keeping up, as I should have, so my information could be quite dated.

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 02:13 AM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?
Other than the 1000s of pictures that scientists have taken of it?

Look for HIV on the The Big Picture Book of Viruses: Retroviridae (http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html) page (ignore the models and cartoons and look for actual images taken from electron micrographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_micrograph)).
Look at this PDF with pictures of HIV (http://www.avac.org/pdf/primer2/AVH_CH03.pdf) with several electon micrographs (but it also has diagrams so you will regard this as supposition rather than evidence).

Look at some of the 20,000 results from Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22HIV+virus%22&btnG=Search).

Ask some of the many biologists who work with the virus every day.

Capsid

11th June 2008, 02:17 AM

Not exactly, cells operate on messenger RNA replicated from the cells DNA genome. By the enzyme reverse transcriptase the viral RNA becomes part of the host cells DNA and unlike most RNA virons does not act directly within the cells cytoplasm, as so eloquently described by Deetee

Unlike typical RNA virons a retrovirus transcribes (reverse transcriptase enzyme) that RNA coding into the normal DNA of the host cell. One of the reasons it might take so long before the viral load impinges upon the normal immune response. Also the specific cells targeted by HIV are the T3 messenger cells, a critical element of immune repose.

I must apologize as it has been about 25 years now since I read the first scientifically published accounts of the HIV virus (when Gallow was still trying to claim it as HTLV3) and I have not been keeping up, as I should have, so my information could be quite dated.
There is no such thing as a T3 messenger cell. HIV infects CD4+ T helper cells (as well as macrophages and dendritic cells). Gallo called it HTLV III (human T lymphotropic virus) because he had already described HTLV I and II. It was renamed to HIV-1 to acknowledge that Luc Montagnier was the first to identify the virus.

The Man

11th June 2008, 02:57 AM

There is no such thing as a T3 messenger cell. HIV infects CD4+ T helper cells (as well as macrophages and dendritic cells). Gallo called it HTLV III (human T lymphotropic virus) because he had already described HTLV I and II. It was renamed to HIV-1 to acknowledge that Luc Montagnier was the first to identify the virus.

Thanks, I am glad someone helped me with my degrading memory.

SeanDamnit

11th June 2008, 09:47 AM

Hello Everyone,

I don't know if this is on topic or not, but can anyone show me evidence that the state Florida exists? I haven't found any evidence so far that isn't built on suppositions.

Thank you.

Megalodon

11th June 2008, 10:18 AM

Don't tell anyone, but Florida is a hoax.

Otherwise, come on... butterfly ballots?!? Nah, it doesn't stand to scrutiny...

Ocelot

11th June 2008, 10:25 AM

Do you have evidence that HIV is transfered in the ways you describe?

Maybe you are just reading the handout from the local clinic?

Here ya go mate,

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

Knock yourself out. (not literally of course)

Taffer

11th June 2008, 11:02 AM

ponderingturtle

11th June 2008, 11:09 AM

Robinson, I had you down as brighter than that.......

Out of curiosity why?

ponderingturtle

11th June 2008, 11:10 AM

Fascinating. I didn't know that. Bacteria OTOH can grow into a colony large enough to have color. Viruses cannot since they don't form colonies.

I know that sometimes for individual elements that small if you get enough of them together you get a color based on their size and how light interacts with it, not based on what the color would be if it was large enough to reflect light.

Deetee

11th June 2008, 11:25 AM

Out of curiosity why?
Robinson seemed to be firing from the hip, which is unusual. Usually he takes the time to intelligently look into matters carefully before he posts.

He researches things thoroughly, checking ballistics, weapon suitability, ammunition type, wind conditions, phase of the moon, etc. He then takes careful aim, and usually misses the barn door.

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 08:15 PM

Here ya go mate,

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

Knock yourself out. (not literally of course)

From your link: "the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host."

Were and when has this happened with HIV?

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 08:38 PM

From your link: "the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host."

Were and when has this happened with HIV?

In all of the laboratories that study the HIV virus. They isolate it so that they can photograph it, sequence its DNA, store it, etc. They propagate it to get more (though they have to use a host - hunan cells - to do that).

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 08:48 PM

blutoski

11th June 2008, 09:13 PM

From your link: "the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host."

Were and when has this happened with HIV?

In my lab, on an ongoing basis since maybe 1985.

St. Paul's hospital, Vancouver, BC.

Like most viruses, just an incubated and fed flask of immortal cell culture.

ETA: I prefer macrophages.

ETA: Here's the book we give the new masters students to give them an overview of experimental procedures: [Human Retrovirus Protocols: Virology and Molecular Biology (Methods in Molecular Biology) (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Retrovirus-Protocols-Virology-Molecular/dp/1588294951)]

Elizabeth I

11th June 2008, 09:16 PM

In all of the laboratories that study the HIV virus. They isolate it so that they can photograph it, sequence its DNA, store it, etc. They propagate it to get more (though they have to use a host - hunan cells - to do that).

I am sorry, but you have done nothing here but to present assertions sans evidence.

Yes, Reality Check, please list the name of every laboratory in every country in the world where HIV/AIDS research is taking place, their addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, IM addresses, email addresses, URLs, the dimensions of each building, the total dimensions of each complex (if applicable), the total number of experimental animals at each location (if applicable) together with their ID numbers, all the equipment found in each building (not neglecting the microwave in the staff break room and the custodian's vacuum cleaner), together with the names of all staff employed at each site (don't forget said custodian), the names of all staff who have EVER been employed at each site, the name of anyone who has ever applied for a job at each site, the names of all students who might someday enter this field of research, the name of the letter carrier who delivers mail to each research facility, and the email addresses, home addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, IMs and names of family members for all these personnel.

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 09:17 PM

In my lab, on an ongoing basis since maybe 1985.

St. Paul's hospital, Vancouver, BC.

Like most viruses, just an incubated and fed flask of immortal cell culture.

ETA: I prefer macrophages.

Would this be another unsubstantiated story?

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 09:18 PM

I am sorry, but you have done nothing here but to present assertions sans evidence.

So I guess that all of the papers on the HIV virus are fake?
You want evidence then have a look through the 21,000 results for "hiv virus" in Google Scholar. Are they all theory or supposition?

A couple of other links:
Researchers Knock Out HIV (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020103343.htm) - how come these resarchers are working with a virus that only exists in theory?
Scientists Record The Birth of a Virus (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020103343.htm) - these scientists must be really stupid to take photographs of theoretical HIV virus :rolleyes:.

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 09:18 PM

Yes, Reality Check, please list the name of every laboratory in every country in the world where HIV/AIDS research is taking place, their addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, IM addresses, email addresses, URLs, the dimensions of each building, the total dimensions of each complex (if applicable), the total number of experimental animals at each location (if applicable) together with their ID numbers, all the equipment found in each building (not neglecting the microwave in the staff break room and the custodian's vacuum cleaner), together with the names of all staff employed at each site (don't forget said custodian), the names of all staff who have EVER been employed at each site, the name of anyone who has ever applied for a job at each site, the names of all students who might someday enter this field of research, the name of the letter carrier who delivers mail to each research facility, and the email addresses, home addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, IMs and names of family members for all these personnel.

Hyperbole is also not evidence.

The way everyone believes it should be easy to find the evidence.

I wonder why it is so difficult???

blutoski

11th June 2008, 09:20 PM

Would this be another unsubstantiated story?

We're done.

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 09:23 PM

Researchers Knock Out HIV (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020103343.htm) - how come these resarchers are working with a virus that only exists in theory?

The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_cluster=thelancet&search_text1=4+August+2007&x=9&y=8)

The information does not seem to be available.

You do realize that both of the articles that you linked to are from the same unavailable source? The Lancet - Vol. 370, Issue 9585, 4 August 2007, Pages 407-413

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 09:38 PM

The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_cluster=thelancet&search_text1=4+August+2007&x=9&y=8)

The information does not seem to be available.

You do realize that both of the articles that you linked to are from the same unavailable source? The Lancet - Vol. 370, Issue 9585, 4 August 2007, Pages 407-413
No I was not aware that The Lancet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet) web site was not available. Just tried it again and it is up (http://www.thelancet.com/).

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 09:41 PM

No I was not aware that The Lancet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet) web site was not available. Just tried it again and it is up (http://www.thelancet.com/).

I linked to the web-site. I know the site is there. :boggled:

Vol. 370, Issue 9585, 4 August 2007, Pages 407-413 does not seem to be available.

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 09:46 PM

I linked to the web-site. I know the site is there. :boggled:

Vol. 370, Issue 9585, 4 August 2007, Pages 407-413 does not seem to be available.
Then complain to The Lancet.

blutoski

11th June 2008, 09:48 PM

Then complain to The Lancet.

Or go to the library. I'm sure Lancet will be on the shelf.

Again: how hard does a denier have to work to isolate himself from reality? Apparently, it involves believing the universe ends at the keyboard.

Spung

11th June 2008, 09:48 PM

Would this be another unsubstantiated story?

This convinces me that this thread is trollery; on the other hand I'm learning a lot from this thread.

And I don't think I can post links, but. . .No I can't but the damn Lancet article you deny existing is right there-- do a search for August with HIV as a term.

Spung

11th June 2008, 09:50 PM

The abstract-- full text is available, too.

