AIDS (hah)

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.Antibodies in the newborn reflect maternal antibody. Before PCR testing one had to wait a number of months to know if the baby was infected or just had Mom's antibodies in its blood.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.Magic Johnson.

[robinson]

Science does NOT mean educating yourself. Go look it up.

[Dabljuh]

*sigh*
Trying again.
http://biologie.kappa.ro/Literature/Misc_cogsci/Aids/AIDSCD4.pdf
I'm saying "Nobody knows how HIV destroys the CD4 cell population" and then... you sigh and post a paper that exactly restates my claim?
We still do not know how, in vivo, the virus destroys CD4+ T cells or whether, in quantitative terms, cell loss is due to direct destruction by virus or to other indirect means.
Maybe you could now begin to acknowledge that fact?

[Dabljuh]

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.Good stuff, if true. Does the cuban data indicate that HIV infection may be a causal factor for death? Or possibly just a side effect of the gay-sex-lifestyle? (Oh, and URL to a comprehensive source which confirms your summary, please)

[robinson]

I'm saying "Nobody knows how HIV destroys the CD4 cell population" and then... you sigh and post a paper that exactly restates my claim?

Thus, total body CD4+
T cells may be depleted in absolute number because they are
destroyed or because their production is impaired. In addition,
the fraction of circulating cells may decrease (giving
the appearance of loss) if viral infection results in their
redistribution out of the intravascular space and into the
confines of lymphoid organs.

You are correct. Nobody knows what is happening. Yet.

[robinson]

Good stuff, if true.

All my statements are from published information.

Does the cuban data indicate that HIV infection may be a causal factor for death? Or possibly just a side effect of the gay-sex-lifestyle?

I don't have that data.

(Oh, and URL to a comprehensive source which confirms your summary, please)

There isn't one. I got those facts from a dozen sources. I don't have time to make up a quote/link post right now. But if you want to spend an hour, you can verify every one of those as true, based on published documents.

Or you could try and show why they are bunk. Either way, we all learn. Got to go.

[kellyb]

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.


Shimizu, K (Oct 1997). "History of influenza epidemics and discovery of influenza virus". Nippon Rinsho 55 (10): 2505–201. PMID 9360364.



You can see a picture of it here, http://www.state.nj.us/health/flu/pandemic.shtml


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

And HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients many, many, many times, too.

What is better about the influenza science? What do we have there that you see lacking with HIV?

[kellyb]

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.

Can you find a link on that part?

[kellyb]

I'm saying "Nobody knows how HIV destroys the CD4 cell population" and then... you sigh and post a paper that exactly restates my claim?



You mean you need to know every nut and bolt of how HIV induced apoptosis before you'll believe that it does?

[Dabljuh]

You mean you need to know every nut and bolt of how HIV induced apoptosis before you'll believe that it does?I am not entirely convinced that HIV leads to an irreversible, ultimately lethal destruction of the immune system at all. Consequently, I am not convinced HIV solely and pathologically depletes the CD4 T-Helper-Cell count and/or that such a depletion would invariably lead to a wide range of opportunistic diseases of bacterial, viral and fungal origin.

A mechanism by which HIV supposedly destroys the CD4+ T-Helper cell population would at least be one part in the puzzle of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. As robinson said, the unscientific approach the medical science itself has taken so far, largely, is appalling.

Media: "We have people of a specific sexual subgroup who get frequently get similiar opportunistic diseases"
Montagnier: "Here's a bug that infects CD4 T-Helper cells"
Gallo: "Heureka! Obviously this bug must invariably destroy the immune system and be sexually transmissible"
Pharma Industry: "Lets sell everyone who is infected with the bug these leftover medications from cancer research!"
Religious Right: "And scare everyone out of their wits with doomsday predictions of what happens if they have premarital sex and alienate an entire sexual subgroup that merely got what god intended"

(20 years pass, and Gallo's original hypothesis has never been put to rigorous test)

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Just to clear this up a bit more this wasn't "a bunch of studies" exactly. Not that you have it wrong, kelly, but what this was was a very large data base collected on these mothers and infants over a period of 4 years. Then researchers who wish to use the data design their "study" but instead of collecting the data individually, they use the data already collected. When you collect detailed information about people and include a lot of variables, then other researchers can use the same data to analyze any number of different relationships.

