AIDS (hah) [Archive] - Page 2

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 10:35 AM

JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread. From page one, I haven't seen you post a single useful item, instead it was just troll post after troll post.

You are not allowed to be incivil to those who disagree with you, nor are you allowed to determine who may or may not post in a thread. Keep to the membership agreement.

Skeptigirl, you probably think you understand science.
Another tripe answer like a molecular analysis of the immune response to a vaccine wasn't "double blinded" will only demonstrate further your complete ignorance of this subject.Because two different groups reacted differently to two different treatments is proof of... well, your failure to understand scientific tools such as an interventionist study. Get out and make the guys with brains some coffee.
Wow, HIV infects skin cells, too?
Hey we found an inane and obscure way of how HIV could cause dementia. We have absolutely no proof but watch how we inject gallons of poo into these mices' brains!
"The mechanism(s) by which human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes depletion of CD4 lymphocytes remains unknown."
Look, HIV can enter your Vagina!! (Never mind that we never found HIV in sperm)
Wow, HIV is just where infections are. Could it be, because HIV sits in cells of the immune system? We don't know but we have a quota of 1 paper per trimester and this pays our bills

And then we have the master brainiac, Deetee. Let's see what he found.

Here in a rigorously controlled epidemiological study, none out of 367 (0%)HIV negative gay men developed AIDS compared to 204 out of 400 (51%) HIV positive gay men matched for recreational drug use.You Fail. This issue is one that I have explained countless times already. You bringing it up is either proof of my disability to communicate, or your inability to read.
(This would seem highly interesting... if I hadn't caught this reading the abstract) Marijuana use was associated with a decreased rate of progression to AIDS in the univariate analysisOh great, now weed protects from AIDS, too? What will those wacky bongheads think of next?
In 715 homosexual men followed for a median of 8.6 years, all 136 AIDS cases occurred in the 365 individuals with pre-existing HIV-1 antibody. Most men negative for HIV-1 antibody reported risk behaviours but none developed any AIDS illnesses.Now this is an interesting study, since at first it appears to differ between "AIDS" and "Aids illnesses"... But wait, 350 high-risk, homosexual men, over almost 9 years, and *no* case of:
- Herpes Simplex
- Pneumonia
- Salmonella
- Toxoplasmosis (Estimated 1/3 of the world's population is infected, 15-25% in the US)
- Or any other "AIDS defining Diseases" ?

I call superbullpoop deluxe on this study. (oh noes I reject "evidence" whenever I find it to be statistically impossible and unsound, that's how unscientific I am)
Duesberg himself debunks this one: Link! (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7025/210)Sabin et al claim that HIV causes AIDS because all of their haemophilic patients had antibodies against the virus. But HIV cannot be enough for AIDS because six of their 17 HIV positive patients (table 2) remained healthy for 10 years. Likewise 12000 out of 15000 HIV positive American haemophilic patients have remained AIDS free since 1985.
Without HIV annual liver disease mortality remained below 0.2% throughout 1985-1999, but with HIV it was 0.2% during 1985-1990, 0.8% during 1991-1996, and 0.8% during 1997-1999.The temporal data is very important. Liver failure is not caused by HIV, but by antiretroviral therapy, which was introduced in the early 90ies. Meaning the severely increased mortality of the HIV-seropositive folks can, at least partially, be explained with toxic treatment rather than HIV or hepatitis itself. Don't know where you still get "But treatment's sooo good" from.

What's it proving all? Well not much. Just that a lot of the science is horribly irrelevant, done badly, or done horribly wrong.

Deetee

17th July 2007, 10:44 AM

Re Malawi:
Are the people there getting some kind of super health care that allows them to not come down with AIDS? If AIDS is killing most everybody off, how is the population rising? Malaria seems to be a constant still.

I'm not going to do all the legwork, but it is obvious that the claims about the deaths are crap. Even if you include Malaria as AIDS, it is crap.
Robinson, Robinson..... Where shall I start?
So much misinformation, and so little time for me to refute it all....

African stats are prone to inaccuracies, true, but incorrect estimates made on the basis of incomplete or incorrect data do not negate the devastation the HIV epidemic has had there. Denialists like to point to inconsistencies between "official" estimates from National agencies and estimates from WHO or UNAIDS, and wrongly conclude that there is therefore no HIV problem whatsoever.

Whenever HIV estimates are changed on the basis of new or updated information (the proper scientific way to go about things) the denialists scream "See! They don't know what they are talking about! HIV doesn't exist!" It is very dispiriting to argue against this type of denialism, since the denialists herald every advance in knowledge as a “major setback for the HIV?AIDS paradigm”. Please don't join their camp - you are too intelligent to fall for their brand of thinking.
The denialists are champions at failing to recognise that:
(1). Prevalence does not equal incidence.
These are often conflated when it seems to suit the denialists. For instance lifetime predictions of the likelihood of developing AIDS or dying are deliberately confused with snapshot incidence rates for these conditions, which are obviously lower.
(2). Population Growth does not mean there is no increase in deaths from AIDS.
The overall population growth is a mix of birth rate and death rates. If high fertility is sustained, birth rates are sustained and population growth will occur, even with a rise in mortality rate, and AIDS deaths constitute only a part of this picture (typically only 20-25% of deaths are due to AIDS).
This is commonly lied about by denialists, who twist the population stats to pretend +ve population growth = no deaths from AIDS. You are falling into the same trap.

Population pyramid analysis in Africa shows a marked change in recent years. Previously most deaths occurred in the old (and infants) - now deaths are maximal in the young-middle aged population. Why do you think this is? As you say, malaria rates and other diseases have remained more or less constant, but figures from S Africa show a huge leap in deaths from infections related to immune deficiency - TB rates soaring, pneumonias, intestinal infections. And these have jumped, not in old people, but in the very populations in which HIV prevalence is highest - the younger adults.

You quoted life expectancy data for Malawi. This has reduced in recent years to 39 years. Why do you think this has happened? I agree, AIDS is not “wiping out” the population, however it is having a significant impact on the countries affected as any in depth look at economic or demographic data will show. Emotive language like “devastating populations”, or “wiping out villages” is sometimes used by people to impress on others what the gravity of the situation is. View these claims, if they exist, with a degree of healthy scepticism but not with an air of automatic and unthinking denial.

Let us look at the SA data that Rian Malan scorns if you wish. It is true that UN figures for SA, as for many countries, have overestimated the problem. (You will find that more recent UNAIDS estimates and local estimates concur more closely).
The UN had previously predicted appx 125000 deaths annually, I believe, but more precise data showed "only" half that number had died from probable AIDS. Only 65 000 - Wow! An indication that HIV is clearly not a problem in SA?

Precise SA stats are available Here (http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/complete.pdf) and Here (http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932003,2004.pdf).
They indicate that those who are now dying are young adults. In the last 5 years, twice as many 30 year old men are dying, and 3.5 times as many 30yr old women. This is not because of increases in natural or external deaths (eg violence), but because of soaring rates of infection. Death rates in the elderly have not changed.

Now I wonder what could affect young (sexually active, non-drug using) adults’ immune systems so badly that they succumb to these infections? Gee! – What a puzzle, hey?

Duesberg says its malnutrition (which usually afflicts the elderly and the infants) or because someone is surruptitiously feeding them all chemicals like poppers or AZT.
A very unbelievable theory indeed, but as Amy Wilson says - It's true! :)

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 10:49 AM

JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread. From page one, I haven't seen you post a single useful item, instead it was just troll post after troll post.

Awwwww... I'll have to try harder, won't I? Again, though, what I see is you rejecting all the accepted scientific evidence, in favor of some pretty silly conspiracy theories and nonsense claims. The reason for this doesn't seem to be the evidence itself, since you've shown no sign of having examined or understood the evidence.

So, my hunch is that your objections to reality have some basis that is NOT tied into reason or logic or facts. I find that to be endlessly intriguing.

Belz...

17th July 2007, 10:57 AM

JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread.

Sorry, boy. Public forum.

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 11:01 AM

Now I wonder what could affect young (sexually active, non-drug using) adults’ immune systems so badly that they succumb to these infections? Gee! – What a puzzle, hey?

Duesberg says its malnutrition (which usually afflicts the elderly and the infants) or because someone is surruptitiously feeding them all chemicals like poppers or AZT.
A very unbelievable theory indeed, but as Amy Wilson says - It's true! :)

Maybe AZT it is the hip new club drug there? Oh, wait... they were all born with HIV? Or maybe the CIA did it?

So many conspiracies, so little time!

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 11:03 AM

Sorry, boy. Public forum.
Maybe I should claim that Dab's just the spearhead of an international conspiracy to deny the truth of my words? What are the odds? :jaw-dropp

Miss Anthrope

17th July 2007, 11:06 AM

JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread.

Reported

Skeptigirl, you probably think you understand science. well, your failure to understand scientific tools such as an interventionist study. Get out and make the guys with brains some coffee.

Wow, you are indeed a master of civility. I know what SG's credentials are and have been in the position to verify them. What, exactly, are yours? What makes you qualified to dismiss any of this as "bad science" or these posters not understanding it correctly?

robinson

17th July 2007, 11:56 AM

All quotes that are not linked, are mine.

Against those facts, I see a couple of people complaining that there's a worldwide conspiracy, that everything that the scientific community is doing is a lie, and that only a few special people are able to see through the gigantic charade.

While I tend to ignore stuff that is so wrong, it isn't even possible to try and explain why it is wrong, this Ellison post serves as an example of the emotional, hyped up type of reasoning that can lead skeptical minds to wonder, just what the hell is wrong with some people?

And I wonder, does Joe really see that stuff, is he delusional? Or is it just rhetoric, emotional response, bad logic? Who can tell?

I see those people resisting the idea of any evidence. In fact, I see a viewpoint that isn't based on evidence at all, just like any other foolish and delusional conspiracy theory.

Again, do you really think that? Are you that far removed from rality? Or is this a straw man that gets drug out of the closet when ever you can't come up with any evidence, logic, or reasonable response to ideas you find hard to understand?

In other words, I see people behaving just like any other believers in woo-woo nonsense.

Sometimes I think this has become so common here at the JREF Forums, that the skeptics either ignore it, or somehow accept it, never bothering to ask, do you have any possible evidence to show why you say that? Emotional responses, insulting mundane tripe, those are the hallmark of a religious or small mind. If you want to counter research, facts, logic, evidence that you disagree with, you are better served by explaining or showing why you disagree, than you are by just spewing nonsense.

If you knew when you got infected with HIV (such as a needle stick injury) and took the RT inhibitor soon afterwards then it may be possible to prevent integration.

In the information SG provided, there is a small factoid that is often overlooked. It is evident in the needle stick statistics as well, and in surgical accidents. HIV infection isn't guaranteed if exposed to HIV. In fact, the amount of HIV and the number of exposures are claimed to be important in determining risk.

This is known, not because of any experimental data, but supposed, based on statistics and anecdotal evidence. We know that a needle stick or sexual exposure doesn't cause an infection, in most cases. We know this because of what has been observed. Nobody seems to know why, it is a fact assumed based on what has happened over time.

Originally, it was thought any exposure would cause transmission. This was, of course, bad science, based on no evidence at all. It was also thought that every exposure would result in death, more bad science.

It was also claimed semen could transmit the HIV through oral contact. Obviously this was also bad science. Of course no experimental evidence was provided, nor any testing done, it was just claimed. Bad science.

In 1989 I asked a leading Immunologist, the areas expert on HIV, how did he know oral sex would transmit HIV? He claimed HIV was in the seminal fluid, and could get into a sore in the mouth.

Then I asked him if HIV was in saliva? Yes. Why wouldn't kissing be a risk then? Why wouldn't HIV in food or drink be a risk?

Because the amount of HIV would be too small.

How do you know that?

His response, and I kid you not, was that we know this because it hasn't spread through food or kissing!

So you know it is transmitted through oral sex because...?

Because prostitutes have HIV, and they have unprotected oral sex!

So, all of this science is based on...? Anecdotal reports from HIV positive prostitutes. In other words, what street Ho's tell the researchers or health departments. Do these scientist actually believe what an IV drug user street Ho tells them?

You mean you don't have any actual experiments? Nothing but anecdotal evidence?

About then he said he had stuff to do....

Viruses in generally are wonderful little critters.

It's all fun and games until you get one you can't get rid of.

Now this is where some really smart person gets to slam me. You simply post links to all the studies and research that simply shows that I am wrong. That yes indeed, scientific evidence exist to show that sex spreads HIV. Oral sex, heterosexual love making, HIV spreads like that.

Deetee

17th July 2007, 11:58 AM

Deetee. Let's see what he found.

You Fail. This issue is one that I have explained countless times already. You bringing it up is either proof of my disability to communicate, or your inability to read.
Oh great, now weed protects from AIDS, too? What will those wacky bongheads think of next?
Now this is an interesting study, since at first it appears to differ between "AIDS" and "Aids illnesses"... But wait, 350 high-risk, homosexual men, over almost 9 years, and *no* case of:
- Herpes Simplex
- Pneumonia
- Salmonella
- Toxoplasmosis (Estimated 1/3 of the world's population is infected, 15-25% in the US)
- Or any other "AIDS defining Diseases" ?

God what ignorance.
Firstly you haven't bothered to address any of the main points of these studies, whcih conclusively show it is acquisition of HIV that results in subsequent development of AIDS. These studies all control for the factors that you (and Duesberg) say causes "AIDS", and hey, guess what? No-one who is HIV negative, despite being sexually active gay men, popper users or other drug users or hemophiliacs, gets AIDS. Only the HIV positives do.

Then you show your astounding ignorance as to what constitutes an AIDS diagnosis.
It is only cerebral toxoplasmosis - (you know the sort where one gets REACTIVATION of dormant infection and abscesses in the brain) that is AIDS-defining. Similarly, it is only recurrent salmonella, multiple attacks of pneumonia and persistent mucocutaneous herpes for more than 3 months despite treatment which are AIDS-defining.

The temporal data is very important. Liver failure is not caused by HIV, but by antiretroviral therapy, which was introduced in the early 90ies. Meaning the severely increased mortality of the HIV-seropositive folks can, at least partially, be explained with toxic treatment rather than HIV or hepatitis itself. Don't know where you still get "But treatment's sooo good" from.

You imply liver deaths constitute a really significant part of why HIV hemophiliacs have a 10-fold higher mortality than HIV negative hemophiliacs. I'll summarise the data as you have difficulty comprehending it:

Deaths with no HIV = 0.9%
Deaths in HIV positives = 10% (mostly AIDS-defining illnesses)
Deaths after introduction of HIV therapy = 5%
(I get the idea that HIV treatment is "soooo" good from the fact that it halves the death rate, stoopid, despite being so "lethal")

Deaths from liver disease = 0.2%
Deaths from liver disease in HIV positives = 0.8% (Most of these will be due to the concurrent Hepatitis C and B infections, and only partially contributed to by HIV drugs)
6% of the mortality in HIV positives is attributable to an increase in liver deaths, not the huge proportion you imply.

What's it proving all? Well not much. Just that a lot of the science is horribly irrelevant, done badly, or done horribly wrong.
No, it proves:
(1) You can't interpret a scientific study to save your life.
(2) You are prepared to ignore whatever you find goes against your preconceptions.
(3) You haven't a clue about AIDS-defining illnesses
(4) You are prepared to lie.

However it does show:
(1) You accept there is "severely increased mortality of the HIV positive folk" (your words), so maybe there is hope for you yet. Its not due to liver disease, as the data show. So what do you think it is due to??

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 12:16 PM

All quotes that are not linked, are mine.Don't sugar-coat it, tell us how you really feel! :jaw-dropp

Seriously, though, the denial of reality by various fringe groups, including the HIV/AIDS denial groups, share pretty standard traits in common. Because one of those traits is a refusal to accept any evidence or facts in conflict with the particular belief, the large amount of evidence posted in this thread (especially when compared to the almost complete lack of contrary evidence from the denial side), really doesn't make much of a difference. The belief isn't really based on evidence anyways, so no evidence will sway the belief.

Really, the psychology of the fringe groups is incredibly interesting, and I greatly enjoy the sorts of responses the threads based on fringe beliefs will generate. :D

calebprime

17th July 2007, 12:20 PM

All quotes that are not linked, are mine.

The quote function didn't capture your title, which was "Bad science, bad logic, bad thread, Bad info" or words to that effect.

I suggest that you can remedy the situation differently than you have done.

You can present, in summary form, what your theory is, what your facts are.

If you've studied the situation for some time, then you have knowledge and insights that the average person lacks.

You can frame your views as either fact, theory, or speculation.

Otherwise, the thread is mainly Dabljuh the Dusberg/Mullis believer versus the regulars here--with a growing opposition consisting of people who actually know something about the scientific issues.

I wasn't sure of your point in quoting all those posts. If you don't like JoeEllison's posts, you can ignore them.

Trouble is, conspiracy theories are usually wrong, and conventional science is usually right.

Raise the quality of discourse. State your case. Give the executive summary for us busy, stupid, logic-impaired types.

kellyb

17th July 2007, 12:30 PM

You simply post links to all the studies and research that simply shows that I am wrong. That yes indeed, scientific evidence exist to show that sex spreads HIV. Oral sex, heterosexual love making, HIV spreads like that.

Robinson...WHAT is wrong with the Africa circumcision RCTs?
When you read the fulltexts, it becomes pretty clear that prostitutes (infected with herpes, also, probably) transmit HIV pretty darn well, for a lot of reasons.

If your point is that, if you're a hererosexual in the developed world, and you meet someone hot, and have unprotected sex with them, while you might pick up some HPV virus or herpes virus or "bacterial" STI from them...the chances that you'll catch HIV from them is really comparatively pretty small...yes, I think you're right.

Is that your only point you're trying to make?

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 12:33 PM

You can present, in summary form, what your theory is, what your facts are.

If you've studied the situation for some time, then you have knowledge and insights that the average person lacks.

You can frame your views as either fact, theory, or speculation.**snip**
State your case. Give the executive summary for us busy, stupid, logic-impaired types.

I second that.

robinson

17th July 2007, 12:49 PM

Now, to address the other side of the street.

Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.

Blanket statements like that are dumb. But lets look at the key points.

- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system

There is lots of evidence (science avoids the word proof, except in mathematics), that HIV leads to decreased immune response. It doesn't destroy the immune system, it weakens certain T-cells which are vital to fighting off invasions of fungi, viruses, and bacterium. Only radiation can destroy the entire immune system, and maybe some toxic chemicals.

- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero

There is evidence that some kinds of sexual activity leads to transmission of HIV. Sharing needles is a sure way to transmit HIV, of this there is no doubt.

- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia

That is probably true, SIV is very much like HIV, and the two can be combined, and are combined, to study retroviruses in vivo.

- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

Now that is just out there. There is overwhelming evidence to show HIV infection weakens immune systems already compromised by HVC, parasites and malaria, along with bad water, no food and terrible health care.

But right now, it looks to me as if HIV could just as well be completely harmless, and the dreaded "AIDS" is merely a semantic disease.

Well, in some people, long term survivors, HIV is harmless. But saying HIV is harmless is death to your credibility. There is no doubt that combined with other factors, HIV leads to weakened immune response.

This is what people are trying to show you. While there are many questions about HIV, that isn't one of them.

kellyb

17th July 2007, 01:07 PM

That is probably true, SIV is very much like HIV, and the two can be combined, and are combined, to study retroviruses in vivo.

There are old blood samples from the mid/late 50's, from the areas where HIV quickly became pretty common in Africa. The first HIV (according to old blood samples taken long before anyone knew HIV existed) probably emerged in the late 50's or early 60's.

They took blood back then to look for stuff like polio. I forget the exact date, but it really looks like HIV didn't exist (or must have been extremely rare, traveling very, very, very slowly) before then. I'll find links on that if you want. It's in the early 60's that it suddenly exploded, for reasons that aren't well understood.

robinson

17th July 2007, 01:45 PM

Precise SA stats are available Here (http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/complete.pdf) and Here (http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932003,2004.pdf).
They indicate that those who are now dying are young adults.

I read the report you linked to, http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/complete.pdf and it is clear you did not read it. It clearly states that the data is unreliable, and that the statistics are estimates, that they are projections, not real data. It also states that because of better attempts to actually record deaths, the entire study is not to be considered as fact.

In the last 5 years, twice as many 30 year old men are dying, and 3.5 times as many 30yr old women.

Even if you discount that this is only projection, not actual data, your statement is incorrect. If the death rate increases from 1% of the total deaths, to 2% of the total deaths, this does not mean twice as many people died. Your comment is so wrong, I would have to explain a dozen things to show you why. Not worth the effort.

This is not because of increases in natural or external deaths (eg violence), but because of soaring rates of infection. Death rates in the elderly have not changed.

Your 2001 report is both out of date, and the projections in it were simply wrong.

If you simply check the latest data, http://indexmundi.com/south_africa/age_structure.html or
http://indexmundi.com/south_africa/manpower_fit_for_military_service.html
you can see for yourself why projections and hype just don't stand up to scrutiny. There was no massive loss of young people, and the population is still growing.

Statistics are based on testing done on pregnant women. If you actually read how they come up with the projections, and you understand how unreliable the HIV tests are, it isn't hard to see why the figures don't match the reality.

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 01:46 PM

Robinson: that's the point I'm trying to show you. If there have to be "other factors" present for HIV to have any effect, then one can formulate a realistic, testable hypothesis that does not make HIV a causal source of illness(es). You say, I discredit myself with this statement. I say that by categorically denying the possibility that despite the hints (not evidence, not proof) given at HIV's sometimes destructive effect on the immune system, HIV may be harmless and the true source of the conditions stated may be somewhere else, you would discredit yourself.

It's not me who categorically asserts something about HIV's pathology. Its you. I am merely considering the possibility, which I find realistic given the evidence. Of course it is an alternative, and minority interpretation, but as there are significant financial interests behind the majority interpretation, I do not see this state as a minority view as discreditive to the minority hypothesis. Especially since there is virtually no high quality evidence (e.g. a DB-RCT) on the subject.

And with regards to the Circumcision-HIV studies, I can give you the answer: Selective reporting. Any researcher wants his study to produce a meaningful result. Studies that do not produce results tend not to be published. If you want a particular study result, you simply do 10 studies with small, barely significant samples, increasing the chances that one of them will bear the results you want to hear (and dismiss the other 9) - Or, as with the french circumcision-HIV study, you simply design the study in a multi-staged way, and cancel it the instant you have the result you want. Its the same principle: Selective Reporting.

Or do you really believe circumcision protects from HIV? I don't buy it.

Oh, and Deetee: Liver Failure by Hepatitis is caused, as we have learned earlier in this thread, by the immune system slaughtering the infected liver cells. If the HIV destroys the immune system, we would see *less* liver failure in the HIV patients.

In addition, I from now on shall reject any study that claims something like "X died of AIDS" - "AIDS" is not good enough for me, it is unscientific. I want to know *what* they died of.

kellyb

17th July 2007, 02:01 PM

And with regards to the Circumcision-HIV studies, I can give you the answer: Selective reporting. Any researcher wants his study to produce a meaningful result. Studies that do not produce results tend not to be published. If you want a particular study result, you simply do 10 studies with small, barely significant samples, increasing the chances that one of them will bear the results you want to hear (and dismiss the other 9) - Or, as with the french circumcision-HIV study, you simply design the study in a multi-staged way, and cancel it the instant you have the result you want. Its the same principle: Selective Reporting.

They were two...the ONLY two RTCs ever done on the issue, and they were sponsored by the NIAID. The NIAID doesn't do the publication bias thing. They CAN'T like that. Not with this. These trials were highly publicised from the moment they were thought up. It's not some obscure little group of researchers. The whole world has been watching and waiting for the results. It was controversial from the moment it was proposed.

Or do you really believe circumcision protects from HIV? I don't buy it.

That's because you refuse to believe things you don't like. Hell, you won't even look at facts that conflict with your worldview. You won't even attempt to debunk them. You just make up weak-a$$ed excuses to make them go away in your head.

And apparently, when no one falls for it, the old "Well that's because they're just too stupid to understand" can show up and save the day in your reality-detached world.

robinson

17th July 2007, 02:04 PM

There are old blood samples from the mid/late 50's, from the areas where HIV quickly became pretty common in Africa. The first HIV (according to old blood samples taken long before anyone knew HIV existed) probably emerged in the late 50's or early 60's.

That brings up an opportunity to ask, how can you test for HIV if somebody is long dead? How can you test for it in old blood or tissue samples? If the strains are easy to trace, why can't it be traced by genome, back to the source?

They took blood back then to look for stuff like polio. I forget the exact date, but it really looks like HIV didn't exist (or must have been extremely rare, traveling very, very, very slowly) before then. I'll find links on that if you want. It's in the early 60's that it suddenly exploded, for reasons that aren't well understood.

Which is a huge issue. According to consensus, it is easily spread by sex, yet it never spread until the sixties, and then spread worldwide in a matter of years. And somehow showed up in isolated tribes of people, on different continents. All at the same time.

So we are expected to accept, without question, that a sexually transmitted disease suddenly spread worldwide, even to remote villages and outpost in the most primitive and backward parts of the world, in a decade or so, and this was by sex.

While at the same time, virulent easy to transmit STDs, like, Genital Herpes, which ravaged populations who were obviously having a lot of sex, those diseases did not show up in the same populations, that suddenly had a Pandemic of HIV.

No herpes, no syph, no Clap, no Hep C, but suddenly HIV, everywhere, every country, all at once. Millions of people.

All because of that wild sex everybody was having, and apparently flying to remote areas and having it as well.

Lots of crazy sex addicts, everywhere, having sex, spreading HIV. Not any other STDs, ust HIV.

How stupid can people be? Very. Because if you buy that story, you will believe anything.

Is there a real good way to acquire HIV? Pretty much a foolproof way?
Sure is. Would it be easy to spread it using this method? Sure.

Was there any vector for HIV that was going everywhere, even to remote villages and stuff? And that pretty much nailed everybody in the village? All in a short period of time? Sure was.

But, but, that would mean ....

no no no, it was monkeys man, Africans had sex with monkeys and then flew all over spreading it through gay sex and drug use. yeah, yeah, thats the ticket. Bushmeat maybe, cause you know, in the last 100,000 years nobody ever ate a monkey or had sex in Africa, that started in the sixties.