The Lancet 2007; 370:407-413
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60948-9

"Articles

Normalisation of CD4 counts in patients with HIV-1 infection and maximum virological suppression who are taking combination antiretroviral therapy: an observational cohort study

---[snip--copyright problems, perhaps]
Summary
Background

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with HIV. As viral replication falls, the CD4 count increases, but whether the CD4 count returns to the level seen in HIV-negative people is unknown. We aimed to assess whether the CD4 count for patients with maximum virological suppression (viral load <50 copies per mL) continues to increase with long-term cART to reach levels seen in HIV-negative populations.
Methods

We compared increases in CD4 counts in 1835 antiretroviral-naive patients who started cART from EuroSIDA, a pan-European observational cohort study. Rate of increase in CD4 count (per year) occurring between pairs of consecutive viral loads below 50 copies per mL was estimated using generalised linear models, accounting for multiple measurements for individual patients.
Findings
. . .[etc]

JEROME DA GNOME

11th June 2008, 09:54 PM

And I don't think I can post links, but. . .No I can't but the damn Lancet article you deny existing is right there-- do a search for August with HIV as a term.

Thanks!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607609489/abstract

Only a summary is allowed.

From the summary it seems they are testing the immune system (CD4 Count), not HIV.

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 10:26 PM

Hyperbole is also not evidence.

The way everyone believes it should be easy to find the evidence.

I wonder why it is so difficult???
It is really easy: Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/)

Reality Check

11th June 2008, 10:29 PM

Thanks!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607609489/abstract

Only a summary is allowed.

From the summary it seems they are testing the immune system (CD4 Count), not HIV.

They were testing the immune system response (CD4 Count) to anti-HIV virus treatment (viral suppression with cART).

a_unique_person

11th June 2008, 11:01 PM

Ask some of the many biologists who work with the virus every day.

(They're in on it too.) :boxedin:

UnrepentantSinner

12th June 2008, 12:09 AM

I'm shocked that so many here are still letting him play you like a fiddle.

Ivor the Engineer

12th June 2008, 03:16 AM

I'm shocked that so many here are still letting him play you like a fiddle.

You read my mind.

People, just ignore the ignorant little fool.

Ocelot

12th June 2008, 04:48 AM

From your link: "the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host."

Were and when has this happened with HIV?

Answer...

At the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland, USA and the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland in 1996 by Stephen J O'Brien, and James J Goedert. As discussed in thier paper titled "HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled." peer reviewed and published in the October 1996 edition of Current Opinion in Immunology

Jerome, let me show you how I did this research.

First I re-read all of the section to which you're refering. I reproduce it here for all of our conveniences.

HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1342726&dopt=Abstract). Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8902385&dopt=Abstract). Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have served as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:

Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.
Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection. With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.
Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8902385&dopt=Abstract). Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien (http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html), 1997; Ciesielski (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7978703&dopt=Abstract) et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
In addition, through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors. The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102.pdf). HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999). For example, in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8193497&dopt=Abstract) et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17).
Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS. Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2, a less virulent variant of HIV which causes AIDS in people, also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons. More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v182n4/000390/brief/000390.abstract.html) et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8515816&dopt=Abstract) et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10195754&dopt=Abstract) et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9625420&dopt=Abstract) et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8067053&dopt=Abstract) et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8627799&dopt=Abstract) et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189).

Do you see the words that are highlighted and in blue?

They are called links. When you move the mouse pointer over them the pointer changes shape. This indicates that if you click it will take you to another webpage.

On these pages I thought I might be able to find reference to researchers isolating and propagating the pathogen invitro.

It was by following the link that I have enlarged in the above quote that I found the answer to your question. It really was incredibly easy, that being the first link I tried.

Now this has answered your question. Where and when this happened. However I understand that you might have further questions. You might want details. On the other hand you might simply be happy with the opportunity to deny that this in itself offers any substantive proof. After all you've already got two people in this thread with first hand experience of AIDS research and have called their expert testimony "unsubstantiated"

O Brien and Goedert's paper is behind a paywall. To access the content you'll need to put in some time/money/effort. Either cough up the $31.50 or pop to the library and order the October 1996 edition of "Current Opinion in Immunology," who knows, if it's a big enough library they might have it in on the shelves.

If you fail to do this then suggesting that it's unsubstantiated would tell us more about your willingness to substantiate it than whether substantiation exists.

For me the fact that their paper was peer reviewed and cited in multiple subsequent papers suggest that they haven't been found to be lying.

Or you could just trust the people contributing to this thread who have first hand experience of the process. After all you're insinuation that they're lying is also unsubstantiated.

Deetee

12th June 2008, 05:35 AM

You expect Jerome to look at links to scientific publications? Or go to a library to read articles?
Don't be silly. How would that possibly provide him with any evidence he is willing to consider?

Ocelot

12th June 2008, 06:19 AM

You expect Jerome to look at links to scientific publications? Or go to a library to read articles?
Don't be silly. How would that possibly provide him with any evidence he is willing to consider?

No I expect Jerome to claim that the fact that such an important paper isn't freely available simply because he wants it to be, implies a world wide conspiracy suppressing the facts about HIV.

Apparently a conspiracy you can join with no pledge of allegience, method of enforcing secrecy or and other qualifiaction besides $31.50 to spend.

Sorry what am I saying. "Claim?" I should have said imply, indimate and insinuate. I hardly expect a debator of Jerome's character to commit himself to any fact that could be checked.

Sunstealer

12th June 2008, 06:50 AM

I'm shocked that so many here are still letting him play you like a fiddle.It is astounding. I lurked for a bit before joining and even with my minuscule time registered compared with alot of other people, I managed to figure out GDG. It does surprise me that people rise to the bait again and again and again and again. It's almost as if they think "well maybe this time I can convince him".

Hellbound

12th June 2008, 06:59 AM

Shalamar

12th June 2008, 11:34 AM

I've decided to start a list of things Jerome does not believe in. I've added HIV to the list.

blutoski

12th June 2008, 11:52 AM

Sunstealer and others:

A lot of people here (myself included) respond not because they expect to convince the deluded, but because others in the discussion, or lurkers who are simply reading, can make use of hte excellent material and information they post. I believe almost everyone involved here is aware that JDG is not interested in learning. But I don't believe anyone is willing to let bad information stand unchallenged.

To borrow a phrase, all it takes for woo to triumph is for skeptics to do nothing ;)

To borrow another phrase: One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. (HL Menken)

As long as the opponent is not mentally ill, I see no reason not to point out that they're a walking joke.

I do think that making fun of the mentally ill is crossing the line, and I do think that even provoking or debating the mentally ill is inappropriate, even as an educational experience for observers.

Paulhoff

12th June 2008, 11:56 AM

I've decided to start a list of things Jerome does not believe in. I've added HIV to the list.
There is not enough room in the known universe to hold that list.

Paul

:) :) :)

Deetee

12th June 2008, 12:05 PM

No I expect Jerome to claim that the fact that such an important paper isn't freely available simply because he wants it to be, implies a world wide conspiracy suppressing the facts about HIV.

Apparently a conspiracy you can join with no pledge of allegience, method of enforcing secrecy or and other qualifiaction besides $31.50 to spend.

Sorry what am I saying. "Claim?" I should have said imply, indimate and insinuate. I hardly expect a debator of Jerome's character to commit himself to any fact that could be checked.I agree with you.
I forgot to insert the ;) smiley in my post.
I just cannot take anything he says seriously.

Shalamar

12th June 2008, 12:11 PM

There is not enough room in the known universe to hold that list.

Paul

:) :) :)

Ahh.. Does he believe that the Universe exists?

Then again, it might be easier to list what he does believe in. Of which, no-one seems to know..

aggle-rithm

12th June 2008, 12:23 PM

This should probably be addressed, but I've realized that I've suddenly blown a lot time playing this cool web game I found while in this thread:

Virus 2 (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://hometown.aol.com/johnmscalzi/virus0223.jpg&imgrefurl=http://journals.aol.com/johnmscalzi/bytheway/entries/2007/02/23/your-friday-game-virus-2/7173&h=303&w=400&sz=55&hl=en&start=174&tbnid=-ixgH_iyRK0nLM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvirus%26start%3D162%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp% 3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)

DAMN you!!!!

;)

dudalb

12th June 2008, 12:47 PM

Ahh.. Does he believe that the Universe exists?

Then again, it might be easier to list what he does believe in. Of which, no-one seems to know..

Jerome accepts as fact anything that Ron Paul says...as those of us who have been exposed to his insanity in the Politics section know.

Darat

12th June 2008, 12:50 PM

Stop the personalisations and attacks.

robinson

12th June 2008, 01:20 PM

JEROME

In another very long thread about HIV/AIDS, which is buried deep here now, I presented my evidence for "HIV causes AIDS".

It wasn't the scientific kind of evidence, but pragmatic. Simply put, Cuba was the only country to quarantine all persons with the new disease symptoms, (before anyone even knew what it was). After a test became available they tested everyone, and quarantined all persons who tested positive.

They also destroyed their blood supply before a test was available, because they knew it could be spread by blood and blood products.

By doing this, they avoided the epidemic that everyone else experienced. Almost nobody in Cuba got HIV. Even fewer came down with AIDS. The people who did become infected, a very small number, were all treated for HIV, and most of them are still alive. Though no longer in quarantine.

The agent involved is what we call the HIV. They still test for it, and still quarantine anyone who engages in risky behavior, which would spread the retrovirus. As in every other country, the main victims of HIV infection were prostitutes, IV drug users and homobisexuals. Except Africa of course, where HIV is completely different.

But in regards to HIV, there is no doubt that becoming infected through blood contamination, usually anal sex or drug use, or both, leads to HIV showing up in your body, replicating, spreading. It doesn't mean you will come down with AIDS, but that is another issue.

This little story of how one country prevented HIV and AIDS from becoming a problem isn't very well known. Because Cuba is communist, and we all know those damn commies don't deserve to even be mentioned. Usually. Unless we can talk about how evil they are and stuff. :)

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 05:07 PM

Robinson, I understand how the circumstance that you describe leads one to believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In my scenario your happening correlates. Your conclusions do not evidence HIV or that HIV causes AIDS.

The problem seems to be finding the virus.

HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS PATIENTS (http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/hiv-has-never-been-isolated-from-aids-patients/)

Indeed, HIV has never been properly isolated, nor purified, and, consequently, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has to be fundamentally reappraised

The HIV particles, missing from the patients, have been conveniently substituted by molecular “markers”, because the HIV=AIDS hypothesis had to be saved at all cost (see the Durban Declaration, 27), even at the price of scientific integrity

Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

On 8 December 2003, he addressed the European Parliament on “Problems with isolating HIV”. That address has never previously been published in English, and I’m delighted and honored that he was willing to have it posted here. Professor de Harven’s contact information is:
“Le Mas Pitou”, 2879 Route de Grasse, 06530 Saint Cézaire, France;
e-mail pitou.deharven@tele2.fr; Tel or Fax (33) 4 93 60 28 39

:gnome:

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 05:27 PM

The problem seem to avoid finding the virus:

What Causes AIDS (http://whitecoatunderground.com/2007/09/16/what-causes-aids/) is a blog wriiten by a doctor (emphasis mine)

HIV is a human retrovirus isolated from every AIDS patient who has been tested. After inoculation of the virus, it rapidly travels to lymph nodes and infects white blood cells. It replicates rapidly and prolifically, and shortly after infection is present in high amounts in the blood. Many patients experience acute retroviral syndrome (http://whitecoatunderground.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/where-the-fever-demon-strews-poisonwith-the-falling-dews/) at this point.

The immune system then begins to regain some measure of control, and the amount of virus in the blood drops rapidly, but remains detectable. After several years, the virus has mutated sufficiently to escape the body’s immune defenses, and immune cells, especially CD4 cells, begin to die. Even before their numbers drop, the immune system has begun to malfunction. When their numbers reach certain critical levels, infections that don’t normally hurt healthy persons begin to attack.

A common myth is that HIV has never been isolated from the blood of AIDS patients. This could not be a more vicious lie. I have personally tested hundreds of AIDS patients and specifically measured the amount of HIV in their blood. We also measure antibodies produced by the patient in reaction to the infection…this is useful, but it is not the only way to detect potential infection.

Since the mechanism of the virus’ attack on the immune system is so well known, specific drugs have been developed to prevent different steps in this process. They work. With the invention of protease inhibitors, AIDS wards literally closed down as patients became healthier and returned to a somewhat normal life.

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 05:33 PM

And if you want a paper from people who have isolated HIV in AIDS patients then here is one from 1991: HIV particles detected in spermatozoa of patients with AIDS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2070360).

It took me a couple of minutes to find this. I an astounded at your laziness.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 05:35 PM

The problem seem to avoid finding the virus:

What Causes AIDS (http://whitecoatunderground.com/2007/09/16/what-causes-aids/) is a blog wriiten by a doctor (emphasis mine)

You responded to: Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

...with a "doctor" posting on a blog!

:dl:

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 05:38 PM

Read the next posting

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 05:41 PM

You responded to:

...with a "doctor" posting on a blog!

So you post a web site quoting from one doctor and say it is evidence. But the web site (blog) from another doctor is not evidence?

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 05:41 PM

Read the next posting

Etienne de Harven's speech was given in 2003, your link is from 2001.

Are you calling this respected scientist illinformed or a liar?

:gnome:

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 05:43 PM

So you post a web site quoting from one doctor and say it is evidence. But the web site (blog) from another doctor is not evidence?

Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

Yep.

:gnome:

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 05:54 PM

Etienne de Harven's speech was given in 2003, your link is from 2001.

Are you calling this respected scientist illinformed or a liar?

:gnome:

Are you saying that the HIV virus could be isolated from AIDS patients in 1991 by researchers but by 2003 it could not?

I would say that the scientist is illinformed.

Deetee

12th June 2008, 06:09 PM

EMs of HIV... oops! I mean pixie dust:

BirdyBuddy

12th June 2008, 07:23 PM

Not only has it been isolated,

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/165004851cadb16ab3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12533)

now its available as a plushie!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/165004851caf4c41c1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12534)

http://www.giantmicrobes.com/us/products/hiv.html

(and yes, HIV and AIDS are a real and serious problem)

Shalamar

12th June 2008, 07:25 PM

Jerome only believes what he believes. Mere evidence, and facts will not sway him.

However, I have learned a lot in the thread. Mainly is: HIV does indeed cause AIDS, which causes people to die.

The Man

12th June 2008, 07:53 PM

Dr Adequate

12th June 2008, 08:10 PM

This is Jerome's best fail ever.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 08:13 PM

This is Jerome's best fail ever.

Any response to the good doctor?

Over the past 20 years, the medical literature has been inundated with innumerable papers, attempting to dodge the lack of electron microscope evidence for the presence of retroviral particles in samples directly collected from AIDS patients. In all these papers, the missing retroviral particles have been swiftly substituted with so-called HIV “markers”. These “markers” were of physical, biochemical, or genetic nature.

How come we can not find HIV in AIDS patients?

:gnome:

fls

12th June 2008, 08:32 PM

A pathologist without any research or clinical experience with HIV, even before he retired 15 years ago.

Well, I suppose it still beats a centerfold model.

Linda

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 08:39 PM

A pathologist without any research or clinical experience with HIV, even before he retired 15 years ago.

Well, I suppose it still beats a centerfold model.

Linda

So, you can NOT talk to the information.

Anyone can make aspersions to a person.

Any comment on what the Doctor has said?
Indeed, HIV has never been properly isolated, nor purified, and, consequently, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has to be fundamentally reappraised

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 08:45 PM

Any response to the good doctor?

How come we can not find HIV in AIDS patients?

:gnome:
The answer is that yes we can find the HIV virus in AIDS patients. You need to read and understand the article rather than just looking at the title.

HIV has not properly isolated, nor purified in Etienne de Harven's limited sense - a purely isolated culture from blood just containing HIV. This does not mean that the HIV virus does not exist (the topic of this thread).

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 08:48 PM

The answer is that yes we can find the HIV virus in AIDS patient. You need to read and understand the article rather than just looking at the title.

This is why I tend not to post evidence. It is generally waved away without reason.

The only reason I did post this evidence was my respect for Robinson, he is a thinker.

:gnome:

Olowkow

12th June 2008, 08:48 PM

This case is relevant to the discussion:

http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/index.php
The trial of Andre Parenzee seemed, at first glance, depressingly familiar. Another person who is HIV-positive being convicted and sentenced to years in jail for having consensual sex with HIV-negative people. But, this trial was different, it was turned into a trial of the very existence of HIV, due to the expert testimony of Perth Group members Val Turner and Eleni Eleopulos. So dangerous was this that the machine of HIV=AID$=Death rolled into motion providing a news blackout outside Australia and, when things did not appear to be going so well, the testimony of HIV inventor Robert Gallo via video hookup and a call for help from one of the prosecution 'experts' to 'Denialist' and Nobelist Kary Mullis.

Particularly Gallo's testimony here is informative:
http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/Gallo.html
A long read, but educational.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 08:50 PM

This case is relevant to the discussion:

http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/index.php

Particularly Gallo's testimony here is informative:
http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/Gallo.html
A long read, but educational.

A court case is scientific evidence?

:confused:

I guess O.J. was scientifically innocent.

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 08:52 PM

P.S. Did you read the last part of the sentence that you put into bold? The HIV / AIDS hypothesis is the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. The good doctor is stating that HIV exists but that its connection to AIDS is doubtful.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 08:54 PM

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 08:54 PM

This is why I tend not to post evidence. It is generally waved away without reason.

The only reason I did post this evidence was my respect for Robinson, he is a thinker.

:gnome:
The reason is that you are misinterpreting the article. It is about the connection between HIV and AIDS. Etienne de Harven is not arquing that the HIV virus does not exist (the topic of this thread).

fls

12th June 2008, 08:55 PM

So, you can NOT talk to the information.

Of course I can talk to the information. What's that got to do with it?

Anyone can make aspersions to a person.

So?

Any comment on what the Doctor has said?

He said a bunch of stuff that is contradicted by people who actually have current knowledge and experience in the field. What more is there to say?

Linda

Olowkow

12th June 2008, 08:56 PM

I guess O.J. was scientifically innocent.

No, O. J. was legally found to be not guilty by a jury of his peers, because they could not believe the prosecution's case. That does not make him innocent.

A court case involving scientific experts proffering sworn testimony, yes, it is evidence that is informed by science. I think reading this first would be a good idea.

fls

12th June 2008, 08:58 PM

The only reason I did post this evidence was my respect for Robinson, he is a thinker.

I think Robinson beats a centerfold model, too.

Linda

The Man

12th June 2008, 09:02 PM

Anyone can make aspersions to a person.

As your aspirations to be a person.

ETA: The quote I was lacking and the typo, sorry

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 09:06 PM

That is not what he said, read the speech.
I did and he makes no HIV does not exist claim in the speech. The speech titel is "PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV". The other title is the bloggers title and not that of the speech.

The first mention of doubts about the existence of HIV in the speech comes in the conclusion

Obviously, time is pressing us to ask courageously the essential question, namely, is the HIV=AIDS hypothesis correct? Because it is entirely possible to view AIDS differently, outside the field of infectious diseases, and outside the field of retrovirology (29). And in this perspective, which is replete with optimistic predictions, all the difficulties encountered in attempted isolation and purification of the hypothetical HIV may find an extremely rational explanation. Indeed, doubts concerning the very existence of HIV are nothing new, and were expressed by several dissident scientists several years ago (30, 31). I completely share these doubts. Let us not forget the title of Peter Duesberg’s book (33) published in 1996: “Inventing the AIDS Virus”.

Look futher down and he does have a comment in the blog:

Simply because, in my judgement, HIV does not exist!

So HIV does not exist in his judgement. He does not present any evidence for this.

Olowkow

12th June 2008, 09:10 PM

A recent podcast "Futures in Biotech" #32:
Guest: Dr. Ronald Collman, professor of medicine in microbiology, virus/cell/molecular core director, Penn Center for AIDS Research, University of Pennsylvania.