The main study collected data with the following three goals.ZVITAMBO is a 4-arm placebo-controlled trial of the impact of a single oral dose of vitamin A given to mothers (400,000 IU) and/or neonates (50,000 IU) within 96 h of delivery on 3 outcomes: 1) Infant mortality: Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) of preschool children is a cornerstone child survival intervention, but the benefit of neonatal VAS is uncertain; 2) Mother to child HIV transmission (MTCT) during breast feeding: Daily VAS of HIV+ pregnant women did not reduce MTCT in 3 trials. However in neonates of HIV+ mothers VAS may reduce susceptibility to infection during breast feeding by promoting gut integrity; 3). Incident HIV infections in post partum women


Put another way,Complete Trial Name: Name/Number: ZVITAMBO project

Impact of vitamin A supplementation of mother and or infants during the immediate post partum period on infant mortality, mother to child HIV transmission during breast feeding, and incident HIV infection among post partum women.

Primary objective: To determine the impact of vitamin A on infant mortality, MTCT during breast feeding, and incidence of HIV infection among post partum women.

Secondary objective: To determine how to operationalize infant feeding guidelines of WHO in the context of HIV. To investigate associated feeding modes and infection free survival.


The link to the additional research reveals what a wealth of data this was which was collected.

But 'W''s imagination again left him with more false conclusions about any impact AZT had on these mothers and infants. From the following 2 studies I gleaned as much info as I could on the data collected on the mothers and infants. For someone to overlook the impact AZT would have had is preposterous in any single study, but in a study this size with data looked at by literally hundreds of researchers some who were really looking at the impact of giving vitamin A in the postpartum period, regardless of HIV status is beyond preposterous.

In other words, 'W', the nutrition researchers would have most certainly wanted to know what effect any drugs including AZT had because it would be relevant to their vitamin A research.

Effect of postpartum maternal or neonatal vitamin A supplementation on infant mortality among infants born to HIV-negative mothers in Zimbabwe (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/454?ijkey=db03743d26ac6c17bc2536358084a07c83cc9848 )From 25 November 1997 to 29 January 2000, 14 110 mother-infant pairs were enrolled within 96 h of delivery at 1 of 14 maternity clinics and hospitals. Pairs were eligible if neither of the pair had an acutely life-threatening condition, the infant was a singleton with a birth weight > 1500 g, and the mother planned to stay in Harare after delivery. Written informed consent was obtained from the mother. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were collected by interview, and obstetric details of the pregnancy and delivery were transcribed from hospital records. Gestational age was estimated with the Capurro method (16). Infant birth weight was measured with an electronic scale (model 727; Seca, Hanover, MD), and infant length, infant head circumference, and maternal midupper arm circumference were measured according to methods described by Gibson (17). Addresses were recorded for the mother's urban and rural residences (it is common for urban Zimbabweans to travel frequently to extended family rural homesteads), for the mother's place of work, for the mother's husband's place of work, and for a relative of the mother who would always know of her whereabouts.

Blood collection and processing
The study nurses collected whole blood into EDTA and plain (serum) tubes from mothers and infants by venipuncture and heel prick, respectively. Blood for plasma was stored at room temperature ({approx}20 °C) and that for serum in a cool box ({approx}10–15 °C) before being transferred to the laboratory for processing within 2 h of phlebotomy. Plasma and serum were separated and stored in aliquots at –70 °C until used.

Randomization to treatment groups
Mother-infants pairs were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: mothers received 400 000 IU vitamin A (as retinyl palmitate) and infants received 50 000 IU vitamin A (Aa group), mothers received 400 000 IU vitamin A and infants received placebo (Ap group), mothers received placebo and infants received 50 000 IU vitamin A (Pa group), and both mothers and infants received placebo (Pp group). Treatment and placebo capsules appeared identical and both contained a soy oil base with vitamin E as a preservative (50 IU per maternal capsule; 10 IU per infant capsule) (Tishcon Corporation, Westbury, NY).