Yeah, thats it.

Yeah, and nobody EVER did any research on retroviruses and cancer in the sixties man. And they NEVER would use SIV or SV40 to test stuff on, or think of using chimps and monkeys to test them on, and no lab worker in the moneky wing ever had a needle stick, and they never gave blood, and there is just NO chance at all it came from ..... don't even say it man.

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 02:17 PM

State your case. Give the executive summary for us busy, stupid, logic-impaired types.

I have a feeling we'll be waiting a LONG time.

kellyb

17th July 2007, 02:26 PM

That brings up an opportunity to ask, how can you test for HIV if somebody is long dead? How can you test for it in old blood or tissue samples? If the strains are easy to trace, why can't it be traced by genome, back to the source?

I think they tested the blood by PCR, but I'm not 100% on that. They have tried to trace the genomics. One study said they think the virus might have emerged as early as the late 1930's. All I know about that stuff is that a virologist I know said he doesn't think tracing a virus like HIV backwards through more than 10 years is going to be terribly accurate without loads of samples to crossreference with. So...I dunno...I might get curious enough eventually to look into it and see if I can figure out what the deal is there.
I honestly don't really understand that stuff well enough to have an opinion either way.

Which is a huge issue. According to consensus, it is easily spread by sex, yet it never spread until the sixties, and then spread worldwide in a matter of years. And somehow showed up in isolated tribes of people, on different continents. All at the same time.

Well, it wasn't exactly at the same time. There was apparently a 15 year lag between the emergence in Africa and the emergence in the US. But yeah...it's mysterious. I think all it would take would be a few blood transfusions, though, and maybe it "works"? I can see in my head a few possibilities that aren't too "out there". But it's definitely interesting to think about.

So we are expected to accept, without question, that a sexually transmitted disease suddenly spread worldwide, even to remote villages and outpost in the most primitive and backward parts of the world, in a decade or so, and this was by sex.
No...not just via "normal, heterosexual sex". The WHO wasn't very hard-core about hygienic needle practices back then, for one thing. And African sexual practices are different from Western ones, in the US we have different things going on, etc. It's complicated.

no no no, it was monkeys man, Africans had sex with monkeys and then flew all over spreading it through gay sex and drug use. yeah, yeah, thats the ticket. Bushmeat maybe, cause you know, in the last 100,000 years nobody ever ate a monkey or had sex in Africa, that started in the sixties.

I'm personally not a fan of the "cut hunter, end of story" scenario.
Exactly what happened, I don't know. Could be a lot of things. I think it was probably a combination of a lot of things.

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 02:32 PM

robinson, your post appears to imply you buy into the "Weapons lab" HIV theory? Explain yourself. Here's my tidbit:

Seriously: We have a fairly accurate number of 1 million HIV-seropositive hosts in the US right now. All over the country, spread relatively evenly over the population at a prevalence of about 0.35% without preference to gender or sexual orientation.

But wait, AIDS in the US only hits a few thousand gay men each year... Hmm...

kellyb

17th July 2007, 02:46 PM

Seriously: We have a fairly accurate number of 1 million HIV-seropositive hosts in the US right now. All over the country, spread relatively evenly over the population at a prevalence of about 0.35% without preference to gender or sexual orientation.

Blablabla...

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-The-HIV-AIDS-Epidemic-in-the-United-States-2005-Update.pdf

robinson

17th July 2007, 03:32 PM

robinson, your post appears to imply you buy into the "Weapons lab" HIV theory? Explain yourself.

I don't even know what the "weapons lab" theory is. Based on the scant evidence, and believe me, you might think "evidence" is available to all, but nothing is further from the truth, when it comes to both biological weapons, and bio-engineered organisms, but based on the very limited evidence available, it is obvious that research into retroviruses and cancer, as well as research in many fields, it involved monkeys and chimps. Monkeys and chimps that we now know, carry retroviruses that they are quite immune to.

We also know that before the discovery of HIV, as well as SIV, SV40, HIV-2, HIV-3, HIV-4, etc, etc, nobody thought twice about using infected blood and organs for research, treatment, and vaccines.

We know that one sure fire vector for HIV transmission, is blood or organs from a seropositive HIV carrier. We also know that infected needles are a good carrier.

You can make up your on mind.

Going back to Cuba again, they destroyed all blood and organs when they knew there was something that could be transferred by blood. Before there was a test, before there was a name for it, they knew something was infecting people, and they knew it was from needles or blood. No other country did this. In fact, because of the huge financial loss, and hardship it would cause, even after they knew there was something in the blood supply, they didn't destroy it. Once again, Cuba is the only country that doesn't have an AIDS epidemic, much less a Pandemic.

Obviously in Cuba, Castro just told people to donate blood again after the HIV test came out. This was not done by most everyone else.

But I digress.

What is the weapons lab theory?

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 03:32 PM

Here's a link I found regarding the circumcision-HIV link
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/plos-mco062007.php

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 03:37 PM

What is the weapons lab theory?I don't know the theory accurately. I'd guess the usual ******** about CIA / US Military laboratories creating biochemical weapons that they first tested on gays (which would obviously never enter the military, what with all the hulky, burly men there) and ultimately used to supress the black man, or something. The usual conspiracy drivel.

kellyb

17th July 2007, 03:57 PM

This article sort of sums up my thoughts on the issue. The theories about what happened are the ones I've always thought were the most probable. I think it's probably a combination of several, although I don't know which ones.

http://www.annalsofian.org/article.asp?issn=0972-2327;year=2006;volume=9;issue=1;spage=5;epage=10;a ulast=Katrak

In conclusion, I would like to state that it is likely that we may never know when and where AIDS actually originated. Scientists become very attached to their pet theories and insist that theirs is the only true answer. Arguments over rival's theories and in defense of their own, have raged continuously and in the case of the contaminated OPV, viciously and at times far beyond the norms of scientific debate. From all the four theories, an obvious general conclusion is that for some puzzling reason, the origin of HIV was not natural. Something spurred the conversion of the benign SIV into the virulent HIV, although humans have been exposed to SIV for thousands of years.

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 04:03 PM

Now the US Military performs a lot of HIV tests. They test people when they apply, and they retest people in the service more or less regularly to check for new infections. Unfortunately they only use the relatively inaccurate Elisa/Western Blot tests, but ultimately, these are some of the biggest scale tests that allow for demographic figures. The admissions test, which I failed to find (before going to bed) is the one where I got my 0.35% prevalence in the US from, that was more or less evenly spread (I only read a third party summary at the time and my memory is of course highly fraudulent)

Now what I found now is the Military's surveillance testing statistic: Linky! (http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200108170-00015.htm;jsessionid=Gd3BfwMzZ2PvmQnlcRFvhnVcGQP2d 05Qwpk9GdHyYB1mNw0gwWbt!675572714!181195628!8091!-1#TT1)

Interesting bits from the statistic: You're twice as likely to infect yourself with HIV if you're a male, and 4 times as likely if you're black. But all in all, the infection rate is going way down. Just to mention this as a counterweight to kellyb's "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AAAAH" pamphlet.

Deetee

17th July 2007, 04:10 PM

Oh, and Deetee: Liver Failure by Hepatitis is caused, as we have learned earlier in this thread, by the immune system slaughtering the infected liver cells. If the HIV destroys the immune system, we would see *less* liver failure in the HIV patients.
More ignorance about the immune system, I see.
Your simplistic infant school immunology won't hold up this time Dubya...
HIV disrupts normal CD4 cell function. Early in acute infection this is through significant cytopathic memory CD4 cell loss, particularly in mucosal associated lymphoid tissue and lymph nodes. As the host immune system recovers, there is compensatory cytotoxic (CD8) T cell production. T cell homeostasis is deranged, but the chronic phase of HIV infection is typified by immune activation, mainly nonspecific in nature, but which also results in bystander CD4 cell loss (the uninfected cells) and drives things such as apoptotic cell loss, NK cell and auto-immune cellular effects.

With chronic hepatitis, hepatocellular damage is mediated by cytotoxic T cell damage following upregulation and recognition of hepatitis markers expressed on the outside of cell membranes.

The immune system is not "destroyed" as you put it, merely deranged. In HIV infection there is evidence that cytotoxic T cell activity is heightened, so liver damage will still occur through this mechanism.

Conclusion - liver failure from chronic hepatitis still continues to occur in HIV-infected patients.

In addition, I from now on shall reject any study that claims something like "X died of AIDS" - "AIDS" is not good enough for me, it is unscientific. I want to know *what* they died of.

You have ably demonstrated from earlier posts that you don't have the slightest clue which infections are actually "AIDS-defining". So what good would telling you which infections they died from possibly do???

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 04:40 PM

@Deetee: Nice little theory. Out of your butt?

This article sort of sums up my thoughts on the issue. The theories about what happened are the ones I've always thought were the most probable. I think it's probably a combination of several, although I don't know which ones.
In conclusion, I would like to state that it is likely that we may never know when and where AIDS actually originated. Scientists become very attached to their pet theories and insist that theirs is the only true answer. Arguments over rival's theories and in defense of their own, have raged continuously and in the case of the contaminated OPV, viciously and at times far beyond the norms of scientific debate. From all the four theories, an obvious general conclusion is that for some puzzling reason, the origin of HIV was not natural. Something spurred the conversion of the benign SIV into the virulent HIV, although humans have been exposed to SIV for thousands of years.
http://www.annalsofian.org/article.asp?issn=0972-2327;year=2006;volume=9;issue=1;spage=5;epage=10;a ulast=Katrak

"Unnatural origin" for HIV, huh?

What now. More Weapons-Lab-Theory? Is HIV the modern equivalent of the Alien Butt-Plug? Geez. That is what happens when people continuously refuse to even consider that HIV might be harmless. Harmless *or* alien buttplug implant. Science uses Ockham's Razor there, so obviously it must be the alien buttplug.

Here's my theory (Out of my butt, yes)

HIV has been with humans for 1000's of years. But only since the 60ies people began to chart retroviruses.

Duesberg initiated the theory that retroviruses may be a cause for cancer, and cancer research during the 70ies was delighted to find retroviruses in every tumor. But by 1980, most people had realized that retroviruses are harmless, and everywhere. This was also, again, propagated by Duesberg and others, in the early 70ies already.

Not so Robert Gallo. He continued to blame retroviruses for every condition that no cause had been found for, like alzheimers, or parkinson. And cancer, of course. Hey, you find those retroviruses in those parkinson patient's brains, there HAS to be a connection, right?

When in 1980 the "Gay Plague" (named AIDS in 1981) ravaged the gay scene of the US, scientists from all over the world were hard pressed to look for an answer.

There were people like Duesberg, who - by far - were not a minority back then, who suspected that lifestyle issues were the reason for these "Gay diseases", a view he holds even today.

But when Montagnier, just casually mapping more retroviruses, published a report on an ordinary retrovirus that happened to infect the CD4 T-Cells, Gallo smelled something.

In a meeting with the then-chief of the NIH, he convinced her that he had discovered the reason for the "Gay Plague" (aka AIDS) - in this retrovirus, which he obviously also claimed to have discovered, and this detection kit he designed which was really so inaccurate that it could have false positived on anything remotely viral.

Well if you got the ear of an NIH chief, who is hard pressed by the media to find the "cure" for the "Gay plague", you don't have a hard time convincing her if other theories like duesberg's lifestyle hypothesis is so utterly mundane. Here's Gallo, and he even has a kit for detecting the new bug

(Never mind even of the first "gay plague" victims, most tested negative on gallo's little test kit)

Anyhow, the retroviral-cancer-researchers who were just about to lose their jobs because retroviruses didn't cause cancer, were delighted to use their retroviral experience to fight this new disease! They'd get government grants and stuff!

Basically, retrovirologists were in need of a disease that retroviruses caused, the NIH was in need of a reason for the "gay plague", and the CDC which had just defeated polio and smallpox needed some new infectious disease to continously receive government funding. And the media needed something exciting too. And the religious right? Hey, they had their "Gay plague" - Thank god for AIDS, right?

So everyone was happy about HIV being the cause for AIDS, and nobody questioned it, despite this never having been proven.

I think by about 1987 to 1990, it was clear that HIV wasn't the cause of the "gay plague" but if all those retrovirologists had done the same thing as Duesberg, they'd have lost their jobs - which was, basically, finding a vaccine against HIV. And the pharmaceutical industry was just about to get the FDA to approve the "antiretroviral" therapy of AZT. The admission was rushed (Hey, it was about damn TIME! We don't have TIME to really test this stuff out! Gay plague! Soon everyone on the world will be infected! DOOMSDAY!)

But when the "plague" didn't sweep the streets, the scientists needed an excuse for the 50 something billion dollars they had wasted. You can't just take 50 billions from society and go ahead "Oh, it was all just a hunch. I guess we were wrong", there was something that sounded a bit more dramatic.

Now people like Gallo aren't dumb. They know: you find retroviruses everywhere, and so do you find antibodies. And with an immunodeficiency, you can declare ANY disease as being caused by the retroviruses, and no one can prove you wrong. not even a kolibri would catch you.

So they went to africa and simply proclaimed: All you people are so sick, its impossible that this is *not* because of HIV. So malaria became AIDS, malnutrition became AIDS, lack of sanitation became AIDS, any sort of tropical fever became AIDS, poverty became AIDS. And the UN now pump more and more money into these countries.

You know, in africa, if you have a diarrhea, you don't get anything. But if you have AIDS-Diarrhea, you get money from the UN, your doctor gets money from the UN, your hospital gets money from the UN, your country gets money from the UN. And of course: The pharmaceutical industry, that provides you with superexpensive "treatment" for your "AIDS", also gets a truckload of money. There's simply too much money involved to give the whole "AIDS in Africa" thing up now.

Deetee

17th July 2007, 04:55 PM

Yup - definitely out of your butt.
A wild mix of conspiracy theory, fantasy, ignorance and total misunderstanding of biomedical science.

Troll.

Deetee

17th July 2007, 05:49 PM

I read the report you linked to, http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/complete.pdf and it is clear you did not read it. It clearly states that the data is unreliable, and that the statistics are estimates, that they are projections, not real data.

The first half of the MRC report deals with reported figures. Figs 1 (Stats SA mortality data) and Fig 2 (DHA data) are not projections.
The second half of the report goes into projected mortality, a quite sensible thing to do and something that was in the MRC's remit.
The study mentions data limitations, primarily that of under-reporting of deaths.

I find it odd you think this study states it is filled with "unreliable data, statistics that are estimates" and that "the entire study should not be considered as fact". Were you reading a different study?

Even if you discount that this is only projection, not actual data, your statement is incorrect. If the death rate increases from 1% of the total deaths, to 2% of the total deaths, this does not mean twice as many people died. Your comment is so wrong, I would have to explain a dozen things to show you why. Not worth the effort.

I agree I phrased that clumsily. What I should have said was that the age specific mortality rate doubled.

If you simply check the latest data, http://indexmundi.com/south_africa/age_structure.html or
http://indexmundi.com/south_africa/manpower_fit_for_military_service.html
you can see for yourself why projections and hype just don't stand up to scrutiny. There was no massive loss of young people, and the population is still growing.

These links do not show what you think they show. The first shows the population growth is NEGATIVE (2007 estimate), and the graph of "manpower fit for military service", which you presumably feel is a surrogate for how many fit young adult males there are, shows a 32% DECLINE in numbers from 2004 to 2005.

Why are you citing sources that actually undermine your claims?
Why do you prefer to cite CIA data rather than data collected within South Africa itself?

Statistics are based on testing done on pregnant women. If you actually read how they come up with the projections, and you understand how unreliable the HIV tests are, it isn't hard to see why the figures don't match the reality.

They used to base projections on pregnant women seroprevalence, but they soon learned these overestimated total prevalence. Antenatal seroprevalence in SA was 26.5% in 2002, but no-one claims a quarter of all South Africans have HIV.

In fact, the same year (2002), the Nelson Mandela/Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) tested over 8,000 people from across all walks of South African society. 11.4% tested HIV-positive (http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/1973_Shisana_sabssmpress.pdf).

Out of interest you might like to read the most recent HSRC document (http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-315.phtml) on new, incident infections of HIV -
"Of all new HIV infections, 34% occurred in young people in the 15-24 age group. The incidence rates among young women in the prime childbearing age are especially alarming. The HIV incidence in the age group 20-29, was 5.6%, 6 times more than in males of the same age (0.9%)."

Deetee

17th July 2007, 05:56 PM

That brings up an opportunity to ask, how can you test for HIV if somebody is long dead? How can you test for it in old blood or tissue samples? If the strains are easy to trace, why can't it be traced by genome, back to the source?

Zhu, Tuofu, Korber & Nahinias. "An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of the Epidemic" Nature, 1998: 391: p. 594-597 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9468138&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Follow the links on the right for more related articles

kellyb

17th July 2007, 06:05 PM

What's your theory on how it emerged, DeeTee?
Do you think it was cut hunter and sexual transmission alone?

Deetee

17th July 2007, 06:34 PM

What's your theory on how it emerged, DeeTee?
Do you think it was cut hunter and sexual transmission alone?
I do subscribe to the ape/hunter interface theory.
There is plenty of evidence that retroviruses continue to cross the species barrier:
Articles here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14990698&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15043960&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus)

Dabljuh

17th July 2007, 11:19 PM

Skeptic Ginger

17th July 2007, 11:45 PM

...Skeptigirl, you probably think you understand science....Yes, as a matter of fact I'm quite well versed on this particular subject. I've enjoyed a 17 year successful private practice specializing in occupational infectious disease hazards. HIV-AIDS is at the top of the list along with hepatitis B and C.

But that aside, I posted the supporting material. Other than my opinion of your opinions, nothing much else in those last two posts were my personal interpretations of the evidence. As for your unsupported opinions, that's another matter.

We are now down to the crux of the issue. There is the science, and then there is your choice to believe 10-20 year old hypotheses which are now completely discredited. In other words, those ideas didn't pan out. It's a very curious thing when people choose to do that, believe these minority opinions long after the ideas have failed to be confirmed, and in this case as in most cases, have actually been disproved.

Other than you read the stuff and it made sense to you, have you ever stopped to consider why you are choosing to believe disproved theories? It is a most curious phenomena.

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 12:05 AM

autumn1971

18th July 2007, 12:12 AM

autumn1971

18th July 2007, 12:53 AM

How does the "Cut Hunter" theory explain why nobody's ever heard of AIDS until the 1980ies? I mean, realistically, the cut hunter would have infected himself some 50'000 years ago. And since HIV is presumed super dangerous, died out. In a possibly repetitive cycle at the end of which large portions of the african population would be genetically immune to SIV/HIV.

I don't even know how to explain the lack of basic knowledge of infectious diseases you seem to embrace as evidence of your ability to make inferences. You seem to be proud that you in no way base your opinions on the results of countless (even though that is, for you, any number greater than the twelve fingers you have) studies that implicate HIV in a very peculiar syndrome.
You are correct in stating that the virus is not the syndrome, and that each individual disease is not a diagnosis of AIDS, and beyond that you leap triumphantly into the realm of the awesomely unintelligent.
Guess what, your minor fever was not the flu, but some with a minor fever have the flu.

There are degrees of subtlety in this universe which you are very likely evoloutionarily (there are advantages to being an insensate yes-man) unable to appreciate.

autumn1971

18th July 2007, 01:26 AM

Dabljuh, I do apologize if I seem to be attacking you, but your ignorance and inability to examine data offend me personally.
I went to high-school (grades nine to twelve in the USA) when there was, unfortunately, a dentist in my area who apparantly willfully disregarded sanitation protocols for his instruments after he discovered he was HIV positive. As a result, a very well-regarded former teacher was diagnosed as HIV positive. At the time I attended, she was active as a substitute, and was as well-liked by us as she had been by her full-time students (including my two brothers).
This woman continued to teach, and, after she was too weak to teach, returned to our school to teach us about discrimination (and much science that you seem to have avoided), as well as tolerance for those different from you. Her only shortcoming was her love of teaching, which probably took a few years off of her life.

Anyway, this example from south Florida discounts any idiotic theories about the cause of what is termed AIDS.

AIDS results from the decline in immune function brought about by the infection of HIV.

Please contact the CDC if you have even an iota of evidance which could possibly explain the Dr. Acer cases in any way that the current (that is to say, intelligent and sane) peer-reviewed evidence does not.

Taffer

18th July 2007, 01:33 AM

Basically, the antiretrovirals don't kill retroviruses, what they actually do is they slow down cell mitosis, slow down transcription of RNA->DNA and stuff like that. Even if they would work, they wouldn't cure or help much, they'd only slow down the suspected immunological degression that HIV causes. Duesberg of course says, since they slow down cell mitosis, they actually damage the immune system severely, which depends on fast mitosis during an infection. Which is sound to me. Human cells also use reverse transcriptase for various purposes, sabotaging this enzyme may be unhelpful after all.

W, I know how antiretrovirals work, you needn't explain it to me.

I was just curious over your "evidence" for stating that HIV is not affected by antiretrovirals.

Secondly, I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 01:51 AM

...You are correct in stating that the virus is not the syndrome, and that each individual disease is not a diagnosis of AIDS, ...Measles 'virus' is not measles 'disease' either. The HI virus causes the disease, HIV-AIDS.

And once you have the virus, HIV-AIDS disease onset is defined as either a CD4+ count less than 200 T- lymphocytes/uL or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte percentage of total lymphocytes of less than 14 or less or any of a specific list of opportunistic infections persons with intact immune function simply do not get.

It's a bit complicated but there are specific diagnostic guidelines for defining HIV-AIDS onset.

1999 - Appendix: Revised Surveillance Case Definition for HIV Infection* (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a2.htm)

1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm)

1994 Revised Classification System for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in Children Less Than 13 Years of Age (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032890.htm)

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 02:15 AM

It is a bit of a misnomer to say something does or doesn't 'kill' a virus. Some would argue a virus is not a living organism. It's better to think of antiviral drugs as inhibiting viral replication or inhibiting viral activity. Then you can discuss whether the virus is eliminated from the body such as occurs with most respiratory or GI tract viruses which are gone completely as infected cells slough off. Or you might have permanently disabled viruses that it is unknown if their genetic material remains within cells in the body. I am not aware of any studies that have looked for inactive hepatitis A virus within liver cells for example but we know hepatitis A is not a dormant virus within a person previously infected. Immunocompromised persons with past hepatitis A are not at risk of having their hepatitis A reactivate. At the same time I do not believe liver cells infected with hepatitis A all die or are removed from the body.

Not all viruses enter the cell's nuclei. In those cases it may be the virus is completely eliminated from the cell after being inactivated by treatment or by natural immune mechanisms.

Then there are the viruses we know are present but dormant. CMV infected blood, for example, is hazardous to a bone marrow transplant patient while a person with an intact immune system has no effects from the virus itself after the initial infection. Fetuses are only at risk from infections like CMV and rubella if the mother is infected during the pregnancy. Past infection has no lingering effects on the fetus.

And we have the somewhat unique varicella virus which in a person with an intact immune system can erupt as shingles one time. In an immunosuppressed person it can erupt more than once and systemically rather than locally. I am not aware that any of the herpes family viruses are transmitted to immunosuppressed persons via blood transfusions but the HS viruses are merely dormant after infections and can be reactivated in both healthy and immunosuppressed persons.

So what does it mean the virus is 'killed'? Simply that it is rendered permanently incapable of reactivating and/or replicating. It is possible we will be able to cure HIV infections at some point in the future. Currently people with chronic hepatitis B and C have been successfully treated. It is unknown if their infections are permanently disabled or merely dormant. Some of them certainly look cured. It will take time to know how permanent such cures are.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 02:16 AM

How does the "Cut Hunter" theory explain why nobody's ever heard of AIDS until the 1980ies? I mean, realistically, the cut hunter would have infected himself some 50'000 years ago. And since HIV is presumed super dangerous, died out. In a possibly repetitive cycle at the end of which large portions of the african population would be genetically immune to SIV/HIV. There is an excellent, very thorough discussion of the origin of HIV on this web site. (http://www.avert.org/origins.htm)I'm sorry but I fail to find a convincing argument on this page, why HIV only began to cause Immunodepression when a large number of retroviral researchers were losing their jobs, and not some 50'000 years earlier. Maybe my selective reading prevents me from seeing that, so feel free to quote.

Mind you: I have no problems with SIV crossing over to humans and turning into HIV. I have no problems with a "Cut Hunter" theory that places that event a couple 10'000 years into the past. What I have problems with, are arguments that don't give a *convincing* explanation why this only happened a few years back, rather than several millennia ago.

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 02:23 AM

...
Secondly, I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.Not to mention the hemophiliacs and the vast numbers of people dying of HIV-AIDS in all the third world countries.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 02:23 AM

I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.Asking evidence for ludicrous statements isn't honest. The thing is: The gay scene of the 70ies and 80ies was strongly dependent on recreational drugs, most visibly the so called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants, which are known to cause Immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's Sarcoma. IV Drug users developed distinctly different "opportunistic" diseases than gay clubbers. But: We have a cause and an effect. With HIV/AIDS, various and completely different conditions are supposedly being caused by the same virus. How to know when there's another cause for a particular condition (such as Amyl Nitrites for Kaposi's Sarcoma) or if its HIV? (HIV is no longer believed to cause KS, btw)

Deetee

18th July 2007, 02:27 AM

W, I know how antiretrovirals work, you needn't explain it to me.

I was just curious over your "evidence" for stating that HIV is not affected by antiretrovirals.

Secondly, I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.

I wouldn't recommend anyone taking lessons from Dubya about how antiretrovirals work, anyhow.
He thinks (and says Duesberg thinks) that they "slow down cell mitosis".
Doh!!!!?? This, according to Dubya/Duesberg, then "damages the immune system severely".
Not only is this complete nonsense, the evidence from studies unequivocally shows that HIV therapy restores immunity. This is an indirect effect - by inhibiting replication, ongoing damage is halted and natural immune recovery is allowed to occur (although this is not complete).

PS - I think you left the letter "n" off one of the words in your last sentence!

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 02:29 AM

Not to mention the hemophiliacs and the vast numbers of people dying of HIV-AIDS in all the third world countries.
Right, they die of HIV... not Malaria, not Malnutrition, not Lack of Sanitation, not diverse Toxic Wastes in the biosphere because third world countries rarely have pollution control, not inhumane work conditions, no... It must be a Virus!