This is an excellent discussion of HIV and AIDS. Collman is an impressive speaker.

Olowkow

12th June 2008, 09:20 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3053989

Attempts to isolate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from blood plasma using inoculation of pellets from ultracentrifuged samples into cultures of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) resulted in a high overall recovery rate (75%) of the virus from 76 patients in various stages of HIV infection. The recovery rate was dependent on the stage of infection; in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) it was 100%, in AIDS-related complex (ARC) 86%, in persistent generalized lymphadenopathy (PGL) 64%, and in asymptomatic patients 54%. The HIV isolation rates compared favorably with those obtained after cocultivation of patient and target PBMC (overall recovery rate 67%). HIV was isolated from plasma but not from PBMC in 8 cases, whereas the reverse was true in 3 of 71 simultaneously tested cases. Isolation from plasma was found to be superior to detection of serum p24 antigen for the demonstration of HIV (positivity rates 75% and 30%, respectively). The time to appearance of p24 antigen in cultures inoculated with HIV-containing plasma samples was inversely related to the presence of detectable p24 antigen in serum. There was a significantly shorter time to culture positivity of plasma samples from AIDS and ARC patients than from PGL and asymptomatic patients. These results suggested that there is a progressive increase in the concentrations of infectious HIV in plasma from the asymptomatic to the AIDS stage. HIV isolation from plasma samples is a reliable means of demonstrating HIV viremia and has obvious advantages over the more commonly used cocultivation procedures. The frequent occurrence of cell-free, infectious HIV in plasma suggests that the majority of HIV-infected patients have a relative lack of functional neutralizing antibodies against the virus, at least during the late stages of disease.

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 09:48 PM

It just clicked why I was not getting a lot of results from Google when looking for papers on the isolation of HIV - "HIV virus" in the abstract is not often used.

This paper decribes the method used to isolate HIV from a patient: A Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Isolate from an Infected Person Homozygous for CCR5http://jvi.asm.org/math/large/Dgr.gif32 Exhibits Dual Tropism by Infecting Macrophages and MT2 Cells via CXCR4 (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/76/7/3114)

Another one (but from asymptomatic patients): Selection following isolation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and herpesvirus saimiri-transformed T cells is comparable (http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/1343)

And: Isolation of CD4-Independent Primary Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Isolates That Are Syncytium Inducing and Acutely Cytopathic for CD8+ Lymphocytes (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/1243)

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 09:52 PM

So HIV does not exist in his judgement. He does not present any evidence for this.

You have presented NO informed judgment to counter his expert judgment.

His expert judgment stands.

Simply because, in my judgement, HIV does not exist!

:gnome:

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 09:54 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3053989

What did they recover from where?

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 10:16 PM

You have presented NO informed judgment to counter his expert judgment.

His expert judgment stands.

You presented the expert opinion of a doctor (in the comment in a someone's blog).

I presented the expert opinion (http://whitecoatunderground.com/2007/09/16/what-causes-aids/) of a doctor (a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States and Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine) in his blog.

His expert judgment stands.

P.S. I also gave you a couple of links to papers. But evidence is just supposition (JEROME DA GNOME standard reply #666)

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 10:19 PM

What did they recover from where?

virus from patients

recovery rate (75%) of the virus from 76 patients in various stages of HIV infection.

Ohhh - I can read :rolleyes: !

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 10:36 PM

virus from patients

Ohhh - I can read :rolleyes: !

I am sorry, virus or antigen?

JEROME DA GNOME

12th June 2008, 10:40 PM

You presented the expert opinion of a doctor

Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

VS

Reality Check:
I presented the expert opinion of an internist in the Midwestern United States .

:dl:

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 10:50 PM

I am sorry, virus or antigen?
virus

Reality Check

12th June 2008, 10:51 PM

Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

VS

:dl:

You definitely neeed glasses: a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States and Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine

:dl:

Shalamar

12th June 2008, 11:10 PM

You definitely neeed glasses: a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States and Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine

:dl:

Jerome doesn't understand what that is.

Dragon

13th June 2008, 02:53 AM

You presented the expert opinion of a doctor (in the comment in a someone's blog).

I presented the expert opinion (http://whitecoatunderground.com/2007/09/16/what-causes-aids/) of a doctor (a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States and Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine) in his blog.

His expert judgment stands.

P.S. I also gave you a couple of links to papers. But evidence is just supposition (JEROME DA GNOME standard reply #666)Thanks for that link RC, a nice little summary for the interested layman.
This bit about a certain type of denialist caught my eye -
Amateur denialists

The web is rife with amateur denialists, these days mostly in blogs. They appear to be quasi-professionals who lack the ability or patience to understand the science involved, or are simply paranoid conspiracy theorists. Most also hold to other, unrelated conspiracies. So to be a little uncharitable, I think many of them just want to be in on “the big secret”, even if it is a lie.

fls

13th June 2008, 03:30 AM

You have presented NO informed judgment to counter his expert judgment.

His expert judgment stands.

He's not an expert. His CV doesn't reveal any special knowledge or experience in the field from when he was active, and he has been retired for fifteen years - taking him out of a loop he wasn't really in to begin with.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

13th June 2008, 03:30 AM

EMs of HIV... oops! I mean pixie dust:

So why doesn't the immune system notice all those arrows attached to the HIV?

Ivor the Engineer

13th June 2008, 03:40 AM

I think Robinson beats a centerfold model, too.

Linda

How do you know what Robinson does with her?

Deetee

13th June 2008, 03:44 AM

How do you know what Robinson does with her?
:D

Deetee

13th June 2008, 05:59 AM

There is a point to be made about all this "virus isolation" confusion.
Traditionally, in the days when De Harven did virology, one way of detecting viruses in the blood was to spin down and filter blood and use some fixing method to enable viruses to be viewed directly by traditional electron microscopy. This worked for some viruses, not others. Some are too fragile to endure this process, and HIV certainly is. Instead, HIV is mainly detected in blood by looking at the cells which harbour HIV, and as numerous references show, it is easily isolated and cultured from a variety of cells, be they PBMs (peripheral blood mononuclear cells like monocytes and macrophages) as well as lymphocytes. HIV has always been readily detected within human tissues, particularly lymph nodes and other reticuloendothelial tissues, since this is where the bulk of the infection resides.

What De Harven has done is to approach the problem in the following manner, constantly shifting goal posts (like any true denialist):

DH: HIV does not exist - if it does, prove it.
A: Well, here are good examples of where the virus has been detected, isolated, and cultured from tissues in its primary organ reservoirs like the lymph nodes, and then characterised, amplified, sequenced, used to transfect other cell lines etc.

DH: Ah, that may all be very well, but have you found it in the blood?
A: Yes, all the above methods can apply to the blood too.

DH: Errr.. I mean can it be isolated within blood entirely free of cells?
A: Yes this has been done for cell-free virus as well.

DH: But was this done according to virus isolation protocols laid down in 1960?
A: Those methods are to brutal for HIV to survive the preparation process, as they are for many other pathogenic human viruses (eg flu virus, herpes virus etc).

DH: See?! HIV does not exist!

A: Sigh....!
Ok, my turn for questions then - what about the molecular amplification processes that can detect unique sequences that are specific to HIV in tissues and blood?

DH: These only detect nonspecific endogenous retroviruses.
A: Well, if that were true, then everyone would be diagnosed as having HIV, since they would all be positive by molecular amplification/PCR tests for HIV.

DH: Ummm.....er, HIV does not exist! You have to believe me because I say so, and I used to be a pathology professor, and although I have absolutely no special expertise in clinical or laboratory HIV infection or AIDS, about 40 years ago I did publish an EM of the Friend leukaemia virus!! HIV does not exist!

fls

13th June 2008, 06:20 AM

Nicely done Deetee!

Linda

fagin

13th June 2008, 06:42 AM

Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

Yep.

:gnome:

Suggest you look into the AIDS advisory council, and you may work out why SA has the highest incidence of AIDS in the world (except for Botswana maybe).
Bad bad example.

aggle-rithm

13th June 2008, 07:10 AM

DAMN you!!!!

;)

Stop the personalisations and attacks.

Sorry.... :(

Ocelot

13th June 2008, 12:52 PM

I think Robinson beats a centerfold model, too.

He told me she walked into a door. ;)

Ocelot

13th June 2008, 02:36 PM

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand we have expert testimony backed up by peer reviewed papers, actual photographs of the virus, and isolation techniques reproduced hundreds of times on a daily basis by many independent people and labs. (Including more than one posting in this thread) Their results have been open to public scrutiny and falsification for a decade. They have not been disproved.

On the other hand we have opinions and questions. Expert testimony consisting of negative opinions of the*mountains of evidence that they oppose. Backed up by more opinions and questions. Opinions and questions fairly and justly published in peer reviewed papers. This is as it should be. No scientific theory should be unopposed. Science must continuously find new ways to test hypothesis and antithesis. There should always be a certain number of dissenting voices but these are not evidence, they're opinions. Theories without evidence.

But we're forgetting this evidence and focusing on people's qualifications.

Actually that's fine with me, so long as I get to define an empirical measure of "qualification". I don't want to have to argue by adding a number of medical degrees and awards, weighting them arbitrarily according to specialization; or awarding bonuses for peer reviewed papers and mega bonuses each times that paper is cited. We could spend an eternity debating the relative value of tenures and Nobel laureates. The cards have already be dealt and played. You can't only now expect the players to come to agreement on whether a straight beats a flush.

Rather than all that, I choose a simpler measure of their qualifications. Call me a dirty empiricist but I say we judge their qualification to speak on the matter according to their results.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't HIV theories*manage to clear out the overflowing AIDS wards of the 80s, increase the life expectancy of those diagnosed as HIV positive and stem the spread of an epidemic?