A separate team at Johns Hopkins University prepared the study capsule packets. Study identification numbers were randomly allocated to the treatment groups by computer in blocks of 12. The numbers were printed on adhesive labels and affixed to amber-colored zip-lock plastic bags that were packed with the assigned capsules. Capsule packets were prepared separately for each of the 4 treatment groups and were then merged into numeric order before shipping to Zimbabwe, where a series of packets were distributed to each recruitment site. As each mother- infant pair was recruited, the capsules in the next sequential bag were administered, and the associated study number was assigned to the pair. Lists linking the study number to the treatment were kept in sealed envelopes and encrypted computer files.

Follow-up of the subjects
Follow-up visits were conducted in 3 designated follow-up clinics at 6 wk, 3 mo, and then every 3 mo thereafter up to 12 mo. Home visits were attempted for defaulting pairs to either their urban or rural home anywhere within Zimbabwe. Cause of death was determined from medical records for infants who died in a hospital or from a review of verbal autopsy information by a study pediatrician, who was masked to treatment group, for infants dying at home. Multiple causes of death were permitted and were not ranked hierarchically, in keeping with the recommendations of an expert group convened by the World Health Organization (18).

An Education and Counseling Program for Preventing Breast-Feeding–Associated HIV Transmission in Zimbabwe: Design and Impact on Maternal Knowledge and Behavior (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/4/950#B10)ZVITAMBO trial data collection

The ZVITAMBO trial has been described previously (10). Briefly, mother–baby pairs were enrolled, following written consent, within 96 h of delivery at one of 14 maternity clinics in greater Harare, being eligible if neither had an acutely life-threatening condition, the baby was a singleton with birth weight > 1500 g, and the mother planned to stay in Harare after delivery. Written informed consent included permission to test mothers for HIV. Mothers could learn their results at any time during the study with appropriate pre- and post-test counseling, but they were not required to do so. This feature makes ZVITAMBO unique. All other studies of infant feeding and HIV have been conducted among mothers who knew their HIV status.

Socioeconomic, demographic, breast-feeding initiation, and prelacteal feeding data were collected by interview at enrollment. Details of the pregnancy and the delivery were transcribed from hospital records. At delivery, 32% of the mothers were HIV positive (10). Follow-up visits at 6 wk, 3 mo, and at 3-mo intervals for up to 24 mo included maternal and infant blood collection. Detailed infant feeding information, including breast-feeding status and whether or not any of 22 nonmilk liquids, nonhuman milks (animal milks and commercial formula), medicines (traditional fluids, oral rehydration salts, other prescribed), or solid foods had ever been given to the infant were collected at enrollment, 6 wk, 3 mo, and 6 mo after delivery.

Infants who provided infant-feeding information at enrollment, 6 wk, and 3 mo were classified into 1 of 3 early breast-feeding patterns: 1) EBF—only breast milk, vitamins, or prescribed medicines at all 3 time points, or at 2 of 3 time points. One lapse in exclusivity of EBF at 1 of the 3 time points was allowed only if the nonbreast milk item consumed was a nonmilk liquid; 2) predominant breast-feeding—breast milk plus nonmilk liquids; 3) mixed breast-feeding—breast milk plus nonhuman milks and/or solid foods at one or more time points. Classification was limited to the first 3 mo, because 93% of study infants were mixed breast-feeding by 6 mo.

Psychosocial counseling was available throughout the study. The date and reason for each individual counseling session, and whether HIV test results were obtained, was documented.


I think this study mentioned already confirms the mothers and infants did not get any anti-retroviral drugs.

Child Mortality According to Maternal and Infant HIV Status in Zimbabwe. (http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-200706000-00013.htm;jsessionid=GhPLJzlTjJsXPQG61Tp2CKvhpb1nf 21jQzGQd7nJczhqGGVfwQ9y!1047416762!181195628!8091!-1)Conclusions: Perinatally infected infants are at particular risk of death between 2 and 6 months: cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and early pediatric HAART should be scaled up. 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: provision of antiretroviral treatment to pregnant and lactating women is an urgent need for both mothers and their children.