But wait: Its the same virus, but its DIFFERENT! Why else would the same disease, which, hits mostly gay men in the first world, target children and young adults of both sexes equally in the third world? Because the Virus has a magical "GayTection" gene that is only activated in the first world?

I'm sorry if you honestly believe that the HIV/AIDS in the third world is the same thing as the HIV/AIDS in the first world.

Deetee

18th July 2007, 02:38 AM

Asking evidence for ludicrous statements isn't honest.Are we upsetting you by insisting upon this? - Ah, diddums! I am so sorry we are so particular and pedantic.
The thing is: The gay scene of the 70ies and 80ies was strongly dependent on recreational drugs, most visibly the so called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants, which are known to cause Immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's Sarcoma. IV Drug users developed distinctly different "opportunistic" diseases than gay clubbers. But: We have a cause and an effect. With HIV/AIDS, various and completely different conditions are supposedly being caused by the same virus. How to know when there's another cause for a particular condition (such as Amyl Nitrites for Kaposi's Sarcoma) or if its HIV? (HIV is no longer believed to cause KS, btw)
Sorry, but I am afraid I will have to ask you for evidence for your ludicrous statements again.

Nitrites do not cause significant immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's sarcoma. HHV-8 is the cause of Kaposi, and there are hundreds of papers to prove it. This is sexually transmitted, so not unnaturally it is prevalent in those who have numerous sexual contacts.

You do not have "cause and effect" in linking the nitrites in the gay scene to Kaposi - you have a weak correlation and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which has been investigated and conclusively disproved.

By the way, disseminated KS is common in African AIDS - did they also have a wild 80s gay club scene where they spent every night inhaling poppers?

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 02:39 AM

I'm sorry but I fail to find a convincing argument on this page, why HIV only began to cause Immunodepression when a large number of retroviral researchers were losing their jobs, and not some 50'000 years earlier. Maybe my selective reading prevents me from seeing that, so feel free to quote.

Mind you: I have no problems with SIV crossing over to humans and turning into HIV. I have no problems with a "Cut Hunter" theory that places that event a couple 10'000 years into the past. What I have problems with, are arguments that don't give a *convincing* explanation why this only happened a few years back, rather than several millennia ago.Well then just look a little deeper for Pete's sake. It's not like this information is hard to find.

The construction of a new trucking road through Uganda is suspected as one of the major factors which spread the infection from the isolated area in central Africa. It began in spreading across Africa by way of truck drivers and prostitutes. Frequent travel between high prevalence areas in Africa and Haiti spread it to Haiti. And the infamous patient zero, an oversexed gay airline steward spread it to a number of very sexually active gay communities in the late 70s and early 80s in the USA. This is all fairly well documented and discussed in scientific articles on the epidemiology of HIV.

The Development of Human Immune-deficiency Virus (HIV) in Africa over the past 20 years is outlined by the following four maps. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nksegool/AIDS/development.html) Over the past 20 years, the spread of HIV in Africa has been prolific. Sub-Sahara Africa is the area most devastated by HIV in the world. Many countries are overwhelmed by the disease. HIV is not simply a medical disease. HIV affects African countries in all aspects of life. Social relationships, the economy, family structures, the health-care industry, all are influenced by the spread of HIV.

The origin of HIV in Africa is still unknown. However, there are two major theories about how HIV developed into a virus that affects humans. One theory is that HIV initially crossed from chimpanzees to humans in the late 1940's in the Congo. The exact mechanism of of this transfer is unknown, however, the eating of contaminated chimpanzees is one possible explanation. Once human beings were infected, the virus quickly spread among war zones and the countryside through traveling soldiers. The first major sectors of Africa that were affected by the HIV virus were along popular truck routes and major transportation lines. Transient truck drivers who engaged in sexual activities with prostitutes on the road were the first victims of HIV/AIDS.The article goes on to discuss the since discredited theory of the disease being spread via polio vaccine.

I have read genetic research suggesting the SIV and HIV viruses have common ancestor a thousand or so years ago calculated by looking at how divergent the two viruses are genetically. But there are no viable hypotheses suggesting HIV entered the human population much further back than a century. So I don't know where you are getting the 10,000 years ago figure. As to retroviral researchers and their jobs, that is ludicrous. You are claiming the world revolves around the HIV epidemic in the USA and a few scientists here and maybe in Europe. How foolishly egocentric a view you have. HIV is a worldwide pandemic and the US has but a tiny fraction of the cases.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 02:41 AM

Man, Dab, where in the hell is your evidence that American hemophiliacs had severely supressed immune systems in only the eighties.
You are obtuse to a degree I have never encountered outside of geometry.Where did I state that? If anything, I would state the opposite. Duesbergs theory: Getting blood transfusions (foreign proteins and lots of it) severely depresses the immune system. Even with today's technology, hemophiliacs don't get very old.

In fact there was data posted which can realistically be interpreted in a "HIV is harmless, AZT is not" way: Mortality of HIV seropositive hemophiliacs only began to rise when antiretroviral therapy (AZT) was made available, and only decreased when AZT was replaced by the less toxic HAART. The HIV/AIDS nuts of course interpret it something like this: blood transfusions were tested after 1985, and since HIV takes 10 years to kill someone, the highest death rate to HIV/AIDS with hemophiliacs would be expected in 1995.

Which is complete ***** when you consider the standard variation (=superhuge) of the duration HIV/AIDS supposedly takes to kill: most that die, die within 6-12 months, others die never at all to "AIDS".

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 02:57 AM

Right, they die of HIV... not Malaria, not Malnutrition, not Lack of Sanitation, not diverse Toxic Wastes in the biosphere because third world countries rarely have pollution control, not inhumane work conditions, no... It must be a Virus!

But wait: Its the same virus, but its DIFFERENT! Why else would the same disease, which, hits mostly gay men in the first world, target children and young adults of both sexes equally in the third world? Because the Virus has a magical "GayTection" gene that is only activated in the first world?

I'm sorry if you honestly believe that the HIV/AIDS in the third world is the same thing as the HIV/AIDS in the first world.Apparently you have some bizarre imagination no one in Africa has access to a blood test, a doctor, a culture? They just die of filth and malnutrition and no one is quite sure when it is malaria or HIV?

Look, real cities in Africa! (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/durban.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/cities.html&h=210&w=280&sz=17&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=dtAKleFqkWgPRM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsouth%2Bafrica%2Bcities%26svnum%3D10% 26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG) Imagine that. :rolleyes: I'm shocked, where are the huts?

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 03:05 AM

Less toxic HAART? :dl:

First off, AZT is still in the regimen unless the person's strain in AZT resistant. Second, AZT is one of the least toxic drugs in the regimen. The protease inhibitors are the most toxic.

HAART side effects. (http://www.hivmedicine.com/textbook/nw.htm)

And as bad as these toxic drugs are, people take them because the know the drugs are the only things that are going to keep them alive.

Life expectancy of patients with newly-diagnosed HIV infection in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/97)

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 03:06 AM

Skeptigirl, you think Prostitution was invented in africa 30 years ago?

On KS:
KSHV infection does not always lead to KS; it is still unclear what other factors may be required, such as pre-existing immune system damage, or a specific interaction with HIV or other viruses. However, research in Africa has shown that even in the absence of HIV/AIDS, KS is more common in men than women although KSHV infection is equal between both sexes. This suggests that sex hormones may either protect from or predispose to KS in persons infected with the virus.So... Herpes-8 is not the *cause* of KS, but a necessary factor?

At least four separate hypotheses have been proposed that suggest a role for nitrites in the pathogenesis of AIDS. When AIDS cases were first recognized in 1981, nitrites were proposed as a possible cause of the new syndrome (5,6). Nitrite abuse was virtually universal among the gay men diagnosed with AIDS in 1980-1983. However, this hypothesis was dismissed when the disease was recognized among drug injectors, hemophiliacs, and other heterosexual men and women who did not consistently report using nitrites. In 1983 and 1984, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was discovered and reported as the cause of AIDS (31,32). Subsequently, three other hypotheses suggesting nitrites as promoting factors in AIDS have been proposed. First, nitrites have been proposed to enhance HIV transmission by their association with risky sexual behaviors and HIV infection among gay men. Second, nitrite use has been associated with immune suppression and thus might hasten the onset of symptomatic disease. Third, nitrite inhalant use has been associated with the development of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma. This section fails to mention that Kaposi's Sarcoma is extremely rare outside the "Gay clubbing scene", i.e. this hypothesis was dismissed when the disease was recognized among drug injectors, hemophiliacs, and other heterosexual men and women who did not consistently report using nitrites.speaks of "AIDS", and not "Kaposi's Sarcoma" in particular.

Duesberg's page also has some interesting bits on this, of course. (http://www.duesberg.com/articles/tbkaposi.html)

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 03:13 AM

Less toxic HAART? :dl:

First off, AZT is still in the regimen unless the person's strain in AZT resistant. Second, AZT is one of the least toxic drugs in the regimen. The protease inhibitors are the most toxic.Um... HAART is a combination of usually 3 "antiretroviral" drugs, sometimes AZT is part of that as well, but in a much lower dosage. 350mg AZT don't kill you as fast as 1500mg AZT daily.
And as bad as these toxic drugs are, people take them because the know the drugs are the only things that are going to keep them alive.Wat does that tell you, Mrs. Sceptic Science Girl? Homeopathy ring a bell? People don't take drugs because they work, but because they are (mis)led to believe that they would work.

Ivor the Engineer

18th July 2007, 03:42 AM

Dabljah,

I've read most of this thread and am still a little uncertain as to what you believe:confused:

From my reading of your posts you think:

a) HIV infection is (relatively?) harmless compared to the antiviral drug treatments used to suppress it.

b) HIV is rarely (or never?) a significant factor in a HIV+ person's cause of death.

and

c) There is a massive conspiracy that has managed to fool (or turn) the vast majority of HIV researchers on the planet.

Would this be a fair summary of your position?

What evidence would get you to change your opinion?

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 03:50 AM

Skeptigirl, you think Prostitution was invented in africa 30 years ago?...Did you miss the part about New Highway, Truck Drivers, and HIV crossing the species barrier 50 or 60 years ago?

And you're trying to equate HAART with placebos, homeopathy and then claiming 40 million people or so are being fooled?

I return to my earlier post. Have you ever seriously thought about why the entire scientific community except for a couple of oddballs from 10-20 years ago are wrong and only the oddballs are right? Once again you have this fantasy built up around HIV and the scientific community. Did you look at the pictures of the cities in Africa? Think there might be a modern hospital in those cities somewhere? You never addressed the absurd idea the HIV pandemic evolves around a couple of "retrovirus" experts who are faking all the science to create jobs for themselves. Tell me how they are getting away with it? How many of these people are there who are in on this conspiracy?

We've already debunked everything Doucheberg had to say so bringing up his old stuff isn't helping your cause.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 04:14 AM

Dabljah,DabljuhI've read most of this thread and am still a little uncertain as to what you believe:confused: So am I ;) I have a theory (posted it not long ago) but that's just one possibility.From my reading of your posts you think:

a) HIV infection is (relatively?) harmless compared to the antiviral drug treatments used to suppress it.Well, that's one possibility. Maybe I am misled to believe antiretroviral therapy is much more dangerous than it actually is. Maybe I don't even know the half of it. I'm looking for coherence, and saying that "HIV seropositivity is not as bad as the treatment" is coherent with what I believe is reasonable to assume.b) HIV is rarely (or never?) a significant factor in a HIV+ person's cause of death.Depends on how you look at it. If you're in Frisco, and you get diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, and put on an antiretroviral therapy, and die within 2 years, does that make HIV seropositivity a significant factor in the cause of death?

Is it possible that HIV is dangerous to one's health, even if only in some instances? I do believe this possibility exists and should be investigated. I'd even ask for a simple quantification: Without antiretroviral treatment etc, is being HIV seropositive more - or less - detrimental to one's health, on average, than smoking? You may be stunned that I dare to ask this, but not even this question can be answered by myself. There has been too much hyperdramatization and doomsaying going on with regards to HIV/AIDS to be able to make any realistic assumptions without the use of carefully designed, double blinded randomized controlled trials. c) There is a massive conspiracy that has managed to fool (or turn) the vast majority of HIV researchers on the planet.I don't call it a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when a number of folks sit together and go "How can we fool billions of people"

Let me give you an example, professional race cycling. Everyone's doped there, I think by now people have realized that. But is that now a conspiracy to fool everyone to think the races are legit? I don't think so. It doesn't need a conspiracy to work. Every individual racer has his own, individual motives for doping, and lying about it, and the racing sport removes "bad racers" (who do not dope) on its own. Eventually everyone is doped, all without a conspiracy.

I see something similiar in the medical "establishment" - Too many people's jobs are simply based on the assumption that HIV is a horrible, infectious disease. Even when the science to that end simply isn't there. Every single researcher has his own, individual motive to strongly convince himself that HIV is the most horrible thing since the black death in the middle ages. No need for a conspiracy the way I understand the word. What evidence would get you to change your opinion?I don't think "evidence" would help me anymore. Sounds terrible and unscientific, I know, but hear me: I've simply seen too much false, fradulent, irrelevant but important sounding, and doctored "evidence". What I think is needed first, is a massive, public backlash against the AIDS industry, for basically terrorizing an entire generation with lies and exaggerations. Lies about that HIV is an STD, the uselessness of the "AIDS" definition, that HIV/AIDS is a death sentence, and lies about what's going on in africa, or the lies about the supposed effectivity of the antiretroviral treatment. These things are evident, and acknowledged by large parts of the medical establishment, all that's missing is basically the public realizing it.

Once that is done, once it is OK again for real scientists to pose the question: "How dangerous is HIV, after all" or "How would a sensible AIDS definition look like" and perform tests and studies on the subject, then its time to act scientific again.

Right now, if you're a scientist and you'd create a study that could reliably figure out how dangerous HIV natural history is, or if it's more dangerous than smoking, if at all, then you'd get under massive fire from all sides - democrats, religious rights, civil rights, gay groups - because you dare to question the HIV/AIDS validity, because you shame the gay community, because you are obviously racist, etc etc... All sorts of bullpoop things.

There are very many important questions about HIV, about AIDS, but due to the atmosphere, nobody whose job depends on it, is going to ask them or ask them the right way, or dares to come up with the "false" results.

Cuddles

18th July 2007, 04:40 AM

Some people are just odd.

Skeptic Ginger

18th July 2007, 05:37 AM

.... If you're in Frisco, and you get diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, and put on an antiretroviral therapy, and die within 2 years, does that make HIV seropositivity a significant factor in the cause of death? Life expectancy on HAART is over 10 years not 2.

......There has been too much hyperdramatization and doomsaying going on with regards to HIV/AIDS to be able to make any realistic assumptions without the use of carefully designed, double blinded randomized controlled trials. I don't call it a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when a number of folks sit together and go "How can we fool billions of people"
....
I see something similiar in the medical "establishment" - Too many people's jobs are simply based on the assumption that HIV is a horrible, infectious disease. Even when the science to that end simply isn't there. Every single researcher has his own, individual motive to strongly convince himself that HIV is the most horrible thing since the black death in the middle ages. No need for a conspiracy the way I understand the word. I don't think "evidence" would help me anymore. Sounds terrible and unscientific, I know, but hear me: I've simply seen too much false, fradulent, irrelevant but important sounding, and doctored "evidence". What I think is needed first, is a massive, public backlash against the AIDS industry, for basically terrorizing an entire generation with lies and exaggerations. Lies about that HIV is an STD, the uselessness of the "AIDS" definition, that HIV/AIDS is a death sentence, and lies about what's going on in africa, or the lies about the supposed effectivity of the antiretroviral treatment. These things are evident, and acknowledged by large parts of the medical establishment, all that's missing is basically the public realizing it.Who are these people making their living off HIV paranoia? Have you really looked into this? The two guys who identified the virus may have had their egos caught up in it. That's about the only people I can think of who might vaguely fit your description. That was over 20 years ago. You think all the research done since is just made up by people faking it for the money? There are thousands of researchers all over the world, there are doctors and nurses all over the world who work sometimes for little or no pay. Do you really think they are all in on it or duped?

Your scenario is absolutely unrealistic just like your belief that people in Africa all have malnutrition and have no access to real hospitals, real lab tests, real doctors or whatever it is you imagine that makes the rest of the world claim all these Africans with malaria have HIV-AIDS.

Capsid

18th July 2007, 05:46 AM

Ivor the Engineer

18th July 2007, 05:52 AM

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 06:10 AM

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 06:19 AM

There was that bit about chimps being infected recently with two strains of SIV which then had the capability of infecting humans and being pathogenic.Yeah, there's all kinds of theories going around about why HIV broke out. But there's only two types of discussions: One that dismisses the "harmless passenger virus" theory a priori and then goes on to suspect magical means or other absurdities by which HIV could be as dangerous as it's claimed, and then there's the other where you don't dismiss the "harmless passenger virus" theory, and end up with suspecting that it's probably the best explanation...

Deetee

18th July 2007, 06:21 AM

On KS:
So... Herpes-8 is not the *cause* of KS, but a necessary factor?
You deliberately misinterpret this.
HHV-8 is a sexually transmitted, latent infection. The "co-factor" for its emergence as in the form of an endothelial angiogenic tumour is the immunosuppression, which is of course the result of underlying HIV infection. Other people get Kaposi lesions, live renal transplant patients on immunosuppressants.

Obviously not everyone with latent HHV-8 gets Kaposis lesions.
Do you think everyone with latent varicella zoster virus gets shingles? No, of course not - but they can get it when the host is in some way immunocompromised by eg HIV, or just advancing age or waning natural immunity versus the virus. (But seeing as how you admit you think people with latent Toxoplasmosis (nearly half the world's population) all have massive multiple brain abscesses from cerebral toxo, I cannot say I am surprised)

This section fails to mention that Kaposi's Sarcoma is extremely rare outside the "Gay clubbing scene"
Again, I am sorry to upset you by asking for evidence for a ludicrous claim. Kaposi is very common in HIV- infected Africans. Are you personally familiar with a previously secret gay club scene in rural Africa, where hundreds of thousands of men sniff poppers all day?:rolleyes:

HAART is a combination of usually 3 "antiretroviral" drugs, sometimes AZT is part of that as well, but in a much lower dosage. 350mg AZT don't kill you as fast as 1500mg AZT daily.

I am having trouble keeping up with the constant flow of intentionally misleading garbage you spout.
AZT remains an integral part of HAART. The original standard dose when it was given as monotherapy was 1200mg/d, NOT 1500mg. This is a lie.
The current dose of AZT is 600mg/day, NOT 350mg. So this is also a lie. Not big ones, but lies all the same, and sufficient for denialists to claim that AZT doses today are only 20% of what they were when the truth is that it is 50%. As Skeptigirl has said, it is still one of the less potentially toxic drugs within HAART regimens.

Do you not find it odd that many RDBPC drug Trials have shown that :
One ("toxic") drug is much better than taking nothing?
Two ("toxic") drugs are much better than one?
Three ("toxic") drugs are much better than two?

The denialist position is that these toxic drugs actually cause AIDS (remember they stop cell "mitosis" :D ), so please explain why taking increasing numbers of more and more toxic drugs results in patients living for longer, staying free of AIDS-defining illnesses for longer, and having their immune function being restored??

(Oh I forgot - you don't believe in scientific studies, you already told us. You said, what was the phrase? .....Ah yes, you said "I don't think "evidence" would help me anymore". Belief in your own fevered imaginings is obviously less threatening to you. Heaven forbid you should actually look at some data!)

Taffer

18th July 2007, 06:43 AM

Asking evidence for ludicrous statements isn't honest. The thing is: The gay scene of the 70ies and 80ies was strongly dependent on recreational drugs, most visibly the so called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants, which are known to cause Immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's Sarcoma. IV Drug users developed distinctly different "opportunistic" diseases than gay clubbers. But: We have a cause and an effect. With HIV/AIDS, various and completely different conditions are supposedly being caused by the same virus. How to know when there's another cause for a particular condition (such as Amyl Nitrites for Kaposi's Sarcoma) or if its HIV? (HIV is no longer believed to cause KS, btw)

You misunderstand me, W. I asked you for evidence, not unsupported claims.

Taffer

18th July 2007, 06:45 AM

I wouldn't recommend anyone taking lessons from Dubya about how antiretrovirals work, anyhow.
He thinks (and says Duesberg thinks) that they "slow down cell mitosis".
Doh!!!!?? This, according to Dubya/Duesberg, then "damages the immune system severely".
Not only is this complete nonsense, the evidence from studies unequivocally shows that HIV therapy restores immunity. This is an indirect effect - by inhibiting replication, ongoing damage is halted and natural immune recovery is allowed to occur (although this is not complete).

Yup, I know he doesn't have any clue about how they work. I just can't really be bothered arguing the point.

PS - I think you left the letter "n" off one of the words in your last sentence!

Heh, oops. :o

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 06:50 AM

You deliberately misinterpret this.
HHV-8 is a sexually transmitted, latent infection. The "co-factor" for its emergence as in the form of an endothelial angiogenic tumour is the immunosuppression, which is of course the result of underlying HIV infection. Other people get Kaposi lesions, live renal transplant patients on immunosuppressants. Wait. Scientists say:
"HIV is not the cause of KS, but potentially assisting factor"
"H8 is not the cause of KS, but a necessary factor"

So basically... Either HIV is not causing this immunosuppression you are talking of, or there is a third factor required for KS.
Again, I am sorry to upset you by asking for evidence for a ludicrous claim. Kaposi is very common in HIV- infected Africans. Are you personally familiar with a previously secret gay club scene in rural Africa, where hundreds of thousands of men sniff poppers all day?:rolleyes: And KS has been "very common" before HIV in africa.

I am having trouble keeping up with the constant flow of intentionally misleading garbage you spout.

AZT remains an integral part of HAART. The original standard dose when it was given as monotherapy was 1200mg/d, NOT 1500mg. This is a lie.AZT dosages were all over the place, from 1000mg to 2500mg per day. Only after the 1993 concorde study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7908356), which attested higher mortality in patients treated with AZT than those who received a placebo, dosages were generally reduced to below 1000mg. In a HAART, Zidovudine doses are reduced further.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 07:23 AM

I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.
You misunderstand me, W. I asked you for evidence, not unsupported claims.

I guess you mean "articles in peer reviewed medical journals and the NY Times" which is just "opinions of some people", and not "evidence" (for which you would have to go look yourself)

NY Times, July 3, 1981 Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals
...Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure...

An investigation of 20 homosexual men with histologically confirmed Kaposi's sarcoma and 40 controls revealed significant associations between Kaposi's sarcoma and use of a number of drugs (amyl nitrite, ethyl chloride, cocaine, phencyclidine, methaqualone, and amphetamine), history of mononucleosis, and sexual activity in the year before onset of the disease.

Nitrite inhalants were investigated as a possible cause of AIDS early in the epidemic, partly because of the preponderance of homosexual men who used nitrites among the early patients with AIDS. During
pilot testing of questionnaires in 1981, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigators found that nitrites were used by nearly all homosexual men with AIDS. In addition, a 1981 survey of 420 men attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics showed that homosexual men reported use of nitrites far more frequently than did heterosexual men, and that the amount of use directly correlated with the number of different sexual partners (Centers for Disease Control 1982). In 1982, Marmor and colleagues repotted significant associations between use of amyl nitrite and sexual activity, and the development of AIDS (all 20 patients in the study had KS) among homosexual men (Marmor et al. 1982) Jeez, just read the rest of that section (page 96 and on) and it'll blow your mind, the sheer amounts of dope those guys did is unbelievable.

Taffer

18th July 2007, 10:04 AM

I guess you mean "articles in peer reviewed medical journals and the NY Times" which is just "opinions of some people", and not "evidence" (for which you would have to go look yourself)

Journals, yes. NY Times, no.

Jeez, just read the rest of that section (page 96 and on) and it'll blow your mind, the sheer amounts of dope those guys did is unbelievable.

See? That wasn't hard at all.

Now, please provide evidence that said drugs do, in fact, inhibit the immune system.

robinson

18th July 2007, 11:02 AM

Have you ever seriously thought about why the entire scientific community except for a couple of oddballs from 10-20 years ago are wrong and only the oddballs are right? Once again you have this fantasy built up around HIV and the scientific community.

Umm... remember, I am not advocating that HIV or other retroviruses are harmless, however, if one thinks about the entire scientific community believing something, except for a couple of "oddballs", who claim everybody else is wrong... well... nothing is more certain than this happening.

The entire history of science, and especially medicine, has example after example of one or two lone voices showing EVERYONE else to be wrong. Nothing is more sure than such a situation arising. Using that as an argument is dumb. It happens all the time.

And yes, everybody can be wrong, except for one person. That is how science works.

.

We've already debunked everything Doucheberg had to say so bringing up his old stuff isn't helping your cause.

I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.

Who are these people making their living off HIV paranoia? Have you really looked into this? The two guys who identified the virus may have had their egos caught up in it. That's about the only people I can think of who might vaguely fit your description. ...

Do you really think they are all in on it or duped?HIV-AIDS.

Oh please. Are you really unaware of the amount of profit HIV/AIDS generates?

You don't have to be on anything to be duped. Remember, I am no supporting the claims, I am pointing out your debunking sucks. Not the same thing.

Your scenario is absolutely unrealistic just like your belief that people in Africa all have malnutrition and have no access to real hospitals, real lab tests, real doctors or whatever it is you imagine that makes the rest of the world claim all these Africans with malaria have HIV-AIDS.

What world do you live in? Are you unaware of how things are in rural Africa? Or the slums?

Get a clue.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 11:06 AM

What do you make of this one, W?
http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GpLJXKQpn3jv02J2pKn8L3pDLLDGD 5C0JMpQwJ0NdH1G9zVdZ7pR!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

kellyb

18th July 2007, 11:09 AM

I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.
What claim of Duesberg's do you find interesting, compelling, or would like to see debunked?
His main claim is that HIV is a "harmless passenger virus"...and you've already debunked that one on your own. What's left in your mind?