On the other had we have testimony from a person in charge of AIDS policy in South Africa where, again correct me if I'm wrong but, HIV theories are denied and rates for new HIV and AIDS cases are exploding.

So we have lives saved vs lives lost. Again I suppose a matter of opinion but I'd hope we're all on the same side of this fence.

fls

13th June 2008, 02:54 PM

But we're forgetting this evidence and focusing on people's qualifications.

But in this case, it is someone's opinion that is serving as evidence. Surely we should be considering the characteristics of the person under those circumstances?

When we personally do not have the necessary expertise in a particular area, we depend upon identifying someone who does.

Linda

Ocelot

13th June 2008, 03:00 PM

Actually that's fine with me, so long as I get to define an empirical measure of "qualification".

:D

Upchurch

13th June 2008, 03:11 PM

skeptigirl

13th June 2008, 06:18 PM

I am sorry, virus or antigen?You mean your confusion over all this is because you don't know that viruses are antigens?

An antigen is anything that stimulates an antibody response.

I think what you are trying to hopelessly claim is something more akin to, how do you know a test for something actually detects that thing?

This makes for an interesting study in how people miss the boat on certain matters of scientific fact. In this case somewhere along the way a person adhering to your conspiracy theory minded beliefs tried to make the claim that a test for a virus might only be detecting part of they virus thus there is room for error.

That is correct for some tests for some viruses. However, we are aware of and express that room for error as specificity. How specific is a particular lab test for a particular antigen? But regardless of the fact the lab test might be basing a positive result on only one segment of viral protein, it is akin to a fingerprint. The fingerprint isn't the entire person's print, but you can determine from a fingerprint the whole person it belongs to.

Beyond that nonsensical claim we therefore are not certain of our lab results, HIV has been detected by more than just antigen tests which look for the virus' fingerprint. You are arguing decades old garbage that probably wasn't even valid decades ago. It most certainly isn't valid now.

skeptigirl

13th June 2008, 06:28 PM

It is interesting that these bizarre, 'reject the evidence' groups have common themes. I think I'll start a new thread about them.

Reality Check

13th June 2008, 08:00 PM

But in this case, it is someone's opinion that is serving as evidence. Surely we should be considering the characteristics of the person under those circumstances?

When we personally do not have the necessary expertise in a particular area, we depend upon identifying someone who does.

Linda
You are correct we should be looking at the characteristics of the person.

So let us look athe the CV (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/sidasante/edh/edh.htm) for Etienne de Harven. His experise is described as:

Research Endeavours: Electron Microscopy of Normal and Malignant Cells, with Special Emphasis on Leukemia and Immunolabeling

What is missing from his CV is any mention of HIV or AIDS reserach.

There is one HIV photo at the bottom. This is an explanation for what may be his sole reason for doubting the connection between the HIV virus and AIDS. Namely that in 1997 the techniques for isolating and purifying the HIV virus did not produce cultures containing only HIV virus.
See Deetee's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3773851#post3773851) on this. By the same reasoning the flu virus and herpes virus do not have any connection with influenza or herpes.

robinson

13th June 2008, 08:08 PM

Some of the best evidence for HIV is from animal studies. Indian monkeys injected with a SIV from African monkeys (who are immune to it) develop AIDS like symptoms and die.

Some SIVs are almost exactly the same as certain strains of HIV.

Molinaro

13th June 2008, 09:51 PM

Yes, Reality Check, please list the name of every laboratory in every country in the world where HIV/AIDS research is taking place, their addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, IM addresses, email addresses, URLs, the dimensions of each building, the total dimensions of each complex (if applicable), the total number of experimental animals at each location (if applicable) together with their ID numbers, all the equipment found in each building (not neglecting the microwave in the staff break room and the custodian's vacuum cleaner), together with the names of all staff employed at each site (don't forget said custodian), the names of all staff who have EVER been employed at each site, the name of anyone who has ever applied for a job at each site, the names of all students who might someday enter this field of research, the name of the letter carrier who delivers mail to each research facility, and the email addresses, home addresses, home phone numbers, cell phone numbers, IMs and names of family members for all these personnel.

If you're not going to provide a nanosecond by nanosecond accounting of the trajectory of every atom in the room why would you expect me to believe you with only that vague bit of info?

JoeEllison

13th June 2008, 10:07 PM

As with most of these gnomish topics, there is a necessary but as-of-yet still unanswered question: What reasonably counts as evidence?

Until that question is answered.....

well, I don't think that question will be answered.

The evidence, however you define it, has satisfied the vast majority of scientists for the past quarter-century. If it isn't good enough for some yahoo on the Internet, what the hell WILL be good enough?

Fiona

13th June 2008, 11:31 PM

Attention?

hecaterin

14th June 2008, 01:10 AM

Capsid

14th June 2008, 03:20 AM

An antigen is anything that stimulates an antibody response.I prefer immunogen, an antigen is something recognised by an antibody or T cell but not necessarily able to induce a response.

/pedant mode

WildCat

15th June 2008, 08:55 PM

So Jerome, you're willing to inject yourself with HIV to prove it doesn't cause AIDS?

JEROME DA GNOME

15th June 2008, 10:03 PM

So Jerome, you're willing to inject yourself with HIV to prove it doesn't cause AIDS?

There is not HIV and as such there is nothing to inject.

Terry

15th June 2008, 10:08 PM

There is not HIV and as such there is nothing to inject.

How about blood from a person who tests positive for HIV?

ETA because you surely don't deny that there are HIV tests, right? I mean, you might not believe they're detecting anything, but they exist, and give a result that most other people think means something.

JEROME DA GNOME

15th June 2008, 10:12 PM

How about blood from a person who tests positive for HIV?

ETA because you surely don't deny that there are HIV tests, right? I mean, you might not believe they're detecting anything, but they exist, and give a result that most other people think means something.

Nobody has ever tested positive for HIV.

Once you get your terms and understanding correct we can talk.

ETA: There are no tests for HIV.

Terry

15th June 2008, 10:16 PM

Nobody has ever tested positive for HIV.

Once you get your terms and understanding correct we can talk.

ETA: There are no tests for HIV.

There are tests which are commonly called HIV tests. They measure something, call it what you will. Stipulate that for the purposes of this argument it isn't HIV infection. Would you inject yourself with blood from someone who tests positive on one of these tests? If not, why not?

JEROME DA GNOME

15th June 2008, 10:21 PM

There are tests which are commonly called HIV tests. They measure something, call it what you will. Stipulate that for the purposes of this argument it isn't HIV infection. Would you inject yourself with blood from someone who tests positive on one of these tests? If not, why not?

I would not inject myself with the blood from any living creature. I care not what any testing of their blood states.

Would you inject the blood of a dog into your veins?

Terry

15th June 2008, 10:24 PM

I would not inject myself with the blood from any living creature. I care not what any testing of their blood states.

Would you inject the blood of a dog into your veins?

no, but I'd take a transfusion from a human donor if needed. Where did dogs come into this?

Terry

15th June 2008, 10:25 PM

Jerome, are there viral illnesses you do feel satisfied actually exist? What evidence is present for these illnesses that doesn't exist for HIV?

JEROME DA GNOME

15th June 2008, 10:27 PM

no, but I'd take a transfusion from a human donor if needed. Where did dogs come into this?

The dog question is a stupid a question as was proposed.

I would not take a blood transfusion. The risks outway the rewards.

JEROME DA GNOME

15th June 2008, 10:30 PM

Jerome, are there viral illnesses you do feel satisfied actually exist? What evidence is present for these illnesses that doesn't exist for HIV?

The problem seems to be finding the virus.

HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS PATIENTS (http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/hiv-has-never-been-isolated-from-aids-patients/)

Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York) and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.

On 8 December 2003, he addressed the European Parliament on “Problems with isolating HIV”. That address has never previously been published in English, and I’m delighted and honored that he was willing to have it posted here. Professor de Harven’s contact information is:
“Le Mas Pitou”, 2879 Route de Grasse, 06530 Saint Cézaire, France;
e-mail pitou.deharven@tele2.fr; Tel or Fax (33) 4 93 60 28 39

Indeed, HIV has never been properly isolated, nor purified, and, consequently, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has to be fundamentally reappraised

The HIV particles, missing from the patients, have been conveniently substituted by molecular “markers”, because the HIV=AIDS hypothesis had to be saved at all cost (see the Durban Declaration, 27), even at the price of scientific integrity

:gnome:

Terry

15th June 2008, 10:31 PM

Is there a viral disease that you do feel has been demonstrated to exist? Which one, if any?

Loon

15th June 2008, 10:34 PM

Jerome, what would you constitute as evidence that the HIV virus exists?

Reality Check

15th June 2008, 10:35 PM

I would not take a blood transfusion. The risks outway the rewards.
You may find yourself in trouble if you are in a car accident or need an operation.

Luckily there is a method to minimize the risk of blood transfusions - use your own blood. All you need to do is keep a supply of your blood in storage and require that it is used in case of emergency or need.

But in any case you do not have to worry. Since you are ignoring all the evidence for HIV that has been presented, you will also ignore all the evidence for other blood borne diseases and so they do not exist. Thus you can use any blood that matches safely.

BirdyBuddy

15th June 2008, 11:57 PM

Once you get your terms and understanding correct we can talk.

I think this is a very telling comment. Possibly a language barrier issue?

What term(s) do you feel are being misunderstood. Please clarify them and give us your definition. Just to make sure we are all on the same level.
Maybe you can tell us what you think it is that is commonly described as HIV or AIDS.

Deetee

16th June 2008, 03:15 AM

Jerome, what would you constitute as evidence that the HIV virus exists?
Indeed.
Jerome, instead of parroting the denialists, tell us what you would accept as evidence that HIV exists, or what would you accept as evidence the virus can be isolated from blood or tissues?