So did this one:

Timing of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 and infant mortality in the first 6 months of life in Harare, Zimbabwe. (http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/abstract.00002030-200401230-00017.htm;jsessionid=GhQBN8SMLFppzJhVGyGR70Lxp5VL0 LnHTpJvgvhrGLC2jmHn19y9!-199097273!181195629!8091!-1)Conclusion: In the first 6 months of life, IU and IP/ePP transmission contributed more than three-quarters of the 30.7% MTCT. Our data, in addition to serving as a historical comparison, may be useful in designing and evaluating the efficacy of short course antiretroviral trials aimed at reducing MTCT in developing countries.

[Dabljuh]

All my statements are from published information.

I don't have that data.

There isn't one. I got those facts from a dozen sources. I don't have time to make up a quote/link post right now. But if you want to spend an hour, you can verify every one of those as true, based on published documents.

Or you could try and show why they are bunk. Either way, we all learn. Got to go.Hmm, alright. I don't know the first thing about cuba. Well, its an island, I suppose.

Now here's my challenge for you: Write a comprehensive report with lots of references. Postulate the hypothesis that cuba's HIV is in fact a completely different (and harmless) strain of HIV, HIV-3 (Supposedly, africa's HIV is HIV-2 which is completely different from european-american "Gay AIDS" HIV-1) and then try to get it published somewhere.

Edit: You know, a "harmless" HIV-3 strain could be used as a vaccine to prevent infection with the dangerous strains. That sort of stuff tends to get published quickly.

[Dabljuh]

In other words, 'W', the nutrition researchers would have most certainly wanted to know what effect any drugs including AZT had because it would be relevant to their vitamin A research.Actually... you're just speculating there. I have only found one reference that indicated they did not give AZT (the only drug freshly approved for treatment of HIV at the time) during at least the initial part of the study, and that was a report about participants of the study protesting the ZVITAMBO project *not* providing them with the Anti-Retroviral Treatment. (When other studies in Africa just began to do that)

[kellyb]

I am not entirely convinced that HIV leads to an irreversible, ultimately lethal destruction of the immune system at all. Consequently, I am not convinced HIV solely and pathologically depletes the CD4 T-Helper-Cell count and/or that such a depletion would invariably lead to a wide range of opportunistic diseases of bacterial, viral and fungal origin.



http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/abstract.00002030-200003100-00021.htm;jsessionid=GhZGd0ZL5H357ddsBbhfHpThbtYVJ 5GXx6NK1ytmLmLQx2Tnky26!1047416762!181195628!8091!-1

Abstract:
Objective: To examine the association of viral load and CD4 lymphocyte count with mortality among HIV-infected children over one year of age.


Results: Of 155 HIV-infected children originally enrolled, 115 (74%) had viral load testing and 82 (53%) had both viral load and CD4 cell percentage testing after their first year. Among children over one year of age, significant associations were found between mortality and the log10 viral load and CD4 cell percentage in both univariate and multivariate models. Independent of the CD4 cell value, a one unit log10 increase in HIV RNA level increased the hazard of child mortality by more than twofold. Children with low CD4 cell counts (< 15%) and high viral loads (>= 250 000 copies/ml median value) had the worst survival; children with high CD4 cell counts (>= 15%) and low viral loads (< 250 000 copies/ml) had the best survival.

Conclusion: As in developed countries, viral load and CD4 cell count are the main predictors of mortality among African children. Making these tests available adds to the challenges to be considered if antiviral therapies were to be adopted in these countries.

Coincidence again, W?

Man those HIV scientists have a lot of luck with those coincidences, don't they?

[Dabljuh]

Coincidence again, W?Yes, coincidence.

[kellyb]

Am I wearing you down yet?

:)

[kellyb]

There isn't one. I got those facts from a dozen sources. I don't have time to make up a quote/link post right now. But if you want to spend an hour, you can verify every one of those as true, based on published documents.

Or you could try and show why they are bunk. Either way, we all learn. Got to go.

I'm going to make a logical assumption that, if what you're saying is correct, this information must be somewhat difficult to locate, or it would be all over the denialist websites.