Deetee

18th July 2007, 11:12 AM

Wait. Scientists say:
"HIV is not the cause of KS, but potentially assisting factor"
"H8 is not the cause of KS, but a necessary factor"

No... scientists say HHV-8 is the cause of KS.
HIV may play a regulatory role (through HIV-Tat, but that is another story....)

And KS has been "very common" before HIV in africa.
Sigh....
There are 3 basic types of KS.
The endemic form is rare and mainly affects children.
The classical forms is an uncommon, indolent slow growing tumor of the feet that occurs in Africa and the Middle East. It affects people who have HHV-8 but who have relatively normal immunity, it being triggered by cofactors such as trauma or infections in the extremities.

Then there is the "epidemic" type associated with HIV-immune deficiency. This is a highly aggressive, disseminated form of the disease that is very common in immunodeficient Africans (as well as gay men). This is the type we are referring to.

I don't really expect you to know this stuff (you have shown your clinical ignorance concerning AIDS-defining illnesses before), but I am a little fed up that for the 3rd time now I have to tell you that this type of Kaposi is common in Africans with HIV.

This is at complete variance with your discredited theory that Kaposi is solely due to Popper inhalation in drug using gay men. I repeat: Where are all the gay saunas in Uganda and Congo filled with thousands of men snorting poppers?? Your failure to fit popper use with the the epidemiological distribution of Kaposi (which coincidentally mirrors HHV-8 prevalence) is only one thing that refutes your lame hypothesis.

See here (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1243244) for an article on HHV-8
See here (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1800836) for an article about Kaposi pathogenesis.
See here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=3480062&ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=8478145&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus) and here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=3480062&ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) for a few articles about African Kaposi (which Dubya thinks does not exist)

I am having trouble keeping up with the constant flow of intentionally misleading garbage you spout.
:D
ROTFLMAO!

AZT dosages were all over the place, from 1000mg to 2500mg per day. Only after the 1993 concorde study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7908356), which attested higher mortality in patients treated with AZT than those who received a placebo, dosages were generally reduced to below 1000mg. In a HAART, Zidovudine doses are reduced further.

You are lying. AZT has never been prescribed in doses of 2500mg per day. Find me a valid reference for this dose being used therapeutically and I promise to give $1000 to a charity of your choice.

The Concorde study neatly demonstrates that AZT does not cause immune deficiency or AIDS (as would be predicted by another of your silly "what-causes-AIDS" hypotheses). Since you think AZT, particularly at these "high doses" of 1000mg, is so toxic and damages the immune system, the Concorde trial should have readily demonstrated lower CD4 counts and faster progression to AIDS in the AZT treatment arm. The trials results do not bear this out: those on AZT DID NOT progress faster or have higher mortality than those on placebo (go and read the study again, since you clearly do not understand its results). Those on AZT had a rise in CD4 counts.

Your hypothesis is refuted, even by your own citation.
:p

Deetee

18th July 2007, 11:17 AM

Re Duesberg: I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.

Did you miss the post I made with links to the controlled trials refuting Duesberg's "chemical AIDS" hypothesis? I am not in the habit of just saying someone is wrong, I also like to point to the evidence.

JoeEllison

18th July 2007, 11:20 AM

kellyb

18th July 2007, 11:33 AM

The Concorde study neatly demonstrates that AZT does not cause immune deficiency or AIDS (as predicted by another of your silly "what-causes-AIDS" hypotheses). Since you think AZT, particularly at these "high doses" of 1000mg, is so toxic and damages the immune system, the Concorde trial should have readily demonstrated lower CD4 counts and faster progression to AIDS in the AZT treatment arm. The trials results do not bear this out: those on AZT DID NOT progress faster or have higher mortality than those on placebo (go and read the study again, since you clearly do not understand its results). Those on AZT had a rise in CD4 counts.

Your hypothesis is refuted, even by your own citation.

In fact, looks like survival was ever-so-slightly better in the (Imm) ATZ group.

I am curious to see W's impending intellectual gymnastics to explain why, if ATZs cause AIDS, didn't the folks on ATZ from the get-go develop and die from AIDS more quickly?
Perhaps the sneeky scientists put all the popper-users in the def group to even things out a bit?

Ivor the Engineer

18th July 2007, 12:32 PM

Why, oh why are you bothering?

W. has already equated HIV researchers' ethics with those of doping cyclists.

Any research he doesn't like the results of are going to have been produced by 'one of them'. Anything that fits his hypothesis wild speculation is going to be impeccably conducted research by an expert.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 12:40 PM

Ivor the Engineer

18th July 2007, 01:38 PM

Don't have anything better to do today.

:o

Oh, ok:)

Seriously, I think engaging the likes of W is a double-edged sword. Sure, there may be lurkers reading and learning about HIV and the scientific research, but there may also be lurkers reading W's posts about how AZT is more dangerous than not treating HIV and AIDS is more likely caused by a depraved lifestyle.

IMO, once W said he would not be swayed by any evidence presented I think that was the time to stop debating him.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 02:03 PM

Oh, ok:)

Seriously, I think engaging the likes of W is a double-edged sword. Sure, there may be lurkers reading and learning about HIV and the scientific research, but there may also be lurkers reading W's posts about how AZT is more dangerous than not treating HIV and AIDS is more likely caused by a depraved lifestyle.

.

Naw...I don't think you can be on the internet without hearing that there are people who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. And out of curiosity, I googled does HIV cause AIDS? (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-49,GGLJ:en&q=does+HIV+cause+AIDS%3f) and the second hit is a denialist site. And really, I've debated with several denialists before, and W is actually not even very good at it compared to some. I think it would take a....special kind of person...to find W's arguments thought provoking.

Eos of the Eons

18th July 2007, 02:28 PM

I think dab went to homeopathy or naturopathy school, and wants to tell HIV patients that he can cure them with magic water or colon cleanses (since HIV apparently isn't real, and all they need to do is purge their systems of "toxins" instead of taking "nasty" retrovirals). He just needs realistic arguments (since his current ones are nutty/outdated) to convince his clients/patients of this.

Hmm, what is your opinion of vaccines dab?

Ivor the Engineer

18th July 2007, 02:46 PM

Naw...I don't think you can be on the internet without hearing that there are people who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. And out of curiosity, I googled does HIV cause AIDS? (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-49,GGLJ:en&q=does+HIV+cause+AIDS%3f) and the second hit is a denialist site. And really, I've debated with several denialists before, and W is actually not even very good at it compared to some. I think it would take a....special kind of person...to find W's arguments thought provoking.

I was thinking more along the lines of Dawkins. If you are seen engaging these people in a debate, some on-lookers may think you believe they have something valid to say on the subject.

The internet is rife with extreme opinions (looking at some of the anti/pro-circ. sites is quite amusing) and it's a tough call as to whether it's better to refute with evidence every wild claim someone makes (and hope on-lookers read and understand it), or to ignore the attention seeking.

My personal opinion is when people start making claims that if believed could seriously damage another person's health (or kill them) and they admit they will not be swayed by any evidence, walk away.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 03:46 PM

This is at complete variance with your discredited theory that Kaposi is solely due to Popper inhalation in drug using gay men. I repeat: Where are all the gay saunas in Uganda and Congo filled with thousands of men snorting poppers??
...
... a few articles about African Kaposi (which Dubya thinks does not exist) ...
Didn't say KS didn't exist in Africa. Oh, and please: Apparently you call the nitrite inhalants theory "discredited", care to show some material on that?

And: You have read, and understood the material on how HIV is no longer believed to be a causal factor of KS? (In the US AIDS patients, KS was almost exclusively found in gay "AIDS" victims, not in hemophiliacs or IV drug users)
You are lying. AZT has never been prescribed in doses of 2500mg per day. Find me a valid reference for this dose being used therapeutically and I promise to give $1000 to a charity of your choice.
When it was first administered dosages tended to be much higher than today, typically one 400mg dose every four hours (even at night) and one of AZT's side-effects includes anemia which was a common complaint. Modern treatment regimens typically use lower dosages two to three times a day in order to improve the overall quality of lifeThat's 2400mg / day. I remember seeing other sources which talked about 7.5mg/kg per 4 hours, which would make the 4-hour-dose 562mg, and thus the daily dose >3300mg. You can send the 1000$ to the "Dabljuh plasma TV and dope fund", wire transfer data is followed up later.

The Concorde study neatly demonstrates that AZT does not cause immune deficiency or AIDS (as would be predicted by another of your silly "what-causes-AIDS" hypotheses). Since you think AZT, particularly at these "high doses" of 1000mg, is so toxic and damages the immune system, the Concorde trial should have readily demonstrated lower CD4 counts and faster progression to AIDS in the AZT treatment arm. The trials results do not bear this out: those on AZT DID NOT progress faster or have higher mortality than those on placebo (go and read the study again, since you clearly do not understand its results). Those on AZT had a rise in CD4 counts.

Your hypothesis is refuted, even by your own citation.
:pRead again. Over the course of the 14 month experiment, 8% of the Imm (immediate AZT treatment) group died, but only 6% of the Def (deferred AZT in favour of a Placebo)

The study calls the difference "not statistically difference with a confidence interval of 95%", but with a CI of 90%, it is statistically significant. Remember this study was financed by the patent holders of AZT and was set up with the goal to market AZT to HIV patients who did not have AIDS symptoms yet, so their interpretation with the result is expected to be... lenient.

But of course I don't expect you to understand this.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 03:55 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7908356

Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression of HIV disease: 3-year progression rates to AIDS or death were 18% in both groups, and to ARC, AIDS, or death were 29% (Imm) and 32% (Def) (p = 0.18),

ETA:

So, why, W?
Why didn't the Imm group drop like flies compared to the Def group if the meds are what cause AIDS?

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 03:56 PM

IMO, once W said he would not be swayed by any evidence presented I think that was the time to stop debating him.I guess so. Good thing I never said that. I said I'd listen to evidence in an environment that acknowledges most scientific results since the 1980ies, that also allows for politically incorrect research to be published, I'd listen to evidence from that end.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 04:47 PM

What do you make of this one, W?
http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GpLJXKQpn3jv02J2pKn8L3pDLLDGD 5C0JMpQwJ0NdH1G9zVdZ7pR!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

Hello?

kellyb

18th July 2007, 05:18 PM

Or this...

http://www.rachel79.hpg.ig.com.br/SIDA_%20RCT%20ritonavir%20x%20placebo.pdf

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in advanced
HIV-1 disease

Outcomes of AIDS-defining
illness or death occurred in 119 (21·9%) ritonavir-group
patients and 205 (37·5%) placebo-group patients (hazard
ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·42–0·66]; log-rank p<0·0001)
during median follow-up of 28·9 weeks, with loss to
follow-up of 15 (1·4%) patients. Ritonavir was then
offered to all patients; at median follow-up of 51 weeks,
87 (16%) ritonavir-group patients had died of any cause
versus 126 (23%) placebo-group patients (hazard ratio
0·69 [95% CI 0·52–0·91], log-rank p=0·0072).

robinson

18th July 2007, 06:18 PM

Hello?

I'm not sure why, or if it is even so, but it seems like some people have nothing but time to spend reading a thread, and waiting for a response. While at times, especially when something is interesting, I can spend a lot of time researching something new, usually a thread is the last thing on my list, unless it is really cool, in which case I set my alarm to get up in the middle of the night to check it. :D

But considering the nature of the international forum, the depth of the issue, and the amount of data and information to read, I give an important thread a half a year to mature and fester. A month would be a good amount of time to wait for a reply, if the person on the other end of the connection is really reading and looking stuff up.

I read that link, then looked at the original study, then read two other studies related to it, then read 5 more papers about the results, and joined another forum where it was discussed, and I'm still not ready to respond. There is some very interesting data in the publications, and even more interesting stuff from the Foundation that funded it.

In fact, I'm off on an entire new tack regarding HIV transmission, all because of your link.

I am suspect of any response that comes quicker than a day, considering the amount of time and mental energy it would take to really study and ponder some of these links and information sources. When I see somebody reply with a one liner, usually with nothing of value in it, I am sure they didn't do any research at all, much less an in depth study of the issue.

It happens all the time, but that is what the user filter is for. ;)

Considering the nature of the medium, the amount of information available, and the multi-threaded issues, an off the cuff response is mostly a feel good piffle.

I'm also doing research on another unrelated issue, but in that most strange of strange occurrences, a common factor just popped up, one that I hope, especially with my penchant for the dramatic, will pan out, or at least bear fruit.

Did anybody else read that link? Did you notice something odd? I often wonder if ... oh, never mind.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 06:49 PM

A month would be a good amount of time to wait for a reply, if the person on the other end of the connection is really reading and looking stuff up.

W ain't that guy.

He's already ignored several links I've posted, so I was just reminding him that it was there.

Dabljuh

18th July 2007, 07:34 PM

I agree with robinson's statements that a good answer would take in the order of months. But I don't claim to give good answers, so...
What do you make of this one, W?
http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstr...195628!8091!-1
Hello?I can't seem to access the fulltext article. What I would be looking for first was how the HIV diagnosis was made, and secondly, what the actual causes of death were.

Suspicion: They used the Bangui definition, someone who is sick has thus AIDS and thus HIV. And then they learn that the people with "HIV" die more often than the healthy kids. Great science there.

Or this...

http://www.rachel79.hpg.ig.com.br/SIDA_%20RCT%20ritonavir%20x%20placebo.pdf
From the paper: The baseline median CD4-lymphocyte count was18 (IQR 10–43)/ L in the ritonavir group and 22 (10–47)
/ L in the placebo group. Study medication was discontinued in 114 (21·1%) ritonavir-group patients and 45 (8·3%) placebo-group patients mainly because of initial adverse symptoms. Outcomes of AIDS-defining illness or death occurred in 119 (21·9%) ritonavir-group patients and 205 (37·5%) placebo-group patients (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·42–0·66]; log-rank p<0·0001)
So, if you remove the patients for which the treatment doesn't work, you end up with a effectivity that seems higher than it actually is. In addition, the interventionist part of the study was basically cancelled after 16 weeks. Which makes me wonder if they really wanted to study the effectivity of the drug, or just stopped the study when they had the result they wanted.

Other weaknesses: Merely a positive antibody test was required, and the patients already had undergone minimally 9 months of antiretroviral therapy before the study began.

The apparent results (that you quoted) may superficially seem devastating to a Drug-AIDS theory, but it seems clear to me that the study was designed and performed in a way that emphasized the supposed effectivity of treatment.

kellyb

18th July 2007, 07:56 PM

I can't seem to access the fulltext article. What I would be looking for first was how the HIV diagnosis was made, and secondly, what the actual causes of death were.

Suspicion: They used the Bangui definition

I don't have access to the fulltext, either (maybe Deetee or someone else can quote for us the relevant parts? ) but how in god's name do you think they could tell the difference between infected in utero, intrapartum, and postnatally via the old Bangui definition???

ETA:
About the group that did the study:

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200212060-00021.htm;jsessionid=GpDGny6JpYsnJ93GpryQJb3xvyLYf Jcmrmsk8V1KvJpZ8WSPMG4W!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

The ZVITAMBO project is supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (R/C Project 690/M3688), Cooperative Agreement DAN 0045-A-005094-00 between the US Agency for International Development and the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, and the Rockefeller Foundation. It is a collaborative project of the University of Zimbabwe, the Harare City Health Department, the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, and the Montréal General Hospital Research Institute, McGill University.

You really think these people were using the Bangui definition. For real?

So, if you remove the patients for which the treatment doesn't work, you end up with a effectivity that seems higher than it actually is. In addition, the interventionist part of the study was basically cancelled after 16 weeks. Which makes me wonder if they really wanted to study the effectivity of the drug, or just stopped the study when they had the result they wanted.

Other weaknesses: Merely a positive antibody test was required, and the patients already had undergone minimally 9 months of antiretroviral therapy before the study began.

The apparent results (that you quoted) may superficially seem devastating to a Drug-AIDS theory, but it seems clear to me that the study was designed and performed in a way that emphasized the supposed effectivity of treatment.

The first part of your argument that "So, if you remove the patients for which the treatment doesn't work, you end up with a effectivity that seems higher than it actually is" is assuming that an antiretroviral therapy should "work" to alleviate AIDS symptoms!!!

And this:
"The apparent results (that you quoted) may superficially seem devastating to a Drug-AIDS theory, but it seems clear to me that the study was designed and performed in a way that emphasized the supposed effectivity of treatment."

Still doesn't explain why, if the meds are the cause of AIDS and not the HIV virus, the people receiving placebo died almost twice as fast! Are you implying that it was merely a coincidence that the ones who went without meds died at almost twice the rate?

Taffer

18th July 2007, 09:18 PM

I can't seem to access the fulltext article. What I would be looking for first was how the HIV diagnosis was made

From the article:
At baseline, all mothers were tested for HIV and CD4 cell counts were measured for HIV-positive mothers and a representative subgroup of 692 HIV-negative mothers using previously described methods.

The method of which can be found here: (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/500366&erFrom=2739632859944476581Guest)
At baseline, mothers were tested for HIV by 2 ELISAs run in
parallel (HIV 1.0.2 ICE [Murex Diagnostics]; GeneScreen HIV
1/2 [Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur]). Duplicate pairs of discordant
ELISA results were resolved by Western blot (HIV Blot 2.2;
Genelabs Diagnostics).

, and secondly, what the actual causes of death were.

From the article:
For infants who died, a study pediatrician, masked to treatment and maternal and infant HIV status, assigned cause of death (multiple causes were allowed and not ranked).10 If available, the primary source for cause of death was records from the hospital admission during which the child died, or one near to the time of death. When hospital records were not available, cause of death was assigned based on verbal autopsy data. Acute respiratory infection (ARI) was assigned as a cause of death for children with a history of cough with fast or difficult breathing (“mabayo” in Shona); “diarrhea” for a history of diarrhea (“manyoka” in Shona) and malnutrition for a history of weight loss, or being very thin prior to death.

Thus, it had nothing to do with AIDS or HIV infection.

Suspicion: They used the Bangui definition, someone who is sick has thus AIDS and thus HIV. And then they learn that the people with "HIV" die more often than the healthy kids. Great science there.

As you can see above, this is wrong. The cause of death was independent to HIV infection or AIDS diagnosis. Cause of death was established, and then mortality rate was compared to HIV infection, finding a strong correlation.

By 2 years after birth, 1063 (9.9%) infants had died, including 199 (2.9%) deaths among infants born to HIV-negative mothers and 864 (23.3%) deaths among infants born to HIV-positive mothers (Fig. 1A, Table 2). Among all infants born to HIV-positive mothers, 652 (62.6%) who had become infected died compared with 212 (9.2%) infants whose last PCR test was negative (Fig. 1B, Table 2). Among HIV-infected infants, 2-year mortality was 67.5, 65.1 and 33.2% among those infected IU, IP and PN, respectively (Fig. 1C, Table 2).

Here we can see, mortality rate is markedly increased in HIV positive children.

Also interesting is seen in the results:
Cause of death differed according to the infant's HIV-exposure group. While ARI was the most commonly reported cause for all infants, it contributed to 50% of deaths among infants of HIV-negative mothers but to 70% of deaths among infants of HIV-positive mothers, and was especially common among infants who were known to be infected when they died (contributing to 76% of their deaths). Malnutrition was a more common cause of death among infants born to HIV-positive compared with HIV-negative mothers, and was a more common cause among infected compared with NI infants. PN infants had the highest proportion of deaths associated with malnutrition and diarrhea (especially chronic). Meningitis contributed to 4.2% of all deaths, and was not different across HIV exposure groups. Generalized sepsis was reported as a cause of death among 6.7% of uninfected infant deaths (both those born to positive and negative mothers) but <1% of all deaths of infected children. Twenty-one infants died with tuberculosis; all were born to HIV-positive mothers. Malaria contributed to the death of only 8 children, reflecting the low transmission in high-altitude Harare.

HIV positive infants get sick more often. It is a simple as that.

Can you see, now, why you are wrong?

kellyb

18th July 2007, 09:34 PM

Thank you, Taffer. :)

Taffer

18th July 2007, 10:01 PM

I also see, W, that you haven't addressed my post below:

Journals, yes. NY Times, no.

See? That wasn't hard at all.

Now, please provide evidence that said drugs do, in fact, inhibit the immune system.

Thank you, Taffer. :)

:o

My pleasure. May as well put those fees to good use.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 12:54 AM

Skeptigirl, given Dabljuh's reply to me I think you'll have as much success convincing him that a person with untreated HIV is likely to have a shortened lifespan, as you are with me that it's ethically right that parents can choose to have their infant circumcised for UTI risk reduction/cosmetic/religious reasons:DI haven't been trying to convince you to change your beliefs about circumcision. I have been trying to get you to recognize you are being less than objective in that thread. Why not just admit you have a personal bias and say so?

Antiquehunter

19th July 2007, 01:06 AM

Umm... just bopping through this thread, and I haven't read everything in its entirety.

Just curious. Has any HIV/AIDS denialist volunteered to be infected with the HIV virus to prove their point?

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 01:44 AM

Alright, Skeptigirl.

Lets assume for a second, that you're right. Well, no, lets assume instead that HIV is deadly. Lets say it kills 80% of the people within 25 years, with less than 10% remaining asymptomatic during the entire time.

That's about the most "pessimistic" estimate I'm willing to discuss. But lets assume it's right. Is this a horrible disease?Yes, of course it is. We value life in the Western world. It actually still appears to be 100% fatal but only time will prove that number smaller.

Do you want to live to be 45? 55? even 65? I would like to at least live as long as possible. I want to live to be 105. And I don't want to do so with no chance of sexual intercourse with a significant other, and taking handfuls of pills, dealing constantly with a chronic disease. HIV-AIDS is a horrible disease as far as diseases go.

Assume I claimed to know magic. I poke people on the forehead, and 80% of them will die within 40 years. A very realistic assumption, provided I only or mostly poke people on the forehead who are 25 or older. I'm fairly sure, observational science could prove this. Would you then find a study that finds that 80% of the people who I poked on the forehead, died within 40 years, to be proof of my magical abilities?With a good epidemiological study you could make that determination or rule it out if it wasn't occurring.

I have for a long time researched circumcision. I came accross a similiar argument there: Penile cancer is super deadly since most people that get penile cancer don't survive the next 5 years. The argument is simple: Thus circumcision (which prevents penile cancer much like lung amputation prevents lung cancer) is an important health measure. What's not told by the study is that penile cancer almost exclusively afflicts people aged 70 or older. And even then it only hits 1 in 600 men, tops, ever.An appropriate risk benefit analysis would determine that circumcision was not an effective means of preventing penile cancer in your scenario. Science is capable of weighing one risk against another. Science is capable of giving you the data to make a decision, is the loss of the foreskin a reasonable cost of preventing rare penile cancer? If that were the only reason for circumcision, you wouldn't find very many health care professionals recommending routine circumcisions.

What am I saying? There's 100's and 1000's of scientific papers on HIV/AIDS published every year. Who do you think writes those? Do you believe the people who write those papers have no financial interest in keeping the HIV/AIDS myth alive in the public? Do you think those retrovirologists and AIDS researchers would keep their jobs for long if they publicly questioned the fundamental validity of the HIV/AIDS theory, regardless of its actual validity?I'm amazed that you have such little knowledge of the scientific community. Yes, there are thousands of researchers whose main interest is in discovery. Scientists love finding out new things. I love finding out new things. Scientists are proud of their accomplishments. I would wager the vast majority of researchers are not making a ton of money and most certainly are not in their profession for the financial rewards.

I actively fight to change the corporate climate. I think it is bad for humanity at the moment. I also happen to think human beings run corporations and the vast majority of them are not like the Enron and Tyco corporatocracies. There are some problems with the system currently but the benefits by far outweigh the drawbacks of capitalism. For every Ken Lay there is a Ben and a Jerry.

Most researchers are motivated by discovery not money.

And do nurses and people like you really do a whole lot of own research, or do they just pay the tuition for their three-week evening course in "how to treat for HIV patients"First, I have an MSN, not a three week course in treating HIV patients. Second, I take great pride in my profession. Third, I take great pride in my business, which I started as an entrepreneur 17 years ago.

I and the majority of health care providers don't typically take anyone's word for the evidence based medicine we practice. We look at the evidence for ourselves. And that evidence comes from many different sources, different countries, and different funding sources. You simply cannot pull off the conspiracy you believe in because evidence won't let you. Studies must be repeatable, sources must disclose their conflicts of interest, all researchers are allowed in the field and if the evidence is behind their work, it is the evidence which will eventually resolve any questions or doubt.

In politics, you have big money determining who gets to run in the election. So regardless of the fact we are able to vote for our choice, the choices are directed by big money.

But in research, you have an entire international body of scientists. You have scientists who really do care more about discovery than financial reward. You have research funding sources which include charitable foundations and interested individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates for example. Those research funding sources are not connected to any big pharma profits or any retroviral researcher's job security. And providers such as myself have access to all the research. A drug company can only suppress its own scientific reports. They cannot suppress the work done at universities and through non-profit foundations.

I don't make money off HIV. If anything, I let health care workers know that because it takes a large dose of HIV in a needlestick accident to get HIV, PEP drugs are almost never warranted.

But because I order so many HIV tests, I have also had to tell a person they had HIV. When you are faced with telling someone they have an incurable infection which will likely be fatal, you don't do so without knowing what you are dealing with. I am not a fool, I'm damn hard to dupe, and I don't make a profit off anyone with HIV. My practice is based on preventing occupational infectious diseases. If HIV was cured tomorrow my practice wouldn't feel a ripple. Hepatitis B, TB and influenza make up far more of my practice focus than HIV. Preventing the transmission of infectious diseases remains a full time job for an army of public and occupational health professionals with or without HIV.

The people you imagine making money off hyping HIV disease simply don't exist.

Ivor the Engineer

19th July 2007, 01:50 AM

Umm... just bopping through this thread, and I haven't read everything in its entirety.

Just curious. Has any HIV/AIDS denialist volunteered to be infected with the HIV virus to prove their point?

W has mentioned at least once about a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Not sure if he's prepared to be the first volunteer?

Ivor the Engineer

19th July 2007, 01:56 AM

I haven't been trying to convince you to change your beliefs about circumcision. I have been trying to get you to recognize you are being less than objective in that thread. Why not just admit you have a personal bias and say so?

What do you think my bias is?