Mashuna

16th June 2008, 04:17 AM

I would not take a blood transfusion. The risks outway the rewards.

In any context?

fls

16th June 2008, 04:26 AM

I would not take a blood transfusion. The risks outway the rewards.

What risks?

Linda

technoextreme

16th June 2008, 04:31 AM

What risks?

Linda
Because he knows he'll catch HIV. That little troll isn't there because of his screename.

WildCat

16th June 2008, 07:24 AM

There is not HIV and as such there is nothing to inject.
So then you'd have no problem injecting yourself with what those lying AIDS researchers claim is HIV, but you know is a big hoax?

Rolfe

16th June 2008, 03:21 PM

Has he given up yet? In my experience, no matter how soundly he's thrashed, Jerome never alters an opinion.

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 08:21 PM

Jerome, what would you constitute as evidence that the HIV virus exists?

The virus.

Please, no more images of plush dolls. These do not count.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 08:22 PM

Has he given up yet? In my experience, no matter how soundly he's thrashed, Jerome never alters an opinion.

Rolfe.

What is your opinion of Etienne de Harven?

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 08:23 PM

What risks?

Linda

For one, the body can reject blood in the same manner it rejects transplanted organs.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 08:26 PM

I think this is a very telling comment. Possibly a language barrier issue?

What term(s) do you feel are being misunderstood. Please clarify them and give us your definition. Just to make sure we are all on the same level.
Maybe you can tell us what you think it is that is commonly described as HIV or AIDS.

Terry understood my meaning perfectly well, as one can tell by reading his next post.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 08:27 PM

Indeed.
Jerome, instead of parroting the denialists, tell us what you would accept as evidence that HIV exists, or what would you accept as evidence the virus can be isolated from blood or tissues?

What is your opinion of Etienne de Harven?

I wonder why everyone is ignoring the good doctor and asking the silly retorts from the CT section.

Reality Check

16th June 2008, 09:00 PM

So let us look athe the CV (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/sidasante/edh/edh.htm) for Etienne de Harven. His expertise is described as:
Research Endeavours: Electron Microscopy of Normal and Malignant Cells, with Special Emphasis on Leukemia and Immunolabeling

What is missing from his CV is any mention of HIV or AIDS reserach.

There is one HIV photo at the bottom. This is an explanation for what may be his sole reason for doubting the connection between the HIV virus and AIDS. Namely that in 1997 the techniques for isolating and purifying the HIV virus did not produce cultures containing only HIV virus.
See Deetee's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3773851#post3773851) on this. By the same reasoning the flu virus and herpes virus do not have any connection with influenza or herpes.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 09:08 PM

So let us look athe the CV (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/sidasante/edh/edh.htm) for Etienne de Harven. His expertise is described as:

What is missing from his CV is any mention of HIV or AIDS reserach.

There is one HIV photo at the bottom. This is an explanation for what may be his sole reason for doubting the connection between the HIV virus and AIDS. Namely that in 1997 the techniques for isolating and purifying the HIV virus did not produce cultures containing only HIV virus.
See Deetee's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3773851#post3773851) on this. By the same reasoning the flu virus and herpes virus do not have any connection with influenza or herpes.

He was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000.

Terry

16th June 2008, 09:30 PM

Jerome, is there a viral disease that you accept has been demonstrated to be real? If so, which one(s)?

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 09:33 PM

Jerome, is there a viral disease that you accept has been demonstrated to be real? If so, which one(s)?

Sure, but that is not relevant to the fact that HIV does not exist.

I wonder why this virus only attacks those living dangerous lifestyles? Maybe because the lifestyles promote the destruction of the immune system?

The lie from 20 years ago that HIV was going to affect everyone has been proven false by time.

Terry

16th June 2008, 09:38 PM

Sure, but that is not relevant to the fact that HIV does not exist.

That "fact" is what you are trying to establish. And if you didn't delight in twisting and turning like a twisty-turny thing, and playing the slippery eel, I'm sure you'd be glad to explain to us what the evidence for <insert viral disease here> is that convinced you of its existence. And then compare and contrast to the situation for HIV. But I'm not holding my breath.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th June 2008, 09:43 PM

That "fact" is what you are trying to establish. And if you didn't delight in twisting and turning like a twisty-turny thing, and playing the slippery eel, I'm sure you'd be glad to explain to us what the evidence for <insert viral disease here> is that convinced you of its existence. And then compare and contrast to the situation for HIV. But I'm not holding my breath.

I am required to prove that something does NOT exist?

I think you have it backwards.

If this is the case: Prove than pink unicorns do not exist.

Terry

16th June 2008, 09:47 PM

No virus is not the appropriate null hypothesis for something that acts SO ****ING MUCH like a viral disease.

Reality Check

16th June 2008, 10:33 PM

He was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000.
Yes he was. But he still has no experience in HIV or AIDS reserach.

BirdyBuddy

16th June 2008, 11:03 PM

Terry understood my meaning perfectly well, as one can tell by reading his next post.

But it's your understanding that is being questioned.

MattusMaximus

16th June 2008, 11:06 PM

Can anyone present evidence of the HIV virus outside of theory?

Oh dear evil Jebus... the well of woo never runs dry with this one, does it? :rolleyes:

MattusMaximus

16th June 2008, 11:13 PM

Sure, but that is not relevant to the fact that HIV does not exist.

Yeah, tell that to the two people I knew who died from HIV.

I wonder why this virus only attacks those living dangerous lifestyles? Maybe because the lifestyles promote the destruction of the immune system?

Ooooh boy, here we go... and what lifestyles would those be, pray tell? Note to others: it seems to me that the Rev. Jerry Falwell has come back to life :rolleyes:

The lie from 20 years ago that HIV was going to affect everyone has been proven false by time.

Uhhh, I never recall anyone (at least, anyone in the medical community at the time) making idiotic claims like this - reference?

Or are you just trolling for a fight... again?

ETA: It's pretty obvious that JDG is just trolling again. Well, at least he is consistent in being full of woo on pretty much any topic about which I've seen him post.

sol invictus

16th June 2008, 11:14 PM

MattusMaximus

16th June 2008, 11:19 PM

I very much doubt anyone is stupid enough to take Jerome seriously, but just in case here (http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/index) is a website that gives access to thousands of HIV genetic sequences. These were acquired by isolating the virus from the blood of many AIDS patients across the world and sequencing it.

C'mon Sol. You know that everything at that website you referenced was just all made up... just like all that supposed "evidence" for black holes that you keep posting on other threads. Gee whiz, you and your "evidence"... sheesh! ;)

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 01:21 AM

Sure, but that is not relevant to the fact that HIV does not exist.

I wonder why this virus only attacks those living dangerous lifestyles? Maybe because the lifestyles promote the destruction of the immune system?

The lie from 20 years ago that HIV was going to affect everyone has been proven false by time.

The lie from you is that "this virus only attacks those living dangerous lifestyles". How dangerous a lifestyle are the babies who got it from breastfeeding living? Were they intravenous drug users? Were they promiscuous? Or maybe they were just into anal sex?

You won't read these links being the troll that you are but others may be interested:
Breastfeeding and HIV/AIDS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (http://rehydrate.org/breastfeed/faq-hiv.htm)
Breastfeeding and HIV/AIDS (http://www.babycenter.com/0_breastfeeding-and-hiv-aids_8686.bc):

Can I breastfeed?
No. Medical experts have evidence that HIV can pass from an infected mother to her child through her breast milk. As a result, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation advise against nursing if you are HIV-positive and a safe alternative is available.

fls

17th June 2008, 03:21 AM

For one, the body can reject blood in the same manner it rejects transplanted organs.

Yeah, but whether you will reject the blood is tested beforehand. That is, that risk will be eliminated, so it will be safe for you to proceed with this challenge.

Linda

njp

17th June 2008, 03:23 AM

He was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000.
You cite as evidence for the credibility of his views on AIDS/HIV that he served on a panel alongside such notable AIDS denialists as Peter Duesberg, and thus helped form Mbeki's opinions on the subject at that time, thereby delaying an appropriate response to the crisis in South Africa?

fls

17th June 2008, 03:31 AM

I am required to prove that something does NOT exist?

We'd all think you were pretty cool if you did, and it would be easy peasy, like Randi taking a lethal overdose of homeopathic remedies.

Linda

fls

17th June 2008, 03:41 AM

What is your opinion of Etienne de Harven?

He doesn't have the relevant experience and knowledge to have an informed opinion. He proved this in the piece you linked to earlier. He demonstrated, quite convincingly, that the techniques he used about 40 years ago, were not useful for all viruses including HIV, essentially telling us that his area of expertise was not relevant to the discussion.

Why are you still clinging to this man?

Linda

Rolfe

17th June 2008, 04:49 AM

So what do you have against the electron micrographs, Jerome?

Rolfe.

Gord_in_Toronto

17th June 2008, 05:04 AM

So what do you have against the electron micrographs, Jerome?

Rolfe.

That it was invented by Canadians?
http://electronmicroscopy.net/who-invented-the-electron-microscope.php

Is it time for a thread in which da gnome conclusively proves (at least in his own mind) that Canada does not exist? :D

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:05 AM

No virus is not the appropriate null hypothesis for something that acts SO ****ING MUCH like a viral disease.

Curious then that the virus stays within populations that live dangerous lifestyles.

Deetee

17th June 2008, 07:08 AM

Curious then that the virus stays within populations that live dangerous lifestyles.
Serious questions Jerome:

Do you think hepatitis B virus exists?
Do you think syphilis exists?

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:14 AM

Serious questions Jerome:

Do you think hepatitis B virus exists?
Do you think syphilis exists?

Yep.

Deetee

17th June 2008, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Deetee http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3784084#post3784084)
Serious questions Jerome:

Do you think hepatitis B virus exists?
Do you think syphilis exists?