Here's what the WHO has to say about HIV in Cuba:

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/prev_care/en/cuba.pdf

History
The use of products that bolster the immune system for all
HIV-positive people has been recommended in Cuba since
1986. From 1987, zidovudine (ZDV) was recommended as
monotherapy for all those who developed AIDS. In 1996, after
the World AIDS Conference and the recommendation of
Highly Active Antiretroviral Treatment (HAART) as the treatment
of choice, the Ministry of Public Health bought antiretroviral
treatment for all children with AIDS and their
mothers. Since 1997, HIV-infected pregnant women have
been receiving ZDV to prevent mother-to-child transmission
of the virus as well as breast milk substitutes

These triple combinations are used initially for all patients.
However, those who develop tuberculosis during treatment are
switched to a dual therapy scheme using two nucleoside reverse
transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), with either nevirapine or nelfinavir
as options for second-line treatment. In other patients,
second-line treatment possibilities are protease inhibitors, if
available.

Since the introduction of HAART in 2001 there has been a
decrease in the number of deaths from AIDS and the incidence
of opportunistic infections (OIs) related to HIV/AIDS
(Figure 3). Since all OIs are treated in the hospital, the reduction
in the number of OIs has in turn, resulted in a countrywide
drop in hospital admissions; as for the IPK, admissions
for opportunistic infections have decreased by almost half
(Table 1).
Furthermore, treatment with ARVs showed beneficial effects
on survival: from the time people developed AIDS, average
survival time for those who did not receive treatment* during
2000-2003 was at 1.2 years while AIDS patients with ARV
treatment survived almost four times longer (4 years;
p < 0.001). Out of the 1292 patients under treatment, only 87,
about 7%, died.

They've got nifty little charts, too.

Ball's in your court, Robinson. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually... you're just speculating there. I have only found one reference that indicated they did not give AZT (the only drug freshly approved for treatment of HIV at the time) during at least the initial part of the study, and that was a report about participants of the study protesting the ZVITAMBO project *not* providing them with the Anti-Retroviral Treatment. (When other studies in Africa just began to do that)More poorly informed conclusions. They recorded everything from these people's medical records in the data base. It is not speculation to conclude out of all these highly educated experienced researchers no one would have looked at the effects of AZT or other HAART drugs as one of the variables in their studies. I'm sorry you just don't get it, but you don't.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Am I wearing you down yet?

:)Ever tried to wear down a delusional person? ;)

[Taffer]

I can't continue in this thread. The stupid burns too much, I'm sorry.

I might pop in every now and then to add my 0.2c, but with skeptigirl and kelly here, there is no need for me to point out the stupid any more.

Good luck.

[Capsid]

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".Dabljuh, can I ask why you have a distrust of the scientific community? Do you mistrust everyone? Do qualifications and expertise mean nothing to you? Who would you rather changes the brakes on your car? I'd like a qualified mechanic to do it.

Everyone makes mistakes but can you respect that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of HIV research and they are doing the best they can. If it was easy a vaccine would have been developed ages ago. A vaccine for SARS was developed very quickly.

[Dabljuh]

Dabljuh, can I ask why you have a distrust of the scientific community? Do you mistrust everyone? Do qualifications and expertise mean nothing to you? Who would you rather changes the brakes on your car? I'd like a qualified mechanic to do it. There's two types of mechanics. One type will replace your brakes with some cheap ass replacements, making sure you'll have to replace the brakes within two years time again. And the other mechanic makes less money.

The medical establishment at large is not concerned with healing or keeping people healthy, but with making money. That's capitalism for you, but it's the same principle homeopaths and snake oil traders work. Of course all those groups each believe they would help people (and making a buck off them) but ultimately it is gullible people who suck up medications that are often worthless.

Ever had a doctor give you antibiotics for a viral infection? Or have the doctor give you a receipt for a super expensive medical variant of what basically is a cough drop?

Keeping people continously sick is a far better business model than keeping them healthy. Sick and scared people don't make rational decisions.

As I've mentioned earlier, I've studied circumcision and I've seen enough papers in the scientific literature that simply were pure bunk not to assume that anything in a peer-reviewed medical journal is pure-truth-oxalate.