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 02:06 AM

Umm... remember, I am not advocating that HIV or other retroviruses are harmless, however, if one thinks about the entire scientific community believing something, except for a couple of "oddballs", who claim everybody else is wrong... well... nothing is more certain than this happening.

The entire history of science, and especially medicine, has example after example of one or two lone voices showing EVERYONE else to be wrong. Nothing is more sure than such a situation arising. Using that as an argument is dumb. It happens all the time.

And yes, everybody can be wrong, except for one person. That is how science works.If you read what I said, robby,.... When one or a few scientists have evidence which goes against the mainstream, the evidence will eventually speak. After 2 decades, the evidence has proved Doucheberg and Mullis to be wrong.

I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.Are you actually claiming I and the others in this thread did not post sufficient evidence debunking Mullis and Doucheberg? Perhaps you should review the thread. The only people posting unsupported opinion are you and 'W'. The rest of us have had no trouble finding copious research supporting our positions.

Oh please. Are you really unaware of the amount of profit HIV/AIDS generates? That is not the same as claiming everyone researching HIV has a conflict of interest causing them to fake their research data. It is an absurd postulate. Of the thousands of people who have done research on HIV, are you actually claiming no one has noticed the research is all faked? Or are you claiming thousands of scientists all over the world are all in on a conspiracy?

You don't have to be on anything to be duped. Remember, I am no supporting the claims, I am pointing out your debunking sucks. Not the same thing. My debunking sucks? Could you point to the particular post?

What world do you live in? Are you unaware of how things are in rural Africa? Or the slums?

Get a clue.Apparently you missed the post where 'W' claimed no one in Africa had HIV. They all had malaria or malnutrition or something else. Yes, robby, get a clue.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 02:20 AM

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 02:32 AM

What do you think my bias is?For one, your misinterpretations of my posts in that thread are examples of your lack of objectivity.

Ivor the Engineer

19th July 2007, 02:52 AM

For one, your misinterpretations of my posts in that thread are examples of your lack of objectivity.

Sorry that I misinterpreted your posts.

If I was biased against infant circumcision per se, the evidence from the African trials and you would not have been able to convince me that it was probably a good idea.

My bias is primarily is against the pain and suffering the infant is put through for such a small absolute risk reduction. Can you think of comparable procedures in this respect parents choose for their child?

My secondary bias is that I believe it is wrong to alter another person's body without their consent unless it's necessary to avoid likely harm.

That's the extent of my bias. The first one can be largely overcome by using effective pain relief.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 03:14 AM

We shouldn't hijack this thread, Ivor. I am 100% against unanesthetized circumcisions and have been since the first time I saw the procedure done in 1976.

There are many elective surgical procedures parents consent to for their children. Parents have the position of making medical decisions for their infants.

That is all I am going to say about that topic in this thread. This is the second thread I have seen you carry the circumcision discussion into. And you don't think you are a bit emotional over the subject?

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 05:32 AM

HIV positive infants get sick more often. It is a simple as that.No: Children born to Mothers who tested positive on an antibody test died more often, but to the same conditions as the controls.

Why, for example, were children of mothers with a positive antibodytest more often suffering from malnutrition, if you assume the positive antibodytest equals HIV seropositivity *and* HIV has a strong detrimental effect on the immune system?
Can you see, now, why you are wrong?I want you to reproduce the fulltext article for me somewhere, so I can study it a bit. So far with the bits you posted it looks a lot less convincing than the mere abstract that was posted by kelly.

By the way, you asked for "evidence" that HIV inhibits/depresses the immune system. I don't even have to show evidence to that effect: I believe it is sufficient to point out the many sources that I have posted, which make nitrite inhalants the prime candidate for causing Kaposi's Sarcoma. The occurrence of which you probably would equal with a "depressed immune system"... (Semantics *is* important in this field)

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 05:36 AM

Umm... just bopping through this thread, and I haven't read everything in its entirety.

Just curious. Has any HIV/AIDS denialist volunteered to be infected with the HIV virus to prove their point?Indeed yes, Duesberg volunteered to have himself infected with HIV, but nobody's taken him up on that. Its not like it would prove a lot: He is pretty old and with HIV's latency getting bigger every year...

We'd need 1000's of volunteers.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 05:40 AM

Father Dagon

19th July 2007, 05:52 AM

In the early 1980ies, the AIDS definition was limited to a small number of diseases such as Kaposi's Sarcoma or Fungal Lung infections which are very rare in otherwise healthy humans. Nowadays, things such as Herpes Simplex (!!!!!) are "AIDS defining diseases" according to the CDC.Well, even if you put a hiv-positive person in a perfectly sterile envrironment that made the worlds most hygienic surgery ward to look like a garbage dump, the person would eventually die beacuse of the body's own bacterii.We shouldn't hijack this thread, Ivor. I am 100% against unanesthetized circumcisions and have been since the first time I saw the procedure done in 1976.

There are many elective surgical procedures parents consent to for their children. Parents have the position of making medical decisions for their infants.

That is all I am going to say about that topic in this thread. This is the second thread I have seen you carry the circumcision discussion into. And you don't think you are a bit emotional over the subject?Combatting hiv with circumcisions are conter-productive as people will misinterpret it and think that they are immortal. And presto! More hiv cases. It's like diet soda + extra dressing = getting fatter.Indeed yes, Duesberg volunteered to have himself infected with HIV, but nobody's taken him up on that. Its not like it would prove a lot: He is pretty old and with HIV's latency getting bigger every year...

We'd need 1000's of volunteers.You crazy? Check out Africa where you have millions of involunteers. And I doubt that your volunteers would be of any great help. People crazy enough to voluntary be infected with hiv has problably lots of other "flaws" (too deranged to be of any use as they "escapes" after being infected; thinks that dying in cancer is not sophisticated enough; etc) to be of any use. So check out Africa. Perfectly healthy people in ther prime are dying like flies. Need any more proof?

Antiquehunter

19th July 2007, 06:01 AM

We'd need 1000's of volunteers.

If there were such a study, would you put your money where your life is and step up?

My research into unbiased discussions of Duesberg on HIV, would suggest to me that his theory has been soundly debunked, and indeed, hasn't seriously been examined for the past 12 years because of the overwhelming evidence contrary.

FWIW - as a participant in the Vanguard project http://cfenet.ubc.ca/vanguard/

I find the group of HIV/AIDS naysayers about as compelling as the homeopathic community...

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 06:04 AM

Well, even if you put a hiv-positive person in a perfectly sterile envrironment that made the worlds most hygienic surgery ward to look like a garbage dump, the person would eventually die beacuse of the body's own bacterii.That has never happened. You are speculating here.You crazy? Check out Africa where you have millions of involunteers. And I doubt that your volunteers would be of any great help. People crazy enough to voluntary be infected with hiv has problably lots of other "flaws" (too deranged to be of any use as they "escapes" after being infected; thinks that dying in cancer is not sophisticated enough; etc) to be of any use. So check out Africa. Perfectly healthy people in ther prime are dying like flies. Need any more proof?You haven't read most of the thread, have you? Basically the argument is that in africa, "AIDS" is just an umbrella for diseases which happened already a lot before the HIV scare. People die to these diseases because of malnutrition, lack of education, lack of medical supplies, lack of sanitation, well, basically, these people die of poverty-related disease. But its much better if they die of AIDS because then a huge number of people make huge amounts of money off these people dying.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 06:09 AM

If there were such a study, would you put your money where your life is and step up?I'd ask for Animal testing first. Though that was already done with the result that SIV/HIV is harmless to primates. Just another test, to be *really* sure before we test it on humans.
My research into unbiased discussions of Duesberg on HIV, would suggest to me that his theory has been soundly debunked, and indeed, hasn't seriously been examined for the past 12 years because of the overwhelming evidence contrary.It would suggest to a lot of naive people, yes. Reality is that he, and other people of his caliber (i.e. Mullis) never have been soundly debunked, instead theyve been bullied, harassed, declared insane and called names. SCIENCY!
FWIW - as a participant in the Vanguard project http://cfenet.ubc.ca/vanguard/More reason for you to inform yourself.
I find the group of HIV/AIDS naysayers about as compelling as the homeopathic community...Homeopathy is basically a traditional enemy on these forums, probably due to Randi himself loving to debunk that nonsense. However a lot of "paper-skeptics" here automatically assume that therefore, everything that the medical establishment produces (in terms of studies) is great. The people who studied circumcision know better.

Deetee

19th July 2007, 06:11 AM

Indeed yes, Duesberg volunteered to have himself infected with HIV, but nobody's taken him up on that.
Duesberg did indeed make this offer about 10 years ago. he quickly withdrew it when someone offere to call his bluff, saying that no-one could guarantee that the HIV preparation he would be given was pure enough by his criteria to mean there was no possible contamination with any other substance.

:chicken:

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 06:21 AM

Duesberg did indeed make this offer about 10 years ago. he quickly withdrew it when someone offere to call his bluff, saying that no-one could guarantee that the HIV preparation he would be given was pure enough by his criteria to mean there was no possible contamination with any other substance.

:chicken:Source? Who would want to let a "stupid old man" infect himself with HIV?

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 06:22 AM

Antiquehunter

19th July 2007, 06:25 AM

It would suggest to a lot of naive people, yes. Reality is that he, and other people of his caliber (i.e. Mullis) never have been soundly debunked, instead theyve been bullied, harassed, declared insane and called names. SCIENCY!
More reason for you to inform yourself.

The majority of the scientific community consider that Duesberg's arguments are the result of cherry-picking of scientific data[1] and selectively ignoring evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS.[2] There is broad scientific consensus that the Duesberg hypothesis is incorrect, and that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[3][4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis

Good enough for me.

Bottom line - Lets assume for a moment you're right. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. From a sexuality perspective, what is WRONG with recommending safer sexual practices for men and women of all sexual persuasions? Practicing safer sex makes sense - not just because of HIV/AIDS risks, but protection from a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases.

To suggest that there is a broader conspiracy of pharmaceutical firms wanting to pump people full of AZT and related chemicals simply out of profitmongering is to suggest a conspiracy that rivals well... that of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Roswell nutbars, or moon-landing faker fans.

The core messages of the 'HIV movement' are: Practice safer sex. If you are an I/V drug user, don't share needles. If you work around biological waste materials, protect yourself. These are harmless messages, and if followed, are effective in preventing HIV infection and a wide range of other infections. The sex-negative education approaches used in the mid-90s are done. I believe there is a much more healthful approach (in North America, and especially Canada, anyways) to handling the issue of HIV. The fact that internationally there is so much more to be done, and the criminal actions of numerous African (and Western) countries is what is appalling here.

Taffer

19th July 2007, 06:44 AM

No: Children born to Mothers who tested positive on an antibody test died more often, but to the same conditions as the controls.

Why, for example, were children of mothers with a positive antibodytest more often suffering from malnutrition, if you assume the positive antibodytest equals HIV seropositivity *and* HIV has a strong detrimental effect on the immune system?

No. The children were also HIV positive. And the cause of death was independantly assigned without any knowledge of HIV status of the infant.

I want you to reproduce the fulltext article for me somewhere, so I can study it a bit. So far with the bits you posted it looks a lot less convincing than the mere abstract that was posted by kelly.

I'm afraid I cannot do that. Access to that paper requires a paid subscription, paid for by my university. If I were to reproduce any more of the paper then what I have already done above, it would boarder on copywrite infringement, which is not something I want my university nor JREF to be associated with. You will have to either a) procure a copy of the article yourself, and/or b) take my word for it.

By the way, you asked for "evidence" that HIV inhibits/depresses the immune system. I don't even have to show evidence to that effect: I believe it is sufficient to point out the many sources that I have posted, which make nitrite inhalants the prime candidate for causing Kaposi's Sarcoma. The occurrence of which you probably would equal with a "depressed immune system"... (Semantics *is* important in this field)

Well, I would far prefer actual evidence, but no matter.

Explain africa with your nitrate inhalant hypothesis, given the paper cited.

Remember: HIV positive children show a marked increase in mortality. HIV negative children show a small increase in mortality, when born of HIV positive mothers.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 07:01 AM

Bottom line - Lets assume for a moment you're right. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. From a sexuality perspective, what is WRONG with recommending safer sexual practices for men and women of all sexual persuasions? Practicing safer sex makes sense - not just because of HIV/AIDS risks, but protection from a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases.Sexually transmitted diseases such as syphillis usually transmit about once per ~3-4 or so unprotected acts. HIV transmits, at the very best, once in 1000-2000 unprotected acts. Hence, Syphillis, which is a grave, disfiguring and debilitating disease, and increasingly resistent to antibiotics, is a much better reason to practice safer sex.

What's wrong with scaring people into doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons? What's wrong with attacking iraq for its WMDs and Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 Attacks?

What's wrong with pumping 50-60 billion US$ taxpayer money into HIV/AIDS research, without any real result? What's wrong with scaring an entire generation away from sex, using mortal fear, what's wrong with alienating and scaring the **** out of gays?
To suggest that there is a broader conspiracy of pharmaceutical firms wanting to pump people full of AZT and related chemicals simply out of profitmongering is to suggest a conspiracy that rivals well... that of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Roswell nutbars, or moon-landing faker fans.Yeah, I guess it's the bestest, most skeptical approach to just believe everything the government agencies and departments say.
The core messages of the 'HIV movement' are: Practice safer sex. If you are an I/V drug user, don't share needles.The Drug-AIDS hypothesis basically says: "If you do drugs such as Heroin, your health will suffer"

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 07:08 AM

No. The children were also HIV positive. And the cause of death was independantly assigned without any knowledge of HIV status of the infant.How was the HIV status of the children determined? The cause of death was, largely, assigned by the hospitals.
I'm afraid I cannot do that. Access to that paper requires a paid subscription, paid for by my university. If I were to reproduce any more of the paper then what I have already done above, it would boarder on copywrite infringement, which is not something I want my university nor JREF to be associated with. You will have to either a) procure a copy of the article yourself, and/or b) take my word for it.Time to read the "Fair Use" provisions in the US copyright laws: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.Also, you could just make it available on a hidden website and PM me the URL.
Explain africa with your nitrate inhalant hypothesis, given the paper cited.Africa has nothing to do with nitrate inhalants or other recreational drugs. The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with the American/European AIDS epidemic - the name. African AIDS is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover, practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia or Kaposi's sarcoma - the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe. Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test, which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.African "AIDS" has nothing to do with First-World "AIDS".

Capsid

19th July 2007, 07:40 AM

I'd ask for Animal testing first. Though that was already done with the result that SIV/HIV is harmless to primates. Just another test, to be *really* sure before we test it on humans.What sort of test did you have in mind?
ETA: As I posted before SIV from african monkeys is not harmless in Asian macaques.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 08:05 AM

I have failed to find a paper supporting your claim, although I have found a multitude of papers investigating measures to protect macaques from SIV-infection or apparent vaccination attempts.

Edit: Oh, here's something
Chimeric simian-human immunodeficiency viruses (SHIVs) carrying envelope glycoproteins derived from a T cell-macrophage dual-tropic primary isolate (human immunodeficiency virus type 1 [HIV-1] strain DH12) were constructed. When inoculated into macaque monkeys, SHIV(MD14) carrying simian immunodeficiency virus-derived nef established significantly higher virus loads than did SHIV(MD1), which contains the HIV-1 nef gene. Three patterns of CD4 cell depletion were observed in infected monkeys: exponential and irreversible loss to undetectable levels within 10 weeks of infection; marked reduction during acute infection followed by partial recovery and stabilization (lasting from 10 weeks to > 1 year), with a later decline to undetectable levels in some animals; and a transient loss during acute infection. The induced immunodeficiency was accompanied by CD4 cell counts of < 50 cells/microL and was associated with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus meningoencephalitis, lymphoid depletion, and thymic atrophy.Unfortunately, no figures about the actual incidence of each pattern, nor any mention of controls in the abstract. Of course, the "SHIV" pathogen was artificially created and inoculated. which raises the question: Would the results look any different with natural (oral, perinatal or even sexual) transmission of a "wild" SIV-Pathogen?

Deetee

19th July 2007, 08:15 AM

Didn't say KS didn't exist in Africa. Oh, and please: Apparently you call the nitrite inhalants theory "discredited", care to show some material on that?
We have covered this already. One of the reasons that poppers were dismissed as a cause of Kaposi was because the epidemiology made no sense. It failed to explain why in the 1980s the African continent was being swept with an epidemic of the aggressive disseminating form of Kaposi on the back of HIV-induced immune deficiency.

You have failed to explain why this epidemic occured (and this is the 4th time of asking - ETA, actually the 5th - I see Taffer asked you also!).

Your hypothesis (that poppers cause KS) has failed on multiple criteria. A true scientist would accept the hypothesis is incorrect, and move on to a better model. This is exactly what the orthodox scientific community did in the 1980s with Kaposi and the popper theory. It is now 20 years later - they moved on, and found the real cause. Can't you accept this?

Re AZT doses:
That's 2400mg / day. I remember seeing other sources which talked about 7.5mg/kg per 4 hours, which would make the 4-hour-dose 562mg, and thus the daily dose >3300mg. You can send the 1000$ to the "Dabljuh plasma TV and dope fund", wire transfer data is followed up later.
Close, but no cigar. You said 2500mg, remember? Aside from dose ranging studies, have you any evidence (eg Drug SPCs, studies or published papers where these doses were specifically documented) that AZT was used in this way and in this dose?

Re the Concorde study:
This study compared 2 strategies - early AZT high dose monotherapy versus delayed introduction of AZT (when it was clinically needed). The hypothesis was that AZT might help delay progression to clinical illness if given very early in the course of HIV infection. This strategy showed early (6-12 month) benefits, but this benefit faded as viral resistance for AZT was selected. By 3 years (not 14 months as you claim) there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups.

Read again. Over the course of the 14 month experiment, 8% of the Imm (immediate AZT treatment) group died, but only 6% of the Def (deferred AZT in favour of a Placebo)

The study calls the difference "not statistically difference with a confidence interval of 95%", but with a CI of 90%, it is statistically significant.

:D
Thank you for demonstrating how denialists do objective science, and how easy it is for denialists to do wishful thinking.
The results were not significant at the 95% CI. So you say, "Ah, but they might have been significant at the 90% level"!!

Why not go the whole hog, and say absolutely anything you like might be significant, if only it were tested at the 50% CI interval!! :)

The Concorde study provides unambiguous evidence that AZT does not in itself cause AIDS or do significant harm. People on high dose "toxic doses" of AZT fared just as well (or badly if you prefer) as those on placebo.

Denialists like to claim this study shows HIV drugs are useless. In fact the study shows that monotherapy AZT (which is of proven benefit when given to AIDS patients) provides no specific additional benefit to patients if taken early in the course of HIV infection. AZT caused CD4 counts to rise significantly (again, contrary to your claim) although this benefit was lost once resistance to AZT developed.

Remember this study was financed by the patent holders of AZT and was set up with the goal to market AZT to HIV patients who did not have AIDS symptoms yet, so their interpretation with the result is expected to be... lenient.

Completely wrong again. This study was set up by the Medical Research Council in the UK and its counterpart in France, Inserm. It was run totally independently from Glaxo-Wellcome (or GSK as it is now).

Where do you get your information from ? Is it totally derived from HIV denialist web sites (the usual purveyors of this nonsense)?

I suggest you read a little about AZT monotherapy trials. This is a good starting point (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/23.htm), and explains Concorde and the other trials.Among asymptomatic HIV-infected individuals, several placebo-controlled clinical trials suggest that AZT can delay disease progression for 12 to 24 months but ultimately does not increase survival. Significantly, long-term follow-up of persons participating in these trials, although not showing prolonged benefit of AZT, has never indicated that the drug increases disease progression or mortality (reviewed in McLeod and Hammer, 1992; Sande et al., 1993; Volberding and Graham, 1994). The lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these large trials effectively rebuts the argument that AZT causes AIDS.

Deetee

19th July 2007, 08:39 AM

sorry, double post

Deetee

19th July 2007, 08:41 AM

RE: Duesberg infecting himself with HIV.
Source? Who would want to let a "stupid old man" infect himself with HIV?

I have certainly seen something about this where Duesberg rejected the "offer" for the reasons I said. I will keep hunting the net till I find it.
Meanwhile.....
Duesberg's own website (http://duesberg.com/faq.html) contains the following exchange, including something of an indirect explanation (excuses) as to why he has not actually taken up the offer:

Q16: The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.

A16: I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:
1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.
2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.
3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms, and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 08:42 AM

Deetee

19th July 2007, 08:51 AM

Sorry, Deetee, I'm not going to discuss with you any further. In my opinion you lack certain vital mental facilities, such as rational thought. I mean you still don't even seem to understand the KS phenomenon. You say it's caused by Herpesvirus-8 - A virus that between 50 and 80% of the world's population is infected with. And then you ignore a 96% correlation of homosexuals diagnosed with KS admitting the use of nitrite inhalants.

You're just a waste of time. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

You are of course free to put me on ignore if you wish. I am sorry that my persistence in trying to get you to answer a simple question is so upsetting for you. I'll give it one more go, just on the offchance (6th time of asking now):

Given your hypothesis that Kaposi sarcoma is caused by inhalation of poppers, how would you explain the epidemic of aggressive Kaposi that has occurred in SubSaharan Africa since the 1980s?

Oh, BTW, 50%-80% of the world's population is NOT infected with HHV-8 as you say it is.
You might like to look at this study (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221) about its prevalence (read it, and look at the references too):
Research on Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8, has shown it is a necessary etiologic agent of Kaposi sarcoma (KS).1 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#REF-JOC12120-1)-5 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#REF-JOC12120-5) It has also been shown that the prevalence of KSHV parallels the prevalence of KS. For example, in the United States, KSHV infection is common in homosexual men (prevalence, 15%-60%) but infrequent in heterosexual groups (0%-9%), paralleling the KS pattern.2 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#REF-JOC12120-2), 6 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#REF-JOC12120-6)-8 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#REF-JOC12120-8)
Relevant References:
1. Chang Y, Cesarman E, Pessin MS, et al. Identification of herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma. Science. 1994;266:1865-1869. FREE FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=sci&resid=266/5192/1865) http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/spacer.gif
2. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-2) Gao SJ, Kingsley L, Hoover DR, et al. Seroconversion to antibodies against Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus-related latent nuclear antigens before the development of Kaposi's sarcoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:233-241. FREE FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=nejm&resid=335/4/233)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/spacer.gif3. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-3) Martin JN, Ganem DE, Osmond DH, et al. Sexual transmission and natural history of human herpesvirus 8 infection. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:948-954. FREE FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=nejm&resid=338/14/948) http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/spacer.gif
4. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-4) O'Brien TR, Kedes D, Ganem D, et al. Evidence for concurrent epidemics of human herpesvirus 8 and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in US homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1999;180:1010-1017. FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10.1086/315039&link_type=DOI) | ISI (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=000083019500011&link_type=ISI) | PUBMED (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10479125&link_type=MED)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/spacer.gif5. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-5) Renwick N, Halaby T, Weverling GJ, et al. Seroconversion for human herpesvirus 8 during HIV infection is highly predictive of Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS. 1998;12:2481-2488. FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10.1097/00002030-199818000-00018&link_type=DOI) | ISI (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=000077550000018&link_type=ISI) | PUBMED (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=9875587&link_type=MED) http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/spacer.gif
6. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-6) Kedes DH, Operskalski E, Busch M, et al. The seroepidemiology of human herpesvirus 8 (Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus). Nat Med. 1996;2:918-924. FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10.1038/nm0896-918&link_type=DOI) | ISI (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=A1996UZ80400040&link_type=ISI) | PUBMED (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=8705863&link_type=MED)
19. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-19) Hayward GS. KSHV strains: the origins and global spread of the virus. Semin Cancer Biol. 1999;9:187-199. FULL TEXT (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10.1006/scbi.1998.0116&link_type=DOI) | ISI (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=000080801200005&link_type=ISI) | PUBMED (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10343070&link_type=MED)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/spacer.gif20. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/221#RREF-JOC12120-20) Rutherford G, Payne S, Lemp G. The epidemiology of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma in San Francisco. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1990;3(suppl 1):S4-S7.

Capsid

19th July 2007, 09:03 AM

I have failed to find a paper supporting your claim, although I have found a multitude of papers investigating measures to protect macaques from SIV-infection or apparent vaccination attempts.

Experimental infection of rhesus monkeys with SIV isolated from African green monkeys (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2540114&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Taffer

19th July 2007, 09:29 AM

How was the HIV status of the children determined?

For all infants born to HIV-positive mothers, cell pellets (Roche Diagnostics Systems, Alameda, CA) and plasma were prepared from whole blood collected at baseline and follow-up visits and stored at –70°C. Following all patient contact, the last available sample from each infant was tested (pellet by Roche Amplicor version 1.5 qualitative DNA PCR assay [Roche Diagnostic Systems] for samples collected prior to 18 months; serum by GeneScreen ELISA for samples collected >=18 months). If this sample was negative, the child was classified as HIV-negative; if it was positive, earlier samples were tested to determine timing of infection.

The cause of death was, largely, assigned by the hospitals.

Your point?

Time to read the "Fair Use" provisions in the US copyright laws:

I am not in the US, and I do not believe it falls under "Fair Use" to reproduce an entire document verbatim. Especially considering this is a public forum, and the document is available only through paid subscription.

Also, you could just make it available on a hidden website and PM me the URL.

No.

If you want the original document that badly, go to your local public library or university. And good library at either of these two places will likely have journals available for public viewing.

Or do you simply not trust me?

Africa has nothing to do with nitrate inhalants or other recreational drugs. African "AIDS" has nothing to do with First-World "AIDS".

Your unattributed quote is none too impressive, W.

Also, the paper we have been discussing seems to disagree.

patrick767

19th July 2007, 09:48 AM

Taffer

19th July 2007, 10:04 AM

What is the point of arguing here? :boggled: It's obvious that nothing anyone says, that no evidence presented, will ever convince Dabljuh of anything but his strongly held crackpot theories about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence is. He dismisseso ut of hand everything that disagrees with his view and accepts the words of a handful of nutjobs that he read somewhere.

Arguing with people like him is an exercise in futility.