Yep.

I am horrified.
Hepatitis B virus is supposedly meant to cause a particular clinical illness. But this illness is clearly associated with degenerate and dangerous lifestyles.
Why on earth do you think Hepatits B Viruz exists?

robinson

17th June 2008, 12:13 PM

Here is a matter of fact page that mentions why HIV is difficult to detect in an infected person.

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv2000.htm

It does mention that the actual virus can be cultured from infected tissue. A provirus doesn't act like most viruses, hence the difficulty simply culturing it. As well as isolating it from an infected person.

Elizabeth I

17th June 2008, 12:41 PM

ETA: It's pretty obvious that JDG is just trolling again. Well, at least he is consistent in being full of woo on pretty much any topic about which I've seen him post.

I don't think Jerome is a woo. I would be surprised to learn that he believes 1/10 of the nonsense he spouts. He is a provocateur - a troll, pure and simple. Somewhat more articulate than most trolls, but a troll nonetheless.

Yeah, but whether you will reject the blood is tested beforehand. That is, that risk will be eliminated, so it will be safe for you to proceed with this challenge.

Linda

You know, Jerome could still take this test and avoid the whole "rejection" issue by just letting someone inject him with a pure strain of HIV - not taking a blood transfusion. After all, if HIV doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter what gets injected, does it?

blutoski

17th June 2008, 01:21 PM

You know, Jerome could still take this test and avoid the whole "rejection" issue by just letting someone inject him with a pure strain of HIV - not taking a blood transfusion. After all, if HIV doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter what gets injected, does it?

To reiterate the moderator's point: nobody actually wants JDG to get sick. It's just a thought experiment at this point.

The key claim is that AIDS is a 'lifestyle' disease. This is a positive claim that JDG makes and has evidence to support. However, there is evidence supporting another model as well: HIV->AIDS.

So, I observe that the debate shifted from the first claim (a positive claim) to a different debate: does HIV exist? JDG absolved himself from further responsibility by positioning himself to making the claim of nonexistence - the same way that skeptics make a claim of nonexistence for ghosts or bigfoot.

However, the scientific debate has never been framed this way. Science is about competing models (every experiment needs a "null hypothesis"). Experiments are designed to resolve between the relative utility of two models. Sometimes there are lots of models, so you have to do a lot of experiments. The HIV->AIDS model may not be true, but it is the best model to explain AIDS propagation through population with the information we have obtained.

In terms of injecting HIV deniers... the way many HIV deniers have managed to duck the issue is not to claim that they don't believe HIV exists (in which case, why object to an HIV injection?) but that there is another mystery factor that cohabitates with HIV. ie: HIV is real, but is not the real cause of AIDS. It's sometimes referred to as a 'marker' for this mystery real cause of AIDS, which could very well be another virus, prion... who knows. They claim that people who get this other infectious agent are vulnerable to opportunistic infections, including the harmless HIV. Alternatively, others in this camp argue that the HIV is not necessarily an opportunistic infection, but that whoever is infected with mystery particle is almost always infected with HIV just because these infectious agents inhabit people with similar lifestyle. The precedent for this is that many HIV+ patients have other STDs, for example. This model could explain why some HIV+ patients do not have AIDS - ie: they weren't infected with the mystery virus. There problem is that this violates ocham's razor - we have perfectly good examples of people infected with other viruses who are subclinical, (herpes, anyone?) so a special case has to be made to justify exploring an alternative mechanism for HIV.

So, they ask that anybody who produces a syringe of 'pure HIV' for test injection into the denier must also provide ironclad proof that there is no other substance in the syringe. This is impossible to do, because the deniers have not indicated what they would accept as ironclad proof. (I usually just get a shoulder shrug - an admission on their part that the challenge is bogus) When they lay out what they will accept, we can talk. Until then, it's clear they're playing games.

The good side-effect of this claim, however, is that they have suddenly made a positive claim: purified isolates of HIV that propagate AIDS must contain a second component. OK: show us this component. (Spoiler alert: they haven't been able to do this)

Ocelot

17th June 2008, 01:30 PM

I wonder why this virus only attacks those living dangerous lifestyles? Maybe because the lifestyles promote the destruction of the immune system?

That's called begging the question. Does this virus actually only attack those "living dangerous lifestyles" Being breast fed is not generally considered a dangerous lifestyle by thousands have contracted HIV doing exactly that. You've heard testimony regarding victims of transfusions who have contracted HIV. Yet you still instist that the virus only affects those with life styles that destroy the immune system.

This is a lie.

When someone has been lied to and repeats that lie then they can be educated. They're a victim and they have my sympathy. You've ignored the evidence that's been given that AIDS certainly does effect some peopel who do not ave any other factor that copromises the immune system yet you persist in repeating this lie.

Are you a liar?

The lie from 20 years ago that HIV was going to affect everyone has been proven false by time.

Just like the millenium bug. Whenever I hear people saying it was all a bunch of scaremongering stuff and nonsense I do get a little frustrated. Whenever I worked for a client doing millenium bug work I showed them exactly what would happen by simply setting the date. Very often nothing but the date being wrong. Sometimes however the computer wouldn't boot.

You know I'm willing to be proven wrong but "effect everyone?" I don't think I ever heard that claimed. Certianly certian projections were bound to have been over hyped. More realistic porjection would have been based on people not changing their sexual practices. Thankfully preventative measures were taken. Education helped, people did change their sexual practices and even those scenarios were averted.

Perhpas we shold have left a subsection of society uneducated and just seen what happens without the recomended action. It'd be unethical to do so on purpose but unfortunetely we can see what absitnenece only eduction, catholics lobbying against condom usage and HIV denialism has done for Africa.

Just look at the life expectancies in Africa and tell me hwta else has changed other than the arival of HIV to explain the rapid decline.

Loon

17th June 2008, 01:34 PM

The virus.

Please, no more images of plush dolls. These do not count.

Do you mean "Here, Jerome, hold this, it's the AIDS virus" or would an image do? I assume you would require something like a scanning electron micrograph? Either way, how would you know that the thing I have presented you is in fact HIV (imagine, just for kicks, that it does exist)

Paulhoff

17th June 2008, 01:39 PM

Yes JEROME, just ask Randi about Isaac Asimov and HIV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Paul

:) :) :)

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 01:59 PM

Curious then that the virus stays within populations that live dangerous lifestyles.

The only curious thing is your use of an ambiguous and undefined term that can be retrofitted to include whatever sort of behaviors you'd like.

Or would you care to define exactly what is and is not a dangerous lifestyle?

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 02:09 PM

Curious then that the virus stays within populations that live dangerous lifestyles.
Repeating a misconception (or lie) does not make it the truth.

How dangerous a lifestyle are the babies who got it from breastfeeding living? Were they intravenous drug users? Were they promiscuous? Or maybe they were just into anal sex?

You have not read these links being the troll that you are but others may be interested:
Breastfeeding and HIV/AIDS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (http://rehydrate.org/breastfeed/faq-hiv.htm)
Breastfeeding and HIV/AIDS (http://www.babycenter.com/0_breastfeeding-and-hiv-aids_8686.bc)

Paulhoff

17th June 2008, 02:09 PM

The only curious thing is your use of an ambiguous and undefined term that can be retrofitted to include whatever sort of behaviors you'd like.

Or would you care to define exactly what is and is not a dangerous lifestyle?
A person like Isaac Asimov who had contracted HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) from a blood transfusion received during a heart bypass operation in December 1983. People who had blood transfusions, that lifestyle.

Paul

:) :) :)

Ivor the Engineer

17th June 2008, 02:18 PM

<snip>

Or would you care to define exactly what is and is not a dangerous lifestyle?

Nude arc welding.

Paulhoff

17th June 2008, 03:20 PM

More people get HIV from something that doesn't exist.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-11-hemophiliacs-cover_x.htm

Paul

:) :) :)

The Man

17th June 2008, 03:27 PM

Nude arc welding.

Damn, looks like I’ll have come up with something else to do on Friday nights.

JoeTheJuggler

17th June 2008, 03:29 PM

Jerome, have you ever wondered what these "dangerous lifestyles" have in common that other equally dangerous lifestyles do not? Could it be maybe swapping bodily fluids (one way or another) with someone who is HIV+? I think you're only referring to a subset of these dangerous lifestyles (promiscuous and anal sex and drug use) even though there's certainly a better and more specific correlation to those behaviors that lead to exposure to the virus than anything else.

I have a dangerous lifestyle. I do chainsaw juggling. I juggle torches, machetes, and so on. I eat fire. I frequently balance on precarious things in high places. Funny. . .I'm still HIV- and have never had AIDS.

So what exactly do you mean by "dangerous lifestyles" if it isn't something that correlates with exposure to HIV?

Rolfe

17th June 2008, 04:03 PM

Jerome, what would you constitute as evidence that the HIV virus exists?

The virus.

Jerome, what is your objection to the electron micrographs?

I have to tell you, if you insist on something smaller in diameter than the wavelength of blue light being shown to you without the use of imaging technology, you're in for a disappointment. Just as you are if you insist on being told the colour of something that small.

Why do you not accept the electron micrograph images of the virus?

Rolfe.

roger

17th June 2008, 06:36 PM

I very much doubt anyone is stupid enough to take Jerome seriously, but just in case here (http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/index) is a website that gives access to thousands of HIV genetic sequences. These were acquired by isolating the virus from the blood of many AIDS patients across the world and sequencing it.Oh, come on. That is not evidence of the genetic sequences. What we are seeing here are photons that have been emitted from your computer screen of a representation of a genetic sequence. Show me the genetic sequence itself, not some twice removed "data". :rolleyes:

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 06:52 PM

A person like Isaac Asimov who had contracted HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) from a blood transfusion received during a heart bypass operation in December 1983. People who had blood transfusions, that lifestyle.