Yes, there are medications that work... for certain cases. Cough drops ain't bad, but is it right paying 30$ for a pack? Antibiotics have a long track record of success, and various surgical procedures cure cripples and so on.

But when something not just smells, but reeks of bullpoop such as HIV, no level of scrutiny is too high.
Everyone makes mistakes but can you respect that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of HIV research and they are doing the best they can."You can trust that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of homeopathy that are doing the best they can to keep you from getting sick"
If it was easy a vaccine would have been developed ages ago. A vaccine for SARS was developed very quickly.Interesting thing: They've already developed a number of vaccines against HIV. The problem is: These vaccinations have all failed to show any protective effect. Why do you think that is? Why is "HIV-AIDS" such an unique disease in that it defies all logic, statistics, mechanics, procedures that work for every other disease?

[Dabljuh]

but with skeptigirl and kelly here, there is no need for me to point out the stupid any more.I wouldn't have called kelly stupid :(

[Taffer]

I wouldn't have called kelly stupid :(

Of course, that's what I meant. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey I'm flattered. I must be more threatening than kelly.

[Deetee]

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.

Firstly, Robinson, I think it would be pretty apparent if any of the mothers actually suffered from something like typhoid or meningitis.
Your statement is tantamount to me saying "I don't believe Study X showed influenza mortality, because the study authors have not specifically told us whether the study group also had galloping monkey disease."

Give us a break - the illnesses you mention are quite evident clinically, with the exception of malaria, which can exist at low parasitaemic levels and actually does affect the outcome of pregnancy in those affected, and schistosomiasis, which does not.

Secondly, I am rather disappointed that you of all people should spout out a list of diseases you claim to be "endemic" in Zimbabwe without checking your facts. I thought higher of you.

Most of the diseases you mention are not endemic in Zimbabwe, and some do not occur there at all. I think you also need to double check the definitions of "endemic" and "epidemic". Because an infection has been reported in a country, or it has had an outbreak of disease, that does not mean it is "endemic". Perhaps your sources of information on this one are off beam.

[Thirdly, I'll let you into a little secret-
I lived in Zimbabwe for nearly 30 years, in several regions of the country. I also worked there in a medical capacity. You don't have to believe me (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2476808&postcount=4), but I did, and I think I do know what I am talking about on this one.]

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?
Having an HIV positive mother did affect the child's chances of survival (but not nearly as much as actually being infected with HIV)

Couple of possible reasons - Firstly, the mothers with HIV are likelier to be less able to care for their children if they are ill themselves. Secondly, those with HIV are very poor at producing specific antibodies (HIV causing a polyclonal expansion and rises in nonspecific antibodies), so materal transfer of passive immunity covering a number of important infections of infancy will be very poor (rendering infants more prone to infections such as measles -which is endemic) .

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?

We are talking about this study because it happens to be the one that KellyB cited to show Dubya that HIV is not a nice thing to have. Since then, this study has been the topic of several detailed posts. It is only one study, and does not claim to show cause and effect directly. There are plenty of other studies in the scientific domain that look at different aspects of HIV, including animal studies and basic science - all peer reviewed. They are out there, waiting for you to criticise them all!

I find it strange that for every study under discussion here there is a reversion to the old denialist cant of "You can't believe this study because it did not prove the underlying premise which it naturally assumes". No doubt a study on seasonal changes in wheat production in Oregon would be criticised for assuming the earth spins on its axis and rotates around the sun without also displaying documented proof of this within the paper.

So for a simple study showing that HIV infection in infants correlates with a massive rise in mortality, the study is criticised because the authors did not prove HIV causes AIDS, or because the study took place in a developing country, or that it was not quadruple blinded, or they did not say exactly what the kids died from, or a hospital administrator assigned causes of death (conspiracy!!), or they did not control for galloping yellow-spot disease in the mothers, or they did not control for germanium exposure from inhaled aircraft contrails, yada, yada.

The study merely says what it states on the box. It contributes a tiny piece of the massive jigsaw of evidence that has been assembled into showing unequivocally that HIV is bad news.