You must be new here. :D

Miss Anthrope

19th July 2007, 10:11 AM

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 10:21 AM

Experimental infection of rhesus monkeys with SIV isolated from African green monkeys (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2540114&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)Hmm, a test with 6 monkeys... 4 seroconverted... 3 developed a persitent lymphadenopathy (Swollen Lymph nodes)... No depletion of CD4 T-Cells or opportunistic diseases reported... and no controls used...

calebprime

19th July 2007, 10:24 AM

The Drug-AIDS hypothesis basically says: "If you do drugs such as Heroin, your health will suffer"

People who have ingested heroin by snorting it or smoking it have failed to get AIDS.

Actually, while recreational drugs are often bad for people, tarring them with the broad-brush approach (drugs cause AIDS) seems just as bad as what you're objecting to. And it has the additional disadvantage that it's not even true.

What is the point of arguing here? :boggled: It's obvious that nothing anyone says, that no evidence presented, will ever convince Dabljuh of anything but his strongly held crackpot theories about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence is. He dismisseso ut of hand everything that disagrees with his view and accepts the words of a handful of nutjobs that he read somewhere.

Arguing with people like him is an exercise in futility.

You must be new here. :D

There was Christophera. Truthseeker1234 is still flogging the no-planes theory. Kurious Kathy is still trying to konvert people here. T'ai Chi is still using the cryptic oracular approach: "This is interesting."

These people are the life of the party. Or, more accurately, they provide a foil for the more rational people here.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 10:27 AM

For all infants born to HIV-positive mothers, cell pellets (Roche Diagnostics Systems, Alameda, CA) and plasma were prepared from whole blood collected at baseline and follow-up visits and stored at –70°C. Following all patient contact, the last available sample from each infant was tested (pellet by Roche Amplicor version 1.5 qualitative DNA PCR assay [Roche Diagnostic Systems] for samples collected prior to 18 months; serum by GeneScreen ELISA for samples collected >=18 months). If this sample was negative, the child was classified as HIV-negative; if it was positive, earlier samples were tested to determine timing of infection.So... the children of HIV-positive mothers had basically blood taken from them every opportunity. I don't think that the practice of taking blood samples from newborns is particularly healthy to them, and I hypothesize this may falsify the results.Your point?Different standards. African Hospitals may just tag "Uh, AIDS" on the report when kids die, making the entire study worthless.
Or do you simply not trust me?As a general rule, I don't trust anybody. Not even myself. In this particular case, the problem is not of trust but I can't study the study without access to the fulltext article.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 10:34 AM

People who have ingested heroin by snorting it or smoking it have failed to get AIDS.I don't think those groups are particularly large. Heroin is usually consumed intravenously, where it is the most potent. Of course I don't have any data on this, just speculating there. As you are.
Actually, while recreational drugs are often bad for people, tarring them with the broad-brush approach (drugs cause AIDS) seems just as bad as what you're objecting to. And it has the additional disadvantage that it's not even true.Well "truthiness" aside, you think a "Sex (and especially gay and black sex) causes AIDS" theory is better than a "extreme overuse of recreational drugs causes AIDS" from that point of view?

Not like this point of view is particularly important, what's important is what really causes "AIDS" then. Or rather, destruction of the immune system, since "AIDS" is a worthless, incoherent and out of date definition.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 11:03 AM

One thing I just noticed reading the abstract of the study (http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GfXc1M5jQhzqlNQhkD2pP92TpQwvj rSskyNpyJQwJgcGs5hKTpFL!675572714!181195628!8091!-1) again:
HIV causes substantial mortality among African children but there is limited data on how this is influenced by maternal or infant infection status and timingTranslates to: HIV causes substantial mortality amongst african children, though we have no clue if the kids actually need to be infected with HIV for it to work its destructive magic:Uninfected infants of infected mothers have at least twice the mortality risk of infants born to uninfected mothers: all HIV-exposed infants should be targeted with child survival interventions. HIV-positive mothers with more advanced disease are not only more likely to infect their infants, but their infants are more likely to die, whether infected or not

It is obvious: The HI-Virus is so evil it even kills people it doesn't infect.

kellyb

19th July 2007, 11:57 AM

Translates to: HIV causes substantial mortality amongst african children, though we have no clue if the kids actually need to be infected with HIV for it to work its destructive magic:

No, it doesn't translate into that, W. "Status" means "disease progression" among other things, and "timing" means "in utero", during delivery, or later, as in breastfeeding transmission.

It is obvious: The HI-Virus is so evil it even kills people it doesn't infect.
Do you know what "passive immunity" is for human babies, W?
Or what normally happen when an immunocompetent mother with a newborn comes into contact with all the various rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, etc that are endemic among humans on Planet Earth?

kellyb

19th July 2007, 12:56 PM

By the way, you asked for "evidence" that HIV inhibits/depresses the immune system. I don't even have to show evidence to that effect: I believe it is sufficient to point out the many sources that I have posted, which make nitrite inhalants the prime candidate for causing Kaposi's Sarcoma. The occurrence of which you probably would equal with a "depressed immune system"... (Semantics *is* important in this field)

Are these kidney transplant patients all just on poppers?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10342315&dopt=Citation

Human herpes virus-8 and other risk factors for Kaposi's sarcoma in kidney transplant recipients
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective and a prospective study among kidney transplant recipients (TP) to identify the risk factors for posttransplantation KS.

Sixty-eight percent (17/25) of TP with HHV-8 antibodies before or after transplantation developed KS compared with 3% (1/33) of seronegative TP (P<0.00001). HHV-8 DNA was detectable in seven of nine peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and in six of six KS lesions at diagnosis; it became negative in PBMC in three of five patients in parallel with tumor regression. CONCLUSION: African and Middle East geographic origins, HHV-8 infection before and after kidney transplantation, and initial use of polyclonal antilymphocyte sera were independent risk factors for KS. The presence of HHV-8 antibodies before or after transplantation was highly predictive of the emergence of posttransplantation KS and conferred a 28-fold increased risk of KS (odds ratio=28.4; 95% confidence interval: 4.9-279). Detection of HHV-8 DNA within PBMC and KS lesions seems related to tumor burden and evolution.

Coincidence again?

Capsid

19th July 2007, 01:00 PM

Hmm, a test with 6 monkeys... 4 seroconverted... 3 developed a persitent lymphadenopathy (Swollen Lymph nodes)... No depletion of CD4 T-Cells or opportunistic diseases reported... and no controls used...
It's unethical to use large numbers of primates for such studies, 6 is sufficient to answer the question.
Lymphadenopathy is not just swollen lymph nodes but a disease of the lymph nodes indicative of AIDS.
I thought you said CD4 decline was not a good marker for HIV/AIDS?
The macaques are held in very clean conditons so there is limited exposure to other pathogens to trigger opportunistic diseases.
No need to use controls, what would they be anyway? Naive uninfected animals? The question is does this virus preparation infect macaques and cause AIDS-like symptoms, why the need to control for that?

kellyb

19th July 2007, 01:04 PM

I have failed to find a paper supporting your claim, although I have found a multitude of papers investigating measures to protect macaques from SIV-infection or apparent vaccination attempts.

Edit: Oh, here's something
Unfortunately, no figures about the actual incidence of each pattern, nor any mention of controls in the abstract. Of course, the "SHIV" pathogen was artificially created and inoculated. which raises the question: Would the results look any different with natural (oral, perinatal or even sexual) transmission of a "wild" SIV-Pathogen?

Chubaka is a Wookie and he lives on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks!
It don't make no sense!
If the glove don't fit you must aquit! (the HIV virus as the cause of AIDS)

More whack-a-mole, huh?

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 01:12 PM

No, it doesn't translate into that, W. "Status" means "disease progression" among other things, and "timing" means "in utero", during delivery, or later, as in breastfeeding transmission.No, Status means just that: The kid is HIV infected or not.
Do you know what "passive immunity" is for human babies, W? Nope Or what normally happen when an immunocompetent mother with a newborn comes into contact with all the various rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, etc that are endemic among humans on Planet Earth? You mean Immunoincompetent? You mean that the mother would become a virus-spoting infectionmachine, which would severely weaken the child. I think far more realistic is to assume that a severely sick mother has more problems caring for her child, and the lack of care (such as nutritional and emotional) increase the predisposition of the child to develop diseases.

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 01:18 PM

Are these kidney transplant patients all just on poppers?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10342315&dopt=Citation

Coincidence again?No, at first glance, this looks pretty good at showing the link between a depressed immune system and KS. But...
- It does not disprove any link between poppers and KS
- It does not prove a supposed link between HIV and KS (which is discredited)
- What about other, so called "opportunistic diseases" such as PCP in transplant patients?

kellyb

19th July 2007, 01:19 PM

So... the children of HIV-positive mothers had basically blood taken from them every opportunity. I don't think that the practice of taking blood samples from newborns is particularly healthy to them, and I hypothesize this may falsify the results.
Let's look at the resuls again:

http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GfpPS581ynNL1hmf1dYHFp5Lq8Gqg TvRfpwsQvCn2FvdLpJt1zZy!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

Methods: Children enrolled in the ZVITAMBO trial were divided into 5 groups: those born to HIV-negative mothers (NE, n = 9510), those born to HIV-positive mothers but noninfected (NI, n = 3135), those infected in utero (IU, n = 381), those infected intrapartum (IP, n = 508), and those infected postnatally (PN, n = 258). Their mortality was estimated.

Results: Two-year mortality was 2.9% (NE infants), 9.2% (NI), 67.5% (IU), 65.1% (IP), and 33.2% (PN). Between 8 weeks and 6 months, mortality in IU infants quintupled (from 309 to 1686/1000 c-y). The median time from infection to death was 208, 380, and >500 days for IU, IP, and PN infants, respectively. Among NI children, advanced maternal disease was predictive of mortality. Acute respiratory infection was the major cause of death.

All babies having the same amount of blood taken.
Mortality in babies not infected, but with HIV positive mothers: 9.2%
Babies infected in the womb or during labor: 67.5% - 65.1%

Why the difference, W?
Coincidence again?

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 01:23 PM

It's unethical to use large numbers of primates for such studies, 6 is sufficient to answer the question.
Lymphadenopathy is not just swollen lymph nodes but a disease of the lymph nodes indicative of AIDS.
I thought you said CD4 decline was not a good marker for HIV/AIDS?
The macaques are held in very clean conditons so there is limited exposure to other pathogens to trigger opportunistic diseases.
No need to use controls, what would they be anyway? Naive uninfected animals? The question is does this virus preparation infect macaques and cause AIDS-like symptoms, why the need to control for that?... you are seriously asking "Why do we need a big sample?" ... You are seriously asking "Why do we need controls?" ... Because swollen lymph nodes might be a common condition in lab monkeys? Because swollen lymph nodes is not an AIDS defining disease? Because with such a small sample, and without controls, we must dismiss any "knowledge" gained from the experiment as not posessing any [Whats the word?]

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 01:25 PM

Let's look at the resuls again:

http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GfpPS581ynNL1hmf1dYHFp5Lq8Gqg TvRfpwsQvCn2FvdLpJt1zZy!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

All babies having the same amount of blood taken.
Mortality in babies not infected, but with HIV positive mothers: 9.2%
Babies infected in the womb or during labor: 67.5% - 65.1%

Why the difference, W?
Coincidence again?Correlation does not imply causality, regardless of the amount of assertion provided.

kellyb

19th July 2007, 01:29 PM

No, Status means just that: The kid is HIV infected or not.
Please read it!
HIV causes substantial mortality among African children but there is limited data on how this is influenced by maternal or infant infection status and timing
And then....

HIV-positive mothers with more advanced disease are not only more likely to infect their infants, but their infants are more likely to die, whether infected or not:

Nope
Obviously.

You mean Immunoincompetent?
No. I mean immunocompetent. As in "the way newborns have survived for millions of years".

You mean that the mother would become a virus-spoting infectionmachine, which would severely weaken the child. I think far more realistic is to assume that a severely sick mother has more problems caring for her child, and the lack of care (such as nutritional and emotional) increase the predisposition of the child to develop diseases.

That could have a lot to do with it, too. It's probably very complex.

kellyb

19th July 2007, 01:33 PM

Correlation does not imply causality, regardless of the amount of assertion provided.

Which is why we have BIOLOGY.

So you actually are implying that it was just a coincidence?

kellyb

19th July 2007, 01:45 PM

No, at first glance, this looks pretty good at showing the link between a depressed immune system and KS. But...
- It does not disprove any link between poppers and KS
- It does not prove a supposed link between HIV and KS (which is discredited)
- What about other, so called "opportunistic diseases" such as PCP in transplant patients?

But it does (basically) "prove" that it is HHV8 that is the primary cause of KS, right?
All human herpes viruses can either be active or latent. The go dormant for long periods of time, and re-emerge when people have suppressed immune systems (for whatever reason...old age, other infections, immunosupressive drugs, etc.)

Do you or do not agree that HHV8 causes KS? Like "chickenpox (varicella) causes shingles"? Or would you also throw a fit over the chickenpox virus causing shingles?

robinson

19th July 2007, 01:54 PM

Just curious. Has any HIV/AIDS denialist volunteered to be infected with the HIV virus to prove their point?

This is from memory, but I believe the challenge was to Gallo himself. The deal was simple. I will inject myself with HIV, extracted from an AIDS patient, if you will take AZT for the rest of your life. We will compare who gets sick, how fast, and document what happens. Gallo declined, and the issue of HIV from an infected patient was a problem, because it is impossible to extract enough HIV from a person to be meaningful. You can't just isloate HIV from an infected person, you have to grow it in a lab, using chemicals that cause HIV to replicate, and T-cells for it to grow in.

A HIV infected person is full of antibodies, and the amount of HIV is so small, nobody has ever isloated it from serum or tissue.

HIV test either test for antibodies, or they amplify the amount of HIV through artificial means, until you get enough of it to analyze.

Indeed yes, Duesberg volunteered to have himself infected with HIV, but nobody's taken him up on that.

Several people offered, the same problem comes up. There is no way to actually extract HIV from a person. So it is impossible to just transfer pure HIV from an infected person to a non infected person.

Duesberg did indeed make this offer about 10 years ago. he quickly withdrew it when someone offere to call his bluff, saying that no-one could guarantee that the HIV preparation he would be given was pure enough by his criteria to mean there was no possible contamination with any other substance.

That is close to the truth. As I said, the problem was nobody can isolate HIV from an infected person. You wouldn't be able to get enough to make it worth your while to try and infect somebody.

Anybody that can isolate pure HIV from human tissue, they are eligible for a 10,000 Pound prize. So far, nobody has claimed the money, instead insisting isolating live, infectious HIV from human tissue is a waste of time.
http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/46.html

Furthermore, if you can isolate HIV, and show a test that works for detecting actual HIV, you win another 25,000$ dollars.
http://whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/award.html

Actually, you don't even have to do anything, just show us the study that was done. Where HIV was isolated from an infected person, photographed with an Electron Microscope. You know, like every other virus in the known Universe.
:wackywink:

robinson

19th July 2007, 02:00 PM

All babies having the same amount of blood taken.
Mortality in babies not infected, but with HIV positive mothers: 9.2%
Babies infected in the womb or during labor: 67.5% - 65.1%

Why the difference, W?
Coincidence again?

There is something odd about that study. Before I start in on it, does anybody else notice this?

JoeEllison

19th July 2007, 02:26 PM

Ummmm... they isolated the virus back in 1983. Two groups, independently.

robinson, you're spreading lies. You've been bamboozled.

robinson

19th July 2007, 02:29 PM

The official debunking page.

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

Dude, do you know what the Devils Advocate tag means?

Of course he does, he is just trolling

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 02:36 PM

There is something odd about that study. Before I start in on it, does anybody else notice this?There's several things very odd with this study. For example that they perform double-elisa + western blot on the parents, but PCR on the kids, or the extremely high mortality on not just the "HIV-seropositive" infants, but all infants, but what do you mean? Do you have a hunch?

JoeEllison

19th July 2007, 02:36 PM

The official debunking page.

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

Dude, do you know what the Devils Advocate tag means?

Of course he does, he is just trolling

Apparently, I've been bamboozled!

BTW, a quick Google search pops up a link to an isloation kit. (http://www.miltenyibiotec.com/en/PG_563_654_Novel_options_for_HIV_research_MACS_Vit alVirus_HIV_Isolation_Kit.aspx)

I guess some folks will say that they are only pretending to isolate HIV, because it doesn't really exist.

Capsid

19th July 2007, 02:43 PM

... you are seriously asking "Why do we need a big sample?" ... You are seriously asking "Why do we need controls?" ... Because swollen lymph nodes might be a common condition in lab monkeys? Because swollen lymph nodes is not an AIDS defining disease? Because with such a small sample, and without controls, we must dismiss any "knowledge" gained from the experiment as not posessing any [Whats the word?]So you don't think this was looked at before? Looking for lymphadenopathy in macaques that already have it, whoa those crazy scientists!

Dabljuh

19th July 2007, 03:00 PM

Several people offered, the same problem comes up. There is no way to actually extract HIV from a person. So it is impossible to just transfer pure HIV from an infected person to a non infected person.From memory, I believe it is estimated that you require at least 100 virions to infect someone successfully. (Wouldn't it be easier to just transfer CD4 cells and macrophages which produce roughly 100 virions each per day to cause an infection?)

kellyb

19th July 2007, 03:12 PM

The first electron microscopy picture of an HIV virus, in tissue taken right out of a human.

http://www.microbiology.wustl.edu/training/courses/molvir/pdf/barre03.pdf

robinson

19th July 2007, 03:18 PM

From memory, I believe it is estimated that you require at least 100 virions to infect someone successfully. (Wouldn't it be easier to just transfer CD4 cells and macrophages which produce roughly 100 virions each per day to cause an infection?)

Macrophages don't produce HIV unless chemically stimulated. An infected T-Cell has antibodies locking up the HIV particles. So you would be injecting all kinds of stuff, not just pure HIV.

If that isn't true, I'm sure somebody smarter than I am will correct that damn Devil.

More debunking.
http://www.aids.org/atn/a-277-07.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVm3moZo_g
http://www.skepticfiles.org/skmag/32harris.htm

Remember, there are many people with HIV over 20 years now, with no symptoms of AIDS. Injecting yourself with HIV doesn't mean you will ever get AIDS. That myth is long debunked.

While dire predictions about death from a needlestick, or sex, have been pretty much abandoned, sex ed still teaches AIDS is a huge risk.

And for the record, all these sites that keep saying "HIV deaths" really need a clue. HIV does not kill you. AIDS, a description of a cluster of symptoms, does not kill you. Some bacteria, fungi, vanver or virus kills you. Or liver failure, starvation or respiratory failure kills you.

Nobody has ever died from HIV. You die when your immune system can't win.

Or you get hit by a truck or something.

robinson

19th July 2007, 03:26 PM

The first electron microscopy picture of an HIV virus, in tissue taken right out of a human.

http://www.microbiology.wustl.edu/training/courses/molvir/pdf/barre03.pdf

Sorry, if you read the text, it is obvious that was from a culture, not isolated from serum or tissue. Even then, it took a lot of effort to get the HIV to reproduce.

kellyb

19th July 2007, 03:30 PM

This is an interesting MO you've developed in this thread as of late, robinson.
:)

Devil's Advocate: "Macrophages don't produce HIV unless chemically stimulated. An infected T-Cell has antibodies locking up the HIV particles. So you would be injecting all kinds of stuff, not just pure HIV."

I think you're mixing up macrophages and lymphocytes there...

kellyb

19th July 2007, 03:36 PM

Sorry, if you read the text, it is obvious that was from a culture, not isolated from serum or tissue. Even then, it took a lot of effort to get the HIV to reproduce.

It says "a sample from a lymph node biopsy taken from a patient with generalized lymphadenopathy"

As far as "a lot of effort" goes...it always takes additional cells for the viruses to infect to grow a virus. That's totally standard. You're not going to get anything better for any other virus culture for anything out there. It's just the way it works.

Capsid

19th July 2007, 03:45 PM

[da]Macrophages don't produce HIV unless chemically stimulated. An infected T-Cell has antibodies locking up the HIV particles. So you would be injecting all kinds of stuff, not just pure HIV.
Where did you get that from? B cells make antibodies not T cells.

korenyx

19th July 2007, 07:15 PM

Robinson & Dabljuh: Are you saying that people can have all of the unprotected sex they want with an HIV+ person because: 1) HIV does not cause AIDS and 2) HIV is not an STD.
This is what I'm hearing from your arguments. Please let me know if I misuderstood.

Reading about AIDS always reminds me of the Van Halen video for Right Now. One shot is of a condom and the text says: Right now nothing is more expensive than regret.

Kore.

robinson

19th July 2007, 07:32 PM

kellyb

19th July 2007, 09:03 PM

It's sexually transmitted quite a bit like HepB. HepB's not a "normal, highly infectious" STI, either, though. But it's still (technically) an STD/STI.

robinson

19th July 2007, 09:19 PM

kellyb

19th July 2007, 09:44 PM

Compare and contrast:

http://depts.washington.edu/wswstd/lesbian_health_information.htm

HepB
Hepatitis B is not spread by food, water or casual contact. Transmission between female partners has not been studied, but has occurred. *Hepatitis B is preventable by vaccination: ask your health provider

HIVTransmission WTW: while there is little research or documentation on this topic, the medical literature does have case reports of WTW sexual transmission of HIV. The most likely sources for transmission are menstrual blood, vaginal discharge when there is vaginitis (there are more white blood cells containing HIV present then), and traumatic sex practices. However, more research is urgently needed in this area; none of these mechanisms, or their relative risk, have been directly studied yet.

Looks like with both...can happen, has happened, still quite rare.
Lesbians are one of the most "protected" groups when it comes to STDs. None of the ST pathogens have really evolved in a way that "works" with lesbian sex. Herpes viruses might be the exception, in addition to a few bacteria.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 11:23 PM

Skeptigirl, at least now I understand your bias. You work in the field, you have given out advice to actually sick people, and you have given death sentences to healthy people. If that all would turn out to be wrong, could you live with yourself? Could you live with the parents of the kid you told was "HIV positive" and killed himself afterwards, knocking on your door and asking for an apology? I mean, you even believe yourself HIV is a death sentence, when the data is fairly clear that there is a significant number of people who live happily ever after being HIV positive. You even believe HIV would be an STD, and display problems coping with evidence to the contrary.My only bias is toward an evidence based view of the world. You have an absurd rationalization as to why you are choosing to ignore the evidence. You need to ask yourself why it is you are attracted to an unsupported (by evidence) version of reality. You have chosen to accept a reality based purely on your established beliefs. The trouble with that is your evidence then is merely your imagination.

Take your version of my reality. What kids with HIV committing suicide are you talking about? I don't personally know a single HIV infected person who has committed suicide. And I would be ecstatic to be able to tell someone with HIV we were wrong. Your version of reality is purely an imaginary one you have built for yourself.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you would continue twisting the facts to fit your reality. I'm not quite sure what you gain from living in your fantasy world. I wonder if you are just stuck there or if it serves some purpose for you.

We all have a slightly different version of reality, each of our brains interprets the world around us in an individual way. For some people, that interpretation is completely distorted. Those would be people we consider psychotic. For others the interpretation is distorted but not enough to actually leave reality altogether. That would be people like you.

For whatever reason, you are unable to distinguish between valid evidence and your imaginary version of the evidence. That differs considerably from people who merely lack education. For those people, if they are shown what evidence they have missed and why the evidence they were relying on was wrong, they are capable of interpreting the new evidence.

But in your case you simply take whatever evidence there is and twist it into your conspiracy theory. For most of us, we fit the evidence into our own versions of the world, but those versions are close enough to the actual world that we make sense to each other, we function with the same basic world view and it reinforces the fact we are interpreting the evidence with a high degree of accuracy.

You are taking the evidence which is all around you and making it fit into your fantasy version of reality. That evidence, when studies are repeated by researchers from all over the world and from all walks of life, is consistently reproduceable. The vast majority of the scientific community comes to the same conclusions. But you ignore that fact. You imagine every single person who draws a different conclusion than you do has some conspired motive to do so. Accordingly, only you and a handful of people do not have these conspired motives.

The evidence is what proves the case. Doucheberg and Mullis have had more than a decade now and they have been proved wrong, not the other way around. You are stuck in the past. At a minimum, you need to bring your science up to date. But before you can do that you need to recognize how far fetched your conspiracy is just looking at the scale you imagine it on. It is virtually impossible for such a conspiracy to exist. It would literally have to involve millions of people in every country all over the world. Every doctor, nurse, lab tech, university student, and researcher who has anything to do with HIV in every country in the world would have to be in on the conspiracy.

Tell me everyone and how many people are running this scam? I assume you think some of them are doing it unconsciously. So how many know it is a scam and how many people are just in denial? How is it every single HIV researcher can't see their bias? Why would only a handful of people call this scam a scam? All that research out there looking at HIV and the immune system from a molecular and genetic level and these guys are what? Afraid of the unemployment line?

You need to think about the scale of this conspiracy you have imagined. It is impossible.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 11:35 PM

...
Looks like with both...can happen, has happened, still quite rare.
Lesbians are one of the most "protected" groups when it comes to STDs. None of the ST pathogens have really evolved in a way that "works" with lesbian sex. Herpes viruses might be the exception, in addition to a few bacteria.You have to consider also that the sexual contacts of this group are much more limited than hetero and especially male homo sex. The gay male community were having hundreds of casual partners when HIV pandemic took off. Aside from gay female IVD users and/or prostitutes, most gay women are not exposed to hundreds of different partners nor are their partners exposed to hundreds of partners. So just on chance encounters alone, they are fewer.

Then you have less exchange of body fluids when there is no semen. That leaves oral exposure are being the biggest risk and it also has less risk when semen isn't swallowed. So there is still some body fluid exchanged but many fewer specific risk factors in this group.

kellyb

19th July 2007, 11:40 PM

Well put, Skeptigirl.

ETA:
Referring to post 425 there. :)

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 11:41 PM

Well, technically HIV is transmitted by sex. But female to female transmission is almost unheard of. Is that true for HBV? I will be the first to admit I don't know much about STDs, or the risk of getting them.Hepatitis B isn't frequently transmitted by regular sex but it does occur. The most frequent means of transmission in the US is via IVD use and anal intercourse. In areas of the world where the disease is more frequent, contaminated needles such as used in tattoo parlors and body piercing, contaminated medical equipment (big problem reusing disposable needles), unsafe blood products, and from mother to infant are the most common means of transmission.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 11:43 PM

Well put, Skeptigirl.