Paul

:) :) :)

Curious that the family waited until his doctors died to reveal this fact.

:gnome:

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 06:54 PM

Jerome, have you ever wondered what these "dangerous lifestyles" have in common that other equally dangerous lifestyles do not?

Living in poverty without clean water, proper health-care, and proper nutrition is a dangerous lifestyle.

:gnome:

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 07:03 PM

Living in poverty without clean water, proper health-care, and proper nutrition is a dangerous lifestyle.

:gnome:

I guess all those rich Americans with HIV were "Living in poverty without clean water, proper health-care, and proper nutrition" :rolleyes:
As well as Isaac Asmiov there is Arthur Ashe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe) and many others.

How dangerous a lifestyle are the babies who got it from breastfeeding living? Were they intravenous drug users? Were they promiscuous? Or maybe they were just into anal sex?

You have not read these links being the troll that you are but others may be interested:
Breastfeeding and HIV/AIDS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (http://rehydrate.org/breastfeed/faq-hiv.htm)
Breastfeeding and HIV/AIDS (http://www.babycenter.com/0_breastfeeding-and-hiv-aids_8686.bc)

Paulhoff

17th June 2008, 07:04 PM

Curious that the family waited until his doctors died to reveal this fact.
SO, another Straw-man.

Asimov died on April 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_6), 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992). He was survived by his second wife, Janet, and his children from his first marriage. Ten years after his death, Janet Asimov's edition of Asimov's autobiography, It's Been a Good Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Been_a_Good_Life), revealed that his death was caused by AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS); he had contracted HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) from a blood transfusion received during a heart bypass operation in December 1983.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#cite_note-14) The specific cause of death was heart and renal failure as complications of HIV infection. Janet Asimov wrote in the epilogue of It's Been a Good Life that Asimov had wanted to "go public," but his doctors convinced him to remain silent, warning that anti-AIDS prejudice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice) would extend to his family members. Asimov's family considered disclosing his condition after he died, but the controversy which erupted when Arthur Ashe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe) announced his own AIDS infection convinced them otherwise. Ten years later, after Asimov's doctors had died, Janet and Robyn agreed that the AIDS story could be made public.

Paul

:) :) :)

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:15 PM

SO, another Straw-man.

Paul

:) :) :)

I created no argument to knock-down.

Curious that the family waited until his doctors died to reveal this fact.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:17 PM

I guess all those rich Americans with HIV were "Living in poverty without clean water, proper health-care, and proper nutrition" :rolleyes:

Nope, those lifestyles are generally found in Africa.

How dangerous a lifestyle are the babies who got it from breastfeeding living? Were they intravenous drug users? Were they promiscuous? Or maybe they were just into anal sex?

Those babies inherited the failed immune system from their mothers and fathers due to the dangerous lifestyle.

Paulhoff

17th June 2008, 07:20 PM

I created no argument to knock-down.

Curious that the family waited until his doctors died to reveal this fact.
Straw-man, has nothing to do with HIV.

Paul

:) :) :)

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:25 PM

Straw-man, has nothing to do with HIV.

Paul

:) :) :)

Neither does the deceleration of a widow 10 years after a dead man's doctors have died.

:gnome:

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 07:26 PM

Nope, those lifestyles are generally found in Africa.

Then why do rich americans get HIV?

Those babies inherited the failed immune system from their mothers and fathers due to the dangerous lifestyle.
No their failed immune systems were not inherited.

fls

17th June 2008, 07:27 PM

Living in poverty without clean water, proper health-care, and proper nutrition is a dangerous lifestyle.

Africans were doing that before the 80's. Even before the 50's for that matter.

Linda

Complexity

17th June 2008, 07:28 PM

What an offensive OP.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:29 PM

Then why do rich americans get HIV?

Lifestyle choices.

No their failed immune systems were not inherited.

Are too.

fls

17th June 2008, 07:30 PM

Those babies inherited the failed immune system from their mothers and fathers due to the dangerous lifestyle.

Wow. Jerome's a Lamarckian. I didn't see that coming, although in retrospect I should have.

Linda

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:31 PM

Africans were doing that before the 80's. Even before the 50's for that matter.

Linda

I guess the raping and pillaging by the colonial nations sure have done some work.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:32 PM

What an offensive OP.

How so?

:confused:

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 07:36 PM

In case Jerome does not know how to click on links (which seems likely):
Arthur Ashe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe)

The story of Ashe's life turned from success to tragedy in 1988 when Ashe discovered he had contracted HIV during the blood transfusions he had received during one of his two heart surgeries. He and his wife kept his illness private until April 8, 1992, when reports that the newspaper USA Today was about to publish a story about his condition forced him to make a public announcement that he had the disease. In the last year of his life, Ashe did much to call attention to AIDS sufferers worldwide. Two months before his death, he founded the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health to help address issues of inadequate health care delivery and was named Sports Illustrated magazine's Sportsman of the Year. He also spent much of the last years of his life writing his memoir Days of Grace, finishing the manuscript less than a week before his death.
Ashe died from complications from AIDS on February 6, 1993.

fls

17th June 2008, 07:37 PM

I guess the raping and pillaging by the colonial nations sure have done some work.

I can't keep all of this straight. Does the Denialism also involve Exploitation by The Man?

Linda

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:44 PM

In case Jerome does not know how to click on links (which seems likely):
Arthur Ashe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe)

Got it. Can not evidence HIV, so you play the celebrity card.

:dl:

He had AIDS, there is no evidence of HIV.

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 07:46 PM

What an offensive OP.

The original posting was not offensive and was answered by the first posting of a electron micrograph of the HIV virus (oh so long ago!).

JEROME DA GNOME's troll behaviour - that is offensive. I find his belief that breast-feeding babies with HIV got it from their "dangerous lifestyles" especially disgusting.
He is trying to back-track by making the "failed immune systems" of AIDS into a genetic condition.

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 07:47 PM

Got it. Can not evidence HIV, so you play the celebrity card.

:dl:

He had AIDS, there is no evidence of HIV.
Other than the picture of it.

:dl:

JEROME DA GNOME

17th June 2008, 07:50 PM

The original posting was not offensive and was answered by the first posting of a electron micrograph of the HIV virus (oh so long ago!).

Except that never occurred.

You do know that the posts are still there?

Why would you tell blatant provable falsehoods?

Is this the "Bigger the lie" game?

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 07:56 PM

Except that never occurred.

You do know that the posts are still there?

Why would you tell blatant provable falsehoods?

Is this the "Bigger the lie" game?
Yes they are and post #7 has a link to
Scanning electron micrograph of HIV-1 budding from cultured lymphocyte. This image has been colored to highlight important features; see PHIL 1197 for original black and white view of this image. Multiple round bumps on cell surface represent sites of assembly and budding of virions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HIV-budding-Color.jpg)

Who is the liar?

The Man

17th June 2008, 07:59 PM

Nope, those lifestyles are generally found in Africa.

Those babies inherited the failed immune system from their mothers and fathers due to the dangerous lifestyle.

Well at least we now have Jerome’s theory of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

So, Jerome, how did hemophiliacs taking blood clotting factors (before blood products were specifically screened for HIV) acquire this inherited immune deficiency? Why is this no longer a problem (with blood products now specifically screened for HIV) if you what to claim that it is just inherited or a result of “lifestyle”, as that part (using blood products) has not changed for hemophiliacs, but only the screening of those products)?

The Man

17th June 2008, 08:02 PM

I can't keep all of this straight. Does the Denialism also involve Exploitation by The Man?

Linda

What? Who I am I Exploiting (I'll never tell)?

Reality Check

17th June 2008, 08:10 PM

Yes they are and post #7 has a link to
Scanning electron micrograph of HIV-1 budding from cultured lymphocyte. This image has been colored to highlight important features; see PHIL 1197 for original black and white view of this image. Multiple round bumps on cell surface represent sites of assembly and budding of virions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HIV-budding-Color.jpg)

Who is the liar?

I had a quick scan through the many postings in this thread that have links to pictures of HIV and found the wriog URL in one of mine. There is the correct link.
Scientists Record The Birth of a Virus (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/scientists-reco.html)

In a feat of visualization that could help scientists understand not only HIV but all viruses, researchers have taken the first real-time images of a viral unit assembling inside a living cell.
“This is the first time anyone has seen a virus particle being born,” said study co-author Paul Bieniasz, a Rockefeller University virologist.
The pictures, published Sunday in Nature, were taken with a microscope that sends light into cells at a sharp angle, rather than straight-on. This allowed the researchers to focus narrowly on an HIV-infected cell's surface, where the molecular bits and pieces hijacked by the virus gathered to form a new viral particle, or virion.
Until now, scientists' knowledge of viral assembly came from biochemical analyses of viral components, or from examination of cells frozen at different stages of infection -- the research equivalent of snapshots and reverse-engineered blueprints rather than eyewitness recordings.
“The use of this technique is almost unlimited," said study co-author Nolwenn Jouvenet. "Now that we can actually see a virus being born, it gives us the opportunity to answer previously unanswered questions, not only in virology but in biology in general.”

Darat

18th June 2008, 01:26 AM

OK - I've moved some of the latest derails to AAH and I'm setting this thread to [Moderated Thread] status.

ETA: Moderated Threads do not seem to be correctly working at the moment so for now the thread is closed.

robinson

18th June 2008, 07:51 AM

It seems almost ludicrous to even discuss the matter as if there is no evidence for HIV. I posted a link to a College course page that summed up the difficulty in isolating a provirus (like HIV) from human tissue.

Foamy Viruses (http://www.dkfz.de/en/f020/groups/loechelt/index.html) and HTLV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTLV) are other examples of proviruses that escaped detection due to the nature of the beasts.

Here is an electron microscope picture of both HIV and HTLV.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HTLV-1_and_HIV-1_EM_8241_lores.jpg