The strategy of denialists like Dubya has been to question everything. Fair enough, that is how science progresses. But the questioning is not "skeptical" but trivialistic in nature. So when Dubya questions that HIV causes CD4 decline, a paper showing several mechanisms by which HIV causes CD4 loss in vitro and in vivo is criticised because science hasn't been able to supply to the last decimal point the definitive mechanism for this effect. Who would expect it to? We don't know everything yet about the mode of HIV pathogenesis. Different models of this are still being proposed, debated and being reformed. This is how science progresses, but when one hypothesis is revised, people like Dubya scream "See! you might have got it wrong! therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS!"
It can be very wearying.

The debate with denialists is like arguing with someone who believes that powered heavier than air flight is impossible. All the "evidence" is interpreted differently. Reliance is placed on quotes from people 100 years ago saying flight was impossible. Video evidence is "faked". A plane pointed out in the sky is "a bird". The pilot's testimony of a flight cannot be trusted because he's "employed by the airline". Passengers are in on the conspiracy. Offers to take the denialist up on a plane are rejected because of silly excuses, and so on. Sometimes it's that obvious, it really is. But to a lay observer, the denialist claims can appear to have merit. Occasionally they do -there is plenty that is still unknown about the subject of HIV, plenty wrong with its politics, its funding etc that we all could find a lot of common ground in discussing.

But the denialists style of debate forces us all to assume polarised positions on every issue. If an orthodox scientist says something that questions accepted dogma, or even something like innacurate UNAIDS statistics, he is immediately championed as a "rethinker" and risks getting placed on the denialists' "List of the 30 Scientists Who Question AIDS". Twice in recent memory, orthodox scientists have had to publicly restate their views to try and reject the denialist reinterpretation of their work. Once I told the Perth Group that my own past work on immunity in drug users would qualify me to be placed on their list. AFAIK I am not on it (but I'd better check again to make sure!)

[Deetee]

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.
You are right, Taffer.
The stupid - it burns!

[Capsid]

There's two types of mechanics. One type will replace your brakes with some cheap ass replacements, making sure you'll have to replace the brakes within two years time again. And the other mechanic makes less money.
I was really referring to the safety issues not financial. In other words would you use an unqualified person to change your brakes?

The medical establishment at large is not concerned with healing or keeping people healthy, but with making money. That's capitalism for you, but it's the same principle homeopaths and snake oil traders work. Of course all those groups each believe they would help people (and making a buck off them) but ultimately it is gullible people who suck up medications that are often worthless.

Ever had a doctor give you antibiotics for a viral infection? Or have the doctor give you a receipt for a super expensive medical variant of what basically is a cough drop?

Keeping people continously sick is a far better business model than keeping them healthy. Sick and scared people don't make rational decisions.

As I've mentioned earlier, I've studied circumcision and I've seen enough papers in the scientific literature that simply were pure bunk not to assume that anything in a peer-reviewed medical journal is pure-truth-oxalate.

Yes, there are medications that work... for certain cases. Cough drops ain't bad, but is it right paying 30$ for a pack? Antibiotics have a long track record of success, and various surgical procedures cure cripples and so on.
I think you are over generalising. There are many researchers in academia who work for non-profit organisations. Agreed they get paid to pay the bills but it's not all about the money.

But when something not just smells, but reeks of bullpoop such as HIV, no level of scrutiny is too high.Scrutiny is good, I'm disappointed to learn that you think HIV research falls short?
"You can trust that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of homeopathy that are doing the best they can to keep you from getting sick" Hence it comes down to evidence which you are not happy with.
Interesting thing: They've already developed a number of vaccines against HIV. The problem is: These vaccinations have all failed to show any protective effect. Why do you think that is? Why is "HIV-AIDS" such an unique disease in that it defies all logic, statistics, mechanics, procedures that work for every other disease?Because HIV is not like any other virus, it changes its outer envelope and incorporates the host cell proteins and sugars thereby hiding from the immune system

Thanks for your responses. I do appreciate it.

[Oroborus]

I raise my bet to 2000 posts.