ETA:
Referring to post 425 there. :)Thanks, maybe a little preachy but I thought it time to get to the actual issue here. Just pointing out the evidence wasn't making any difference. Not that my post will either but at least it is addressing the real issue. The real issue isn't a debate about the evidence. That debate was over long ago. The real issue in this thread is about false beliefs and conspiracy fantasies.

kellyb

19th July 2007, 11:45 PM

You have to consider also that the sexual contacts of this group are much more limited than hetero and especially male homo sex. The gay male community were having hundreds of casual partners when HIV pandemic took off. Aside from gay female IVD users and/or prostitutes, most gay women are not exposed to hundreds of different partners nor are their partners exposed to hundreds of partners. So just on chance encounters alone, they are fewer.

Then you have less exchange of body fluids when there is no semen. That leaves oral exposure are being the biggest risk and it also has less risk when semen isn't swallowed. So there is still some body fluid exchanged but many fewer specific risk factors in this group.

What really trips me out is how certain religious group use the rate of STDs in male homosexuals as verification that Gawd Awlmighty hates it.

God must really love lesbians then, huh?

:p

kellyb

19th July 2007, 11:53 PM

Thanks, maybe a little preachy but I thought it time to get to the actual issue here. Just pointing out the evidence wasn't making any difference. Not that my post will either but at least it is addressing the real issue. The real issue isn't a debate about the evidence. That debate was over long ago. The real issue in this thread is about false beliefs and conspiracy fantasies.

I just want to know why?
I can understand belief in homeopathy. It gives people a sense of power over life and death and illness, and a sense that there's a deeper, mysterious rhyme and reason at work in the world.
Ghosts go with the afterlife, which would be nifty. Same with OBE's and NDE's.

But what's the HIV thing about???

Just the ego boost from feeling like you're in on some big secret the "common man" is too simple minded and gullible to see? The repeated accusations of "junk science" leads me to believe it might be it. I guess?

It's perplexing.

Skeptic Ginger

19th July 2007, 11:55 PM

If I am saying something, you would have no doubt about what I am saying. The evidence shows that HIV is not transmitted like any other STD, and even if you are infected, it doesn't mean you will get AIDS.

As to having unprotected sex with somebody who is HIV+, no thank you.You are contradicting yourself here. If it isn't transmitted like any other STD, what specifically are the differences? Because HIV is indeed transmitted like any other STD. I believe you are confused about the degree of contagiousness vs means of transmission.

TB is not very contagious. You have to breathe in a lot of bacilli for enough of them to make it into the alveoli of your lung to begin to grow. Yet TB has infected somewhere between a third and a quarter of the human population. Only 10% of those infected develop disease.

Hepatitis B is extremely infectious. It has been suggested a single virus is enough to infect a person. Only ~5% of people infected will experience acute hepatitis. It is extremely severe and ~1% will die. Of the rest, ~10% become carriers usually without experiencing acute hepatitis. 85% of those infected will clear the virus without symptoms and without becoming a carrier or having an increased risk of liver cancer in the future.

This is just how infectious diseases work. There is nothing mysterious about HIV. Perhaps you also need to bring your science up to date. It sounds like you are operating on information you heard in the 80s.

Skeptic Ginger

20th July 2007, 12:02 AM

Correlation does not imply causality, regardless of the amount of assertion provided.No but if you keep doing the research you can determine if it is a correlation or a cause. That research has been done, repeated, and predictions tested.

The evidence is overwhelming. Douchberg and Mullis have had more than enough time to prove their theories. They haven't been able to. Remember it is the evidence which cannot be silenced. It eventually resolves the debates. It has resolved this one. You can believe your fantasy but the rest of the world has moved on.

Skeptic Ginger

20th July 2007, 01:01 AM

....
That is close to the truth. As I said, the problem was nobody can isolate HIV from an infected person. You wouldn't be able to get enough to make it worth your while to try and infect somebody.

Anybody that can isolate pure HIV from human tissue, they are eligible for a 10,000 Pound prize. So far, nobody has claimed the money, instead insisting isolating live, infectious HIV from human tissue is a waste of time.
http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/46.html

Furthermore, if you can isolate HIV, and show a test that works for detecting actual HIV, you win another 25,000$ dollars.
http://whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/award.html

Actually, you don't even have to do anything, just show us the study that was done. Where HIV was isolated from an infected person, photographed with an Electron Microscope. You know, like every other virus in the known Universe.
:wackywink:Gimme the money.

HIV escaping a helper T cell from Scientific American (http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/HIV-1.html)http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg

Figure 11 Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) – Electron microscopy offers the advantage to study HIV in great detail. It is often used to study the life cycle of this special lentivirus, the pathway of viral entry, assembly of the vision, and variations caused by gene mutations. This EM image shows a group of HIV visions, and a viral budding at the cell surface. (http://www.med.upenn.edu/bmcrc/morph/gallery.shtml?Fig-11-HIV)http://www.med.upenn.edu/bmcrc/morph/images/Fig-11-HIV.jpg

Or try this link, the images were too large. Above: HIV in tissue culture, bold arrow indicates viral budding; Below: An individual viron; note the dense core particle. (http://it.stlawu.edu/~tbudd/virus.html)

Visualization of retrovirus budding with correlated light and electron microscopy (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0504812102v1.pdf)

That HIV deniers web page is a propaganda scam. I'm sure they have the same excuses as our resident HIV denier, 'W'. Just the claim alone is bogus. There is nothing about an in vivo image of HIV (which is the Google search I used to find these images) which proves any more than all the other evidence. There is no $25,000. Those folks are not offering a real debunking the debunkers reward like Randi's. They are twisted thinkers and nothing more.

Skeptic Ginger

20th July 2007, 01:06 AM

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 01:56 AM

Taffer

20th July 2007, 02:32 AM

So... the children of HIV-positive mothers had basically blood taken from them every opportunity. I don't think that the practice of taking blood samples from newborns is particularly healthy to them, and I hypothesize this may falsify the results.

Please provide evidence that this is the case.

Secondly, all infants, even ones that ultimately are HIV negative, have blood samples taken. HIV positive infants have a significantly higher mortality rate then HIV negative infants born of HIV positive parents. Thus, HIV still greatly effects the mortality rate of infants, even if there is an underlying "positive bias" because of them taking blood samples. Of course, you need to prove that taking blood samples of infants leads to a mortalilty increase anyway.

Different standards. African Hospitals may just tag "Uh, AIDS" on the report when kids die, making the entire study worthless.

Listen to what I am saying, W. The infants were NEVER given "AIDS" as a cause of death! I have already posted the section of the paper which talks about this. This study deals with HIV, not AIDS.

As a general rule, I don't trust anybody. Not even myself. In this particular case, the problem is not of trust but I can't study the study without access to the fulltext article.

I have posted most of the relevent sections which answer your objections.

Just as an aside, I would never mis-quote, deliberately quote-mine or make up results and pretend they are from the paper. I am morally objected to such behaviour when it comes to science. I think a few others on these boards would back up my statement, and there are others on these boards who will have access to the same papers.

The ultimate problem is, you just don't want to believe this study.

This study shows that being born of an HIV positive mother effects mortality rate, and being HIV positive greatly effects mortality rate. The statistical association is so strong, that nothing short of another, tested, hypothesis would discount this paper.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 02:39 AM

One thing I just noticed reading the abstract of the study (http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GfXc1M5jQhzqlNQhkD2pP92TpQwvj rSskyNpyJQwJgcGs5hKTpFL!675572714!181195628!8091!-1) again:
Translates to: HIV causes substantial mortality amongst african children, though we have no clue if the kids actually need to be infected with HIV for it to work its destructive magic:

It is obvious: The HI-Virus is so evil it even kills people it doesn't infect.

No, that's not true at all. They measured both mortality of HIV negative infants who were born of HIV positive mothers, and HIV positive infants. The mortality increase is marked in the former case, and greatly higher even then that in the latter case.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 02:42 AM

Correlation does not imply causality, regardless of the amount of assertion provided.

You need to read up on your statistics.

Correlation is used everywhere. Sure, it never proves causality, but given that science never "proves" anything anyway, this isn't a problem. Correlation without statistical tests means nothing. Correlation with statistical tests means everything.

I do genetics. Large swaths of genes are found using correlation and statistical tests.

Deetee

20th July 2007, 02:59 AM

Anybody that can isolate pure HIV from human tissue, they are eligible for a 10,000 Pound prize. So far, nobody has claimed the money, instead insisting isolating live, infectious HIV from human tissue is a waste of time.
http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/46.html

Furthermore, if you can isolate HIV, and show a test that works for detecting actual HIV, you win another 25,000$ dollars.
http://whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/award.html

Paradoxically, the ultimate devil's advocate concerning HIV isolation was Duesberg himself (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdreplyep.htm). :D
In 1996 he tried to claim the money offered for providing evidence that HIV has been isolated. (The first award above - variously known as the "Papadopoulos-Lanka" award or the Continuum award and upped to $25k)
He said:I will argue that HIV exists, and has been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that (i) it has been isolated - even from its own virion structure - in the form of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and (ii) that HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in uninfected human cells. In view of this I can base my claim for the isolation of HIV on the most rigorous method available to date, i.e. molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNASince infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected human cells that is free of HIV's own proteins and RNA as well as from all cellular macromolecules, HIV isolation has passed the most vigorous standards available today. But because only 1 in 100 T-cells are ever infected in humans, virtually all such studies use Kary Mullis' polymerase chain reaction, a technique that is designed to amplify a DNA-needle into a DNA-haystack. Such efforts have confirmed the existence of HIV-specific DNA in most (not all) antibody-positive persons with and without AIDS - but not in the DNA of antibody-negative people. For example Jackson et al have tested blood of 409 antibody-posuitives including 144 AIDS patients and 265 healthy people. In addition 131 antibody-negatives were tested. HIV-specific DNA subsets - defined in size and sequence by HIV-specific primers (start signals for the selective amplification) - were found in 403 of the 409 antibody-positives, but in none of the 131 antibody-negative people
In Conclusion
HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer. An infectious DNA of 9.15 kilo bases (kb) has been cloned from the cells of HIV-antibody-positive persons, that - upon transfection - induces the synthesis of an unique retrovirus. This DNA "isolates" HIV from all cellular molecules, even from viral proteins and RNA. Having cloned infectious DNA of HIV is as much isolation of HIV as one could possibly get. The retrovirus encoded by this infectious DNA reacts with the same antibodies that cross-react with Montagnier's global HIV standard, produced by immortal cell lines in many labs and companies around the world for the HIV-test. This confirms the existence of the retrovirus HIV.
The uniqueness of HIV is confirmed by the detection of HIV-specific DNA sequences in the DNA of most antibody positive people. The same DNA is not found in uninfected humans, and the probability to find such a sequence in any DNA sample is 1 in 4E9500 - which is much less likely than to encounter the same water molecule twice by swimming in the Pacific ocean every day of your life.
The existence of an unique retrovirus HIV provides a plausible explanation for the good (not perfect) correlation between the existence of HIV DNA and antibodies against it in thousands of people that have been subjected to both tests. The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge fails to explain this correlation.
Ergo: The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge is rejected. HIV exists and has been isolated. *

Despite providing the evidence, Duesberg could not persuade them to pay him the money. As with all denialist offers, the goalposts just kept moving to render any claim unacceptable.

Deetee

20th July 2007, 03:10 AM

Gimme the money.
Sorry, Duesberg got there first! (See above - he didn't get the money either)

Providing EMs of HIV won't satisfy the denialists either - they just claim they see "microvesicles", not virions.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 04:55 AM

There's several things very odd with this study. For example that they perform double-elisa + western blot on the parents, but PCR on the kids, or the extremely high mortality on not just the "HIV-seropositive" infants, but all infants, but what do you mean? Do you have a hunch?

Do you have any evidence that any of the things you've mentioned above should be worried about?

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 05:05 AM

Please provide evidence that this is the case.No. I consider it self-evident that bleeding detrimental to an infant's health. In addition: You are asking for "Evidence" but then you are satisfied by papers. Evidence looks different, papers are just reports and opinions of other people.
Secondly, all infants, even ones that ultimately are HIV negative, have blood samples taken.I read the study that only the kids of HIV positive mothers had blood samples taken.
Listen to what I am saying, W. The infants were NEVER given "AIDS" as a cause of death! I have already posted the section of the paper which talks about this. This study deals with HIV, not AIDS.Yes you have posted the section of the paper. It said the hospitals records were used. If there were no records, they used their own guy, who would never use "AIDS" as a diagnosis, to interview the doctors.
Just as an aside, I would never mis-quote, deliberately quote-mine or make up results and pretend they are from the paper. I am morally objected to such behaviour when it comes to science. I think a few others on these boards would back up my statement, and there are others on these boards who will have access to the same papers.That is about I judge you to judge yourself. Of course you wouldn't do any deliberate misinterpretation, neither would I, would I?

The ultimate problem is, you just don't want to believe this study.
This study shows that being born of an HIV positive mother effects mortality rate, and being HIV positive greatly effects mortality rate. The statistical association is so strong, that nothing short of another, tested, hypothesis would discount this paper.As robinson has said earlier. There's a couple things very odd with this study. I'm not going to accept this study easily or without much scrutiny.

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 05:11 AM

Do you have any evidence that any of the things you've mentioned above should be worried about?Not really, it's just very odd. PCR is viewed as the "gold standard" of HIV tests. They tested the Mothers, once, with double-ELISA (and in the case of discordant results, a western blot), and then they test the kids - repeatedly - with PCR. Would you do it that way? Wouldn't it make more sense, since you appear to have access to a vast number of PCR tests, to test everyone with the same test? Why would they do it the way they did? It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Belz...

20th July 2007, 05:28 AM

That has never happened. You are speculating here.You haven't read most of the thread, have you? Basically the argument is that in africa, "AIDS" is just an umbrella for diseases which happened already a lot before the HIV scare.

They wouldn't die quite so often of those diseases if their immune system worked, would they ?

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 05:29 AM

They wouldn't die quite so often of those diseases if their immune system worked, would they ?Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?

Belz...

20th July 2007, 05:35 AM

Sexually transmitted diseases such as syphillis usually transmit about once per ~3-4 or so unprotected acts. HIV transmits, at the very best, once in 1000-2000 unprotected acts.

Huh ?

Is it my imagination, W, or do you simply hand-wave every evidence that exists by simply stating that it could be wrong ?

Why are you so invested in this theory of yours ?

Belz...

20th July 2007, 05:36 AM

Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?

Answer the question, W. Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?

Taffer

20th July 2007, 05:38 AM

No. I consider it self-evident that bleeding detrimental to an infant's health.

How much blood is taken?

In addition: You are asking for "Evidence" but then you are satisfied by papers. Evidence looks different, papers are just reports and opinions of other people.

Peer-review journal articles are descriptions of the evidence. That's what the "results" section is for, W. Only the "Discussion" section is the opinion of the authors.

If you do not accept peer-review articles, then what do you accept?

I read the study that only the kids of HIV positive mothers had blood samples taken.

Even if it was only the kids of HIV positive mothers who had blood samples taken, the difference between the mortality rate of those with HIV and those without HIV within this group is just as telling as comparing the mortality rate to infants born of non-HIV positive mothers.

Yes you have posted the section of the paper. It said the hospitals records were used. If there were no records, they used their own guy, who would never use "AIDS" as a diagnosis, to interview the doctors.

Um, no. Spoken reports were used, yes, but it never said it was "by their own guy". All causes of death were given by independant parties.

That is about I judge you to judge yourself. Of course you wouldn't do any deliberate misinterpretation, neither would I, would I?

I don't know. I'm not calling you a liar, am I? I'm asking for you to provide your proof.

As robinson has said earlier. There's a couple things very odd with this study. I'm not going to accept this study easily or without much scrutiny.

Of course you're not. You do not want to accept it, because then it destroys your silly little world view you hold.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 05:41 AM

Taffer

20th July 2007, 05:42 AM

Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?

The study we have just been discussing clearly shows that HIV is a huge factor in infant mortality.

Or are you suggesting that these results have been falsified as well?

Where are your studies which show the huge effect that all these other factors play in infant mortality of HIV positive infants?

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 05:48 AM

Answer the question, W. Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?Answer the question, do you believe the immune system works when you're starving and living in a world of feces without access to medical supplies?

Taffer

20th July 2007, 05:51 AM

Answer the question, do you believe the immune system works when you're starving and living in a world of feces without access to medical supplies?

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals who die live in situations like this?

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 05:57 AM

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals who die live in situations like this?Evidence that all HIV positive individuals that do not live in conditions such as these, also die?

Capsid

20th July 2007, 06:03 AM

Taffer

20th July 2007, 06:04 AM

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals that do not live in conditions such as these, also die?

The study we have been discussing. Unless you wish to postulate that all infants who died lived in said conditions, and you would have to provide evidence of this, then given the number of of deaths, and the statistical evaluation of said deaths, it is clear that HIV infection affects mortality rate.

If you wish to claim otherwise, either find objection with the paper, or provide counter evidence. I'm more then a little tired of your hand-waving and unsupported claims.

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 06:10 AM

The study we have been discussing. Unless you wish to postulate that all infants who died lived in said conditions, and you would have to provide evidence of this, then given the number of of deaths, and the statistical evaluation of said deaths, it is clear that HIV infection affects mortality rate.

If you wish to claim otherwise, either find objection with the paper, or provide counter evidence. I'm more then a little tired of your hand-waving and unsupported claims.You keep claiming the infant mortality paper (which I have still not reviewed in full) would show evidence for a causal link between HIV infection status and mortality, which is simply not the case. All that's shown is an apparently strong correlation.

I can instantly show you a strong correlation: People in 3rd world countries die more easily than in first world countries, regardless of their HIV status. Now your argument, in support of the HIV-AIDS theory would be that HIV is more prevalent in the third world and thus causes those increased mortality rates. But here's my real question: WHY is there an increased HIV prevalence in the third world?

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 06:21 AM

It may be that neonates do not mount a good antibody response to HIV and the antibody tests (which are very reliable these days) would not be appropriate; therfore a PCR test is necessary (but more expensive so not used for the mothers) to confirm the HIV+ status.Good enough for me (But still odd)

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 06:51 AM

I just want to know why?
I can understand belief in homeopathy. It gives people a sense of power over life and death and illness, and a sense that there's a deeper, mysterious rhyme and reason at work in the world.
Ghosts go with the afterlife, which would be nifty. Same with OBE's and NDE's.I'd say it has to do with a certain, esoteric world view. "Esoteric" can be translated to mean "Knowledge only available to the inner circle" - It's basically a reverse conspiracy theory. In addition, new age fuzzies who believe in Yin and Chi and all that crap have an easier time to believe in homeopathy's "magical properties" than in materialism, which is represented by the establishment of medical science, or some people would even say: materialistic reductionism.

But what's the HIV thing about???The same thing probably, discordance with the basic world view. In my case for example, I have come to become extremely sceptical of all medical sciences, you could call it "medical paranoia" - I don't think homeopathy is anything more than a placebo, but I also am not convinced of several treatments the pharmaceutical establishment offers. Edit: What basically made me like this was my study of the practice of circumcision. I simply came across too many bullpoop papers and studies to equate anything published in a peer reviewed medical journal with "Evidence"...
Just the ego boost from feeling like you're in on some big secret the "common man" is too simple minded and gullible to see? The repeated accusations of "junk science" leads me to believe it might be it. I guess?Nah, I don't care about the common man. I'm about scientific integrity. If you review the scientific interview on HIV, you learn that so much that was considered general knowledge, stuff that was taught in sex ed classes etc, is completely wrong. I don't know about you, but a short while back when I, the first time, looked at the definition of what AIDS is, I realized there's something definitely wrong with the whole story.

Basically, and euphemistically in your view no doubt, I would say this is about scientific integrity. I don't want to believe and act in accordance with crap that's not true.

I have always asserted that I believe there is a realistic possibility that HIV is detrimental to *some* infected people's health, but even if so, the danger that HIV may actually pose is in no relation with the sort of PR it gets. And this sort of PR has also prevented the "science establishment" from making realistic assessments of HIV's actual danger. If you just look at the studies that investigate sexual transmission of HIV, you realize it's hilarious to call this a "sexually transmitted disease"

But this has more ramifications. If it's not really an STD, why did almost only the gay guys get it? If the other studies are false and it is an STD, why didn't it spread into the general population? Or did it? And then we have "african HIV" which supposedly acts completely different from "first-world-HIV"?

Eventually you realize the shocking truth: The virus is in fact a miniature clone of Fred Phelps, hating the gays and the blacks. Or something. I mean eventually you build up a theory when you try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 07:47 AM

You keep claiming the infant mortality paper (which I have still not reviewed in full) would show evidence for a causal link between HIV infection status and mortality, which is simply not the case. All that's shown is an apparently strong correlation.

The causal link would be, in my mind, the fact that HIV damages the immune system.

Also, often in science all we ever get are strong correlations.

I can instantly show you a strong correlation: People in 3rd world countries die more easily than in first world countries, regardless of their HIV status. Now your argument, in support of the HIV-AIDS theory would be that HIV is more prevalent in the third world and thus causes those increased mortality rates. But here's my real question: WHY is there an increased HIV prevalence in the third world?

This has nothing to do with the paper. The paper shows a correlation between infant mortality within a third world country. It does not compare the mortality rate to first world countries, as you seem to be implying here. It is simply relative of other people, all within the same socio-economic status, who do not have HIV. It shows a clear link between HIV infection and infant mortality.

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 07:51 AM

all within the same socio-economic status, who do not have HIV.Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 07:58 AM

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 08:00 AM

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

Wow, you really are that ignorant.

Try reading what he wrote again, turn off your bias, and think about it for a second. Because your question makes no sense in light of what he's stated (or of how the study was done).

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 08:08 AM

Wow, you really are that ignorant.

Try reading what he wrote again, turn off your bias, and think about it for a second. Because your question makes no sense in light of what he's stated (or of how the study was done).I think I have understood, and I think my question makes sense. You apparently don't understand why I asked what I asked.

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 08:12 AM

I think I have understood, and I think my question makes sense. You apparently don't understand why I asked what I asked.

I understand exactly why you asked.

I don't understand how your answer would be relevent to a study in which ALL the participants were HIV positive...unless you want to argue that the HIV-negative babies somehow had a higher socio-ecomonic class than their HIV-positive mothers? Did Junior go out and get a job flipping burgers at 3 months? Or finish a college degree and become an executive?

Seriously, reading comprehension is a good skill to have.

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 08:28 AM

I understand exactly why you asked.

I don't understand how your answer would be relevent to a study in which ALL the participants were HIV positive...unless you want to argue that the HIV-negative babies somehow had a higher socio-ecomonic class than their HIV-positive mothers? Did Junior go out and get a job flipping burgers at 3 months? Or finish a college degree and become an executive?

Seriously, reading comprehension is a good skill to have.Haha @ Reading comprehension. Not all participants of the study were HIV infected. Methods: Children enrolled in the ZVITAMBO trial were divided into 5 groups: those born to HIV-negative mothers (NE, n = 9510), those born to HIV-positive mothers but noninfected (NI, n = 3135), those infected in utero (IU, n = 381), those infected intrapartum (IP, n = 508), and those infected postnatally (PN, n = 258). Their mortality was estimated.Which raises the question: Is there a correlation between socio-economic status and HIV infection? Between socio-economic status and mortality? Were these factors taken into consideration?

Here's the actual study (Giving Vitamin A (???) to Mother-child pairs) Link (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102239166.html) Another Link. Ohh look, the HIV+ folks were given Antiretrovirals, too? (http://www.isped.u-bordeaux2.fr/RECHERCHE/GHENT/WWW_BASE/US-GHENT-Detail-of-Trial.asp?CLE_TRIAL=10)

I think I just pwnt that study.

Capsid

20th July 2007, 08:29 AM

Capsid:

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.That's excellent! The PCR has to be done on the infants because they may be scored HIV+ by the HIV specific maternal antibodies.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 08:33 AM

To be fair, Huntsman, the paper does compare the mortality rate of HIV negative infants born of HIV negative mothers to both HIV negative infants born of HIV positive mothers, and HIV positive infants born of HIV positive infants.

However, his question is still pointless:

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

Firstly, is there any reason to believe they wouldn't be of the same socio-economic status?

Secondly, even if you are right and all the HIV negative mothers have higher standards of living, it doesn't matter. A statistically significant increase in mortality between HIV negative and HIV positive infants born of HIV positive mothers is shown in the study.

You will need another explanation.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 08:36 AM

Capsid:

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.

This is an excellent point.

Anymore hand-waving, W?

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 08:36 AM

Haha @ Reading comprehension. Not all participants of the study were HIV infected. Which raises the question: Is there a correlation between socio-economic status and HIV infection? Between socio-economic status and mortality? Were these factors taken into consideration?

Here's the actual study (Giving Vitamin A (???) to Mother-child pairs) Link (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102239166.html)

But, again, it makes no difference. There was a vast difference in the study between HIV- babies born to HIV+ mothers, and HIV+ babies born to HIV+ mothers. The idea that HIV+'s are in a differing socio-economic class would explain exactly nothing in regards to this result. The clear indication here (without counter-evidence or a lot of post hoc rationalization, as you're engaging in), is that HIV+ status increases mortality.

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 08:37 AM

Taffer:

Yes, but we're specifically discussing the difference in mortality rates between HIV+ and HIV- children born to HIV+ mothers. That's the significant difference here (IMHO).

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 08:47 AM

Father Dagon

20th July 2007, 08:52 AM

That has never happened. You are speculating here.It hasn't happended beacuse it's hard and expensive to create and maintain such an environment. And the hiv-positive might prefer to live for 10 years, rather than be a test tube-object for 15 years.

Humans live in a symbiotic relation with the bacterii in the digestive tract. And different people carries different "bacterii soups" in their systems. If you think that it's irrelevant, consider the risks of anallingus and the indians who died of smallpox...You haven't read most of the thread, have you? Basically the argument is that in africa, "AIDS" is just an umbrella for diseases which happened already a lot before the HIV scare. People die to these diseases because of malnutrition, lack of education, lack of medical supplies, lack of sanitation, well, basically, these people die of poverty-related disease. But its much better if they die of AIDS because then a huge number of people make huge amounts of money off these people dying.You haven't understood what hiv/AIDS is about, have you? No informed person is claiming that AIDS is a disease in it's own right, only a partial or total lack of defenses against contagious diseases.