"Now my names Johnny and it might be a sin, but I'll take that bet you're ganna regret cause I'm the best theres ever been!"

you made it pop in my head, now make it pop out!:D

[robinson]

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." -Paul Johnson

But I think it is best if interested parties look for themselves. Here are a few links. The keen observer may notice the problem with the numbers right away. All of these contain data on Cuba and HIV/AIDS
http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/07-Caribbean_2006_EpiUpdate_eng.pdf
http://www.who.int/hiv/amds/case1.pdf
http://indexmundi.com/cuba/hiv_aids_deaths.html
http://www.nationbynation.com/Cuba/Population.html
http://soc.enotes.com/world-fact-book/cuba-cu
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr02-cu-00&post=19&cid=CU
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/lavender-red-101/
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32967.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1303008
http://ipsnews.net/hivaids/new_2612_2.shtml
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/cuba/3613.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/011.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba#HIV_and_AIDS

Now in case the point is pointless, which may be the case, you never know sometimes, I'm trying to show how I come to my current opinion, and that is what it is of course, my opinion on HIV and AIDS and drugs and sexual behavior and politics and bad science and perhaps a few other issues.

I sort of share some views with most of the contributers here, except for the trolls that don't provide any input except derision and insults, they go on my filter list. Not worth one minute of my time.

Based on my experience, if you want to educate somebody, you show them how you did it.

Like the brake job analogy. I had my 17 year old do brakes last weekend, he never did them on this particular car model, but it went just fine. We would have done a clutch but it was problematic, so a friend who IS a master mechanic was called, and it went smoothly.

I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic I don't know personally, unless there was no choice, based on past experience. Some mechanics are crooks, just like some Doctors are quacks, or incompetent. Some researchers are crooked, some are just bad researchers, some are really really good.

We are people, they are people. people make mistakes, people can be wrong. In fact, it is certain we will be wrong at some point. Everybody can even be wrong.

I agree with Randi, - "Authority does not rest with scientists, when emotion, need, and desperation are involved. Scientists are human beings, too; they can be deceived and self-deceived. ...Scientists can be wrong — sometimes, very wrong. The history of science is replete with serious errors of judgment, bad research, faked results, and simple mistakes, made by scientists in every field."

But I have no doubt that HIV causes some people to have immune problems, that some people develop AIDS, and die. Most of these people will be drug users or homobisexual. Almost all women get HIV from men. Some medications prolong life and decrease suffering from AIDS. Some medications reduce babies chance of infection. People with infectious or opportunistic disease benefit from sanitation, good food, low stress, proper medical treatment, and certainly from the truth, that just because you have HIV, it is not guaranteed you will get AIDS, or that you will die horribly, far before your time. This is based on my research, my mind, the time I spent finding out for myself. If you have information that will change my mind, I will change my mind. I have many times over the last fifty years'

My opinion-
This is the lesson from the one country that mounted an intelligent response to a new infectious disease, one that was thought to be fatal, and without hope. They stopped the vectors of infection, tested all high risk, them all the population, isolated infectious people, then treated them with the best they could offer.

And because of this, we have the perfect set of HIV and AIDS patients to research, to actually understand how it spread, and what it does, and how it responds to treatments, and how you die, don't die, or how you resist it.

I find it interesting that Cuba and the great science about HIV/AIDS from there, is absent from both HIV sites, and HIV questioning sites. Perhaps both sides could learn a little humility and science from Cuba.

Probably not, but who knows?

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
~ Wilfred Trotter

[robinson]

Firstly, Robinson, I think it would be pretty apparent if any of the mothers actually suffered from something like typhoid or meningitis.
Your statement is tantamount to me saying "I don't believe Study X showed influenza mortality, because the study authors have not specifically told us whether the study group also had galloping monkey disease."

Give us a break - the illnesses you mention are quite evident clinically, with the exception of malaria, which can exist at low parasitaemic levels and actually does affect the outcome of pregnancy in those affected, and schistosomiasis, which does not.


As you say, my sources might just be wrong. I got those from a fact page on the region. It claimed all of those are problems there, with some of them effecting almost everybody, at sub-clinical levels. The population has almost an immunity to most of them.


Secondly, I am rather disappointed that you of all people should spout out a list of diseases you claim to be "endemic" in Zimbabwe without checking your facts. I thought higher of you.


There was indeed an error in my copy/paste then, as only