Let's say that USA abolishes its armed forces and liquidiate all their assets. Let's also say that Canada and Mexico turn into dictatorships. (No war between democracies, you know.) In the Canadian-occupied parts of USA, people are forced to enjoy ice hockey. In the Mexican-occupied parts of USA, people are forced to enjoy salsa dance.

Barring the freudian implications of hockey and salsa (showing off in order to find a mate) they have nothing in common. And those parts first invaded by the two states was already more or less influenced by it's neighbour.

But could anyone say that the reasons to the occupations are particular and that they have nothing to do with the abolishment of the armed forces?

And regarding the diseases in Africa, it would be very strange if people with AIDS got "unknown" diseases. Even more strange than if an unarmed USA was invaded by Lichtenstein...

Taffer

20th July 2007, 08:55 AM

Taffer:

Yes, but we're specifically discussing the difference in mortality rates between HIV+ and HIV- children born to HIV+ mothers. That's the significant difference here (IMHO).

Oh, I know that. I was just being as accurate as possible.

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 09:00 AM

Taffer, just out of interest:

Are the antiretrovirals mentioned anywhere in the fulltext article? If so, why have you failed to mention this *interesting* little tidbit? Or have you just overlooked them?

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 09:06 AM

I think you guys missed the part where they gave antiretrovirals to the HIV+ infants and mothers. Since it is part of my hypothesis that antiretrovirals cause more harm than good, any difference in mortality can be explained within the drug-aids hypothesis. Or in other words: PWNT!

Or in other words: You're using one unsupported hyptohesis as proof of another unsupported hypothesis?

Just out of curiosity, which is larger: 0.5 * 0.5, or 0.5 + 0.4? You seem to believe the former.

The more post hoc rationalizations you throw, the less likely your theory is...not more.

Support your claims on antiretrovirals before using that as a basis for argument...so far, all the evidence shows that antiretrovirals work wonders at prolonging lifespan in HIV+ patients.

Taffer

20th July 2007, 09:07 AM

I think you guys missed the part where they gave antiretrovirals to the HIV+ infants and mothers. Since it is part of my hypothesis that antiretrovirals cause more harm than good, any difference in mortality can be explained within the drug-aids hypothesis. Or in other words: PWNT!

Um... no they weren't. :confused:

And the correct past tense of "pwn" is "pwned".

Taffer, just out of interest:

Are the antiretrovirals mentioned anywhere in the fulltext article? If so, why have you failed to mention this *interesting* little tidbit? Or have you just overlooked them?

Yes, it is mentioned. Why haven't I mentioned it? Because none of the individuals in the study were given antiretroviral treatment, as far as I am aware. I just double checked the study, and the only mention of any antiretrovirals were in the context of "we should be giving these people antiretrovirals to stop infant deaths".

I have no idea why you thought they were given ART as part of the study.

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 09:23 AM

By the way, Dbljuh, you need to read the full article before showing your ignorance:
Indeed, mortality was even higher among the infected infants in ZVITAMBO compared with the pooled analysis (50% vs 35% at 12 months and 63% vs 53% at 24 months), no doubt because IU and IP infants made up 77% of the infected infants in ZVITAMBO compared with 39% in the pooled analysis, which included 3 trials providing ARV prophylaxis primarily targeting IP transmission
ZVITAMBO was only one of the trials used (although it provided the majority of the data), and that trial, as stated here, did NOT provide ARV to the HIV+ participants.

Just to add to this, it also showed a CLEAR increase in mortality among those NOT recieving ARV therapy, thus blowing away the second part of your "hypothesis" as well.

What was that you said? Oh yes...

PWNT!

ETA: Now I have to explain to my wife why I spent $27 today...

Thabiguy

20th July 2007, 09:27 AM

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.

This is indeed the case (source (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/417361)):
The interpretation of HIV-1 antibody results in infants who are born to HIV-infected mothers may be difficult because maternal immunoglobulin G (IgG) crosses the placenta. These maternal antibodies can persist for as long as 15 months.[2,9] For this reason, virtually all infants born to ELISA/WB-positive mothers are also ELISA/WB positive.[9] In this situation, other tests are required to determine HIV status. Recommended tests include serial HIV antibody testing of infants up to 15 months of age, p24 antigen testing, and PCR testing.[2,9] PCR is considered the most useful test for determining HIV status in newborns.[10-14] The PCR test itself, when done at 1 month of age or after, has a sensitivity of 95% to 97% and a specificity of 98.6% to 100%.[4,10,12,14]I underlined the important stuff. I also saw the very same thing (about false seropositivity in HIV- infants born to HIV+ mothers) at several general webpages about antibody tests.

Not only is using PCR (as opposed to cheaper ELISA/WB) for newborns not odd, it is necessary. Also, this speaks volumes about the level of knowledge and insight into the matter of someone who finds this practice "odd" and their qualification to question the validity of HIV studies.

Belz...

20th July 2007, 10:53 AM

Answer the question, do you believe the immune system works when you're starving and living in a world of feces without access to medical supplies?

Yes, it does, because the immune system doesn't stop working when you're hungry or cold.

Now, why do you so stubbornly refuse to answer my question ?

Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?

A simple yes or no will do.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 10:57 AM

Yes, it is mentioned. Why haven't I mentioned it? Because none of the individuals in the study were given antiretroviral treatment, as far as I am aware. I just double checked the study, and the only mention of any antiretrovirals were in the context of "we should be giving these people antiretrovirals to stop infant deaths".

I have no idea why you thought they were given ART as part of the study.

Because it's a different study that he's talking about.
The VitA study with the ARVs started around 1997 and ended around 2001, and the one you got the fulltext for was probably just completed last year or this year, and was just published last month.

:rolleyes:

ETA:
About the ZVITAMBO group.
http://research.hopkinsglobalhealth.org/GlobalProjectDetail.cfm?project_id=6246&country_code=ZI

Belz...

20th July 2007, 10:59 AM

Eventually you realize the shocking truth: The virus is in fact a miniature clone of Fred Phelps, hating the gays and the blacks. Or something.

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

WHY is there an increased HIV prevalence in the third world?

How does this change anything ?

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

???

Or in other words: PWNT!

What are you ? 12 ?

I think you guys missed the part where they gave antiretrovirals to the HIV+ infants and mothers. Since it is part of my hypothesis that antiretrovirals cause more harm than good, any difference in mortality can be explained within the drug-aids hypothesis.

Actually, it's called inventing the answer because you think it fits.

JoeEllison

20th July 2007, 11:23 AM

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

I saw this coming about 2 days ago...

Taffer

20th July 2007, 11:48 AM

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 11:55 AM

Because it's a different study that he's talking about.
The VitA study with the ARVs started around 1997 and ended around 2001, and the one you got the fulltext for was probably just completed last year or this year, and was just published last month.

:rolleyes:

ETA:
About the ZVITAMBO group.
http://research.hopkinsglobalhealth.org/GlobalProjectDetail.cfm?project_id=6246&country_code=ZI

Um, kelly. Sorry. The ZVITAMBO study, unless there are more than one, did not provide ARV treatment during the study. At least, that seems (to all indications I can find) to be the case. I have a copy of the mortality study, which is a part of ZVITAMBO and uses the ZVITAMBO trials as part of it's data. It is, specifically, the ZVITAMBO trials that gathered data starting in 1997. I quoted it above, but to re-quote:
This study confirms the main findings of the previous

pooled analysis of 7 African trials.
First, mortality is very high for all HIV-infected children, especially those infected perinatally. Indeed, mortality was even higher among the infected infants in ZVITAMBO compared with the pooled analysis (50% vs 35% at 12 months and 63% vs 53% at 24 months), no doubt because IU and IP infants made up 77% of the infected infants in ZVITAMBO compared with 39% in the pooled analysis, which included 3 trials providing ARV prophylaxis primarily targeting IP transmission.

In fact, if you read that link you so kindly provided, you'll not that they did not begin clinical work until 2001, long after this test was completed.

Do you have the full-text of the actual ZVITAMBO study available?

ETA: Upon re-reading, it seems unclear to me know. I can tell that, at the least, there were some un-treated participants in the ZVITAMBO trials, and the mortality study did seperate these out as a seperate group in the paper and address this issue, at least in passing.

Dang it, I don't want to spend another $27 to get that paper too. Can someone get any other info on it?

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 12:10 PM

On further looking, it appears that only some of the trials in the ZVITAMBO studies were given ARVs, not all. The trial link given by Dubjlah (http://www.isped.u-bordeaux2.fr/RECHERCHE/GHENT/WWW_BASE/US-GHENT-Detail-of-Trial.asp?CLE_TRIAL=10) lists only 110 participants. The first link he gives (in the same post) says nothing about the treatment or non-treatment with ARVs. Consdiering the full run of trials contained over 14,000 mothers and children, I believe this 110 he's pointing to as proof that all of them were given ARVs is simply a subset of the full data.

ETA: Also, considering that Dubljah's link still lists the recruitment start/stop dates and end-of-trial dates as anticipated (from 1997-2001) makes me wonder as to the accurracy of the data there. I'll go by what the memebers of the ZITVAMBO group actually state in their published papers and data, barring any additional, reliable information sources.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 12:19 PM

On further looking, it appears that only some of the trials in the ZVITAMBO studies were given ARVs, not all. The trial link given by Dubjlah (http://www.isped.u-bordeaux2.fr/RECHERCHE/GHENT/WWW_BASE/US-GHENT-Detail-of-Trial.asp?CLE_TRIAL=10) lists only 110 participants. The first link he gives (in the same post) says nothing about the treatment or non-treatment with ARVs. Consdiering the full run of trials contained over 14,000 mothers and children, I believe this 110 he's pointing to as proof that all of them were given ARVs is simply a subset of the full data.

Right. The ZVITAMBO group has done a bunch of studies.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=r&q=ZVITAMBO&as_ylo=1998

Hellbound

20th July 2007, 12:32 PM

kellyb:

Well, they've done a lot of trials, and then several studies all based on various portions (or the whole) of that trial data :)

It's a clearer picture to me now. From what I've seen, all the trials were done in one bunch (from 1997 to 2001), with various conditions and the data recorded for a number of studies of various aspects of this.

IN any case, the mortality study (which used the same data) accounted for the use of ARVs in some of the cases, and recorded when they were used. This shows that ARVs do increase life span (as the HIV+ infants on ARVs had a lower mortality rate than those without), and also removes the "effects" or ARVs as a possible confounder in the data shwoing HIV+ infants to have a much higher mortality rate.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 12:38 PM

Yeah...I think this part:

http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GhQDdFtY7k2TvCpv4v2FrskR7Xsw9 LTlLvqKlN0zgpDG5tcysBtn!-199097273!181195629!8091!-1

HIV-positive mothers with more advanced disease are not only more likely to infect their infants, but their infants are more likely to die, whether infected or not: provision of antiretroviral treatment to pregnant and lactating women is an urgent need for both mothers and their children.

Sort of says it all.

robinson

20th July 2007, 03:45 PM

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?linkVars=SessionID%3D0707201312574680061536004 6%26BROWSER_STATE%3DGMResults%26ORBagentPort%3D146 00%26GM2K_FORM%3DGMResults%26LAST_HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP %3D1184951578950%26UserSearchText%3DZVITAMBO%2Btri al%26sb_action%3DExpand%2BItem%2B%253A%2B1%26HIDDE N_TIMESTAMP%3D1184951596441

It is interesting how a study about the relationship between a disease "HIV infection", and infant mortality, avoids the obvious problem of actually recording and testing for what actually happened. One could have also tested mothers for any of the following endemic diseases, and found a connection between them and infant mortality.

Typhoid fever
Malaria
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis E
Meningococcal meningitis,
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever,
Plague,
Yellow fever
Lassa fever
Japanese Encephalitis
African Trypanosomiasis
Dengue fever
Schistosomiasis,
Leptospirosis

All those, and more, are endemic problems for mothers and babies in the region the study used.

One could add in poor sanitation, lack of food, social isolation, and any number of other factors. Just the effect of ostracism from being HIV+ alone, is probably a huge factor in infant mortality.

But what is most odd, is the number of HIV+ mothers who gave birth to HIV- babies. And that late stage HIV/AIDS was linked to infant mortality, when they didn't have HIV. Lets be clear on this, mothers HIV status effected the chance of baby being dead in the first two years of life.

What does that mean?

If some woo study proving homeopathic treatments worked had this kind of research, it would be shredded on so many levels. But because everybody already knows HIV kills babies, even when they don't have it, we nod our heads and agree, HIV is deadly.

So everybody agrees it is a good study. It would have been a lot better if they had tested everybody involved, for all factors that effect infant mortality, but that would have cost a lot of money.

Now why are we even talking about a study like this? Because there isn't any study showing HIV kills you, by producing AIDS, which is fatal. It has never been done.

I find that odd.

It hasn't been done because animal studies couldn't be done. It hasn't been done with HIV populations either. I find this hard to swallow. You would think that a Pandemic of this proportion, the worst ever known to mankind, would have some basic scientific experiments done.
Every time this issue arises, the same problem shows up. Where is the basic experiment? Where are the peer reviewed studies? Where is the most basic research?

While this may seem ridiculous, because everybody knows HIV causes AIDS which kills you, there is one source of good information. Which as some know, I will now turn to, in the next post.

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 03:56 PM

Alright, apparently the part where it says they used ART is from something other ZVITAMBO, possibly an earlier design of the study.
Yes, it does, because the immune system doesn't stop working when you're hungry or cold.Umm... no. Ever caught a "cold" ? The pathogens that cause the actual symptoms are latent in every person, its the cold that causes constriction of capillar vessels on mucosa and thus prevents the immune system from intervening, thus allowing the pathogens to develop to a point where they cause symptoms. Or so I'm told.
And yes, Hunger causes immune system depression. The body requires a large amount of ressources and chemical energy to fight disease. Ever heard of vitamin C? Wouldn't you agree that it would be correct to call hypovitaminosis-C a (partial) depression of the immune system?
Many other factors also cause immune system depression. For example, (psychological) depression, excessive contact with pathogens, cancer, a wide range of toxins, age etc... In short "Immune system depression" was invented long before HIV came along.
Now, why do you so stubbornly refuse to answer my question ?

Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?I refuse to answer this question because it is a fallacy. The immune system *works* in all cases, "without" an immune system you'd be dead within 1-3 days, even absent of viral or bacterial pathogens (due to body-internal waste processes that are usually regulated by the immune system, but also things like assisting the digestion of proteins). The real question is "is the immune system effective at controlling the pathogens?"

The HIV-AIDS hypothesis states that HIV destroys the CD4+ T-Helper Cell population and thus renders the immune system less effective. However the mechanism by which HIV supposedly destroys the T-Helper cell population is not known (Several posts here to that end only confused speculation with "evidence") but this not necessarily vital to the validity of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, provided a clear, causal case can be made for "HIV destroys the CD4+ T-Helper Cell population", and I remain unconvinced.

In addition, even if the CD4+ T-Helper Cell population could be shown to be causally reduced by HIV, another proof would remain to show that the immune system is helpless against disease without the CD4+ T-Helper Cells. Which it is not: T-Helper Cells are mostly enablers for the rest of the immune system, they are important at speeding up an immune response, but not necessarily vital to it.

Now, "Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease?"... What should I say? Yes? No? I don't know? Your mother!

kellyb

20th July 2007, 04:08 PM

But what is most odd, is the number of HIV+ mothers who gave birth to HIV- babies.

No, that's about in line with what we know. It's not at all unusual.

ETA:
http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/GAP/pa_pmtct.htm

Without intervention, there is a 15-30% risk of a HIV-infected mother transmitting HIV to her child during pregnancy and delivery, and an additional 10-20% risk of transmission through breastfeeding.

And that late stage HIV/AIDS was linked to infant mortality, when they didn't have HIV. Lets be clear on this, mothers HIV status effected the chance of baby being dead in the first two years of life.

Evolutionarily, what do you thing the 'purpose' is for the immune globulins that are delivered across the placenta before birth, and the sIgA and IgG in breastmilk?

How could severe maternal immunosupression affect that system?

kellyb

20th July 2007, 04:24 PM

The HIV-AIDS hypothesis states that HIV destroys the CD4+ T-Helper Cell population and thus renders the immune system less effective. However the mechanism by which HIV supposedly destroys the T-Helper cell population is not known (Several posts here to that end only confused speculation with "evidence") but this not necessarily vital to the validity of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, provided a clear, causal case can be made for "HIV destroys the CD4+ T-Helper Cell population", and I remain unconvinced.
*sigh*
Trying again.
http://biologie.kappa.ro/Literature/Misc_cogsci/Aids/AIDSCD4.pdf

Skeptic Ginger

20th July 2007, 04:30 PM

Not really, it's just very odd. PCR is viewed as the "gold standard" of HIV tests. They tested the Mothers, once, with double-ELISA (and in the case of discordant results, a western blot), and then they test the kids - repeatedly - with PCR. Would you do it that way? Wouldn't it make more sense, since you appear to have access to a vast number of PCR tests, to test everyone with the same test? Why would they do it the way they did? It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.The fact it makes no sense to you is because you don't understand the tests or the science. You should really stop drawing conclusions about things you don't understand because you are drawing false conclusions.

First as far as babies bleeding can't be good in your post above, that is absurd. Taking infants' blood for lab tests has a track record of saving countless babies' lives.

Second, ELISA tests are a screening test. There are false positives but it is a cheaper faster test. So you start by screening people.

Repeating the test is good laboratory practice which is what I assume you mean when you say, "double-ELISA". Repeating tests decreases human caused lab errors.

The Western Blot is a more specific HIV test. There are very few false positives. It is expensive and it saves money to screen people with the ELISA test first.

Both of those tests look for antibodies to the HIVirus. PCR antigen tests look for the actual virus. However, we use PCR antigen tests on infections where not everyone with antibodies also has virus remaining. Hepatitis C is the most common infection I order a PCR antigen for. It tells me if someone who has antibodies to hepatitis C is currently infected. If they were infected in the past but did not become a carrier, just testing antibodies isn't going to tell me that.

For some infections like hepatitis B, there is a reagent test for the virus. So PCR is not needed to determine if the person is currently infected, I can order an HBsAG test instead.

HIV PCR testing is a little more complicated. It was first done because the p24 antigen test became positive earlier in the infection than the antibody test. I only ordered one once after a health care worker exposure. The patient the physician was exposed to had symptoms suggesting the initial HIV infection. The p24 Antigen Test (http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/testing.htm)

The p24 antigen test identifies actual HIV viral particles in blood (p24 is a protein specific for HIV). However, the p24 antigen test is generally only positive from about one week to 3 - 4 weeks after infection with HIV. The p24 protein cannot be detected until about a week after infection with HIV, because it generally takes that long for the virus to become established and multiply to sufficient numbers that they can be detected. The p24 antigens then become undetectable again after sufficient antibodies to HIV have been produced, because they bind to the P-24 protein and eliminate it from the blood. Once antibodies are produced, the p24 test will register negative even in people who are infected with HIV. Of course, at that point the regular HIV antibody test will then be positive.

The p24 antigen test has very limited value in diagnosing HIV infection. It has been used in HIV research and, since 1996, has been used as an additional screening test in blood banks to help reduce the window period and reduce the possibility of HIV infected blood being used in transfusions.

Most people will not benefit from having a p24 antigen test. People who have engaged in behaviors that may have put them at increased risk of infection with HIV should not give blood in order to be tested by the blood bank. Instead, call the HIV/STD Hotline at (206) 205-7837 for options to get HIV testing.

Otherwise PCR testing for HIV infection is used to test the patient's viral load. (http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/testing.htm)> Viral load / PCR Testing

Viral load testing is the direct measurement of the amount of HIV present in the blood. Several different tests identify and measure the genetic material resulting from virus infection, either RNA or DNA. These tests are also called nucleic acid tests. The laboratory procedure used to test for the genetic material of HIV is called the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. PCR viral load testing is usually done to allow doctors to track how active HIV is in a person’s body to help make antiviral treatment decisions. PCR tests are also used in research on primary HIV infection.

The FDA has not approved these PCR tests as ways to identify new HIV infections. The regular antibody test continues to be the most accurate and reliable way for people to know if they are infected with HIV. PCR tests may be negative in people with HIV if their infection is so recent (e.g, less than 5 days old) that virus has not yet begun to produce detectable quantities of virus, or if they have brought the infection under control spontaneously or with the help of the new potent anti-retroviral medications. Occasionally, PCR tests also can be falsely positive in the absence of HIV infection. The test is also very expensive (around $150) and cannot be done anonymously except through certain research studies. (In Seattle, see the Primary Infection Research Clinic.) Finally, any PCR test used to identify infection must be followed by a regular HIV antibody test taken three months after exposure to confirm the PCR test result. PCR viral load tests are most useful in people who already know their HIV status and to help make antiviral drug treatment decisions.

Viral load testing has become a standard method of monitoring viral activity and is used to monitor the success of antiviral treatment. Results from viral load tests can range from "undetectable" to over a million copies per milliliter of blood. Lower numbers mean fewer viruses in the blood and less active disease; higher numbers mean more viruses in the blood and more active disease. The goal of antiviral treatment is to substantially reduce the viral load. Viral load tests are used to determine when to start treatment and when to change or stop treatment. An "undetectable" viral load does not mean that the person is free of HIV infection. Most viral load tests can only detect down to the level of 40 viral particles per milliliter of blood. Thus "undetectable" means less virus per milliliter than this test can measure (e.g., up to 39 viral copies per milliliter.)

A person with an "undetectable" viral load is still infected with HIV and can still infect others. Viral loads measure the amount of virus in the blood; most transmission is sexual and sexual fluids may contain measurable virus even when blood virus is undetectable. Generally, however, the higher one's viral load the more likely one is to transmit the virus and the lower one's viral load the less likely one is to transmit the virus.

Maybe if you looked at why you distrust every single person who works with HIV infected patients you could get over that absurd position and trust the people who do understand these lab tests instead of making up your own incorrect answers.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 04:37 PM

Now why are we even talking about a study like this? Because there isn't any study showing HIV kills you, by producing AIDS, which is fatal. It has never been done.

I find that odd.

Can you find for me a study proving that influenza causes the flu?
Or that varicella causes chickenpox?
I could go on and on...

The purpose of my asking is not to make a point that "science doesn't test things properly", but rather to point out that you're perception of "how it works" is off.

robinson

20th July 2007, 04:53 PM

Can you find for me a study proving that influenza causes the flu?

Of course. Smith, W; Andrewes CH, Laidlaw PP (1933). "A virus obtained from influenza patients". Lancet 2: 66–68.

Nobody doubts that a virus causes the symptoms, the virus is always found, it can be isolated, introducing a pure isolation of the virus causes the symptoms. It is basic science.

The etiological cause of influenza, the Orthomyxoviridae family of viruses, was first discovered in pigs by Richard Schope in 1931.
Shimizu, K (Oct 1997). "History of influenza epidemics and discovery of influenza virus". Nippon Rinsho 55 (10): 2505–201. PMID 9360364.

This discovery was shortly followed by the isolation of the virus from humans by a group headed by Patrick Laidlaw at the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom in 1933.

You can see a picture of it here, http://www.state.nj.us/health/flu/pandemic.shtml

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

Dabljuh

20th July 2007, 05:05 PM

The fact it makes no sense to you is because you don't understand the tests or the science.

...
(Lots and lots of blah, blah, blah)
...

Maybe if you looked at why you distrust every single person who works with HIV infected patients you could get over that absurd position and trust the people who do understand these lab tests instead of making up your own incorrect answers.Let me see if I get this right... Science means... trusting you... yeah... right...

Hey I know we had a good run and so on but I think we should be seeing other threads. And by "we" I mean "you".

Skeptic Ginger

20th July 2007, 05:06 PM

Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?So you believe that not a single child who has died from HIV (especially in Africa) came from a middle class family in a modern city and instead lived in poverty in a mud hut or something?

Should I post the link again to the pictures of real big modern cities in Africa? It is unfortunate so many people in the USA have such an ignorant picture of Africa. Or that people so often think only people living in squalor in Africa get sick.

Let's try Uganda. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html) They were hit earliest and hardest with HIV in Africa. As of 2003 the HIV rate averaged 4.1% and the poverty rate averaged 35% in 2001. 67% of the population is literate.
Kampala, the capital city of Uganda.http://www.galenfrysinger.com/africa/kampala03.jpg

I am not saying there isn't poverty and malnutrition in Africa. There are plenty of health problems there. But your imagination that people with malnutrition are mistaken for people with HIV is as poorly informed as was your imagination about what the laboratory tests meant. This is a typical 3rd world city with a lot of poverty. There are still real laboratories, real hospitals, real medical clinics and they do real HIV tests.

robinson

20th July 2007, 05:08 PM

Now onto the good stuff. Science stuff. From the only country in the world that responded to a deadly incurable Pandemic that was going to wipe out entire populations and devastate the planet.

Cuba. Cuba, the country that destroyed blood supplies, refused to import blood, tested all blood, and quarantined every person who was found to have an incurable deadly disease. The country that has records of every person who has HIV, that has come down with AIDS, and data on every person who died from AIDS.

What does the hard data from Cuba show? About HIV and AIDS, in Cuba?

HIV is transmitted by sex, but not often. HIV is transmitted through blood, very often. HIV is transmitted by mothers to children, sometimes.
HIV is very common in male to male sex. HIV is rare when I.V. drug use is absent. Most females that got HIV were infected by husbands who had male to male sex. Most AIDS deaths are Gay men, most HIV cases are Gay men.

Most people with HIV don't develop AIDS, at least not in 20 years. Of the HIV+ that develop AIDS, most have not died yet. (20 years). Taking drugs against HIV doesn't change your chance of death. The oldest person with HIV, but not AIDS, takes no medication. (over 20 years infected).

All of that is hard fact. Scientific data. Real information, based on a population of 11 million people, with good health care and sanitation and food.

None of that data is valid for any other population. But it is without a doubt real for Cuba. All of this data is, of course, available for anyone to read.

What does it all mean? That seems to be up to what ever you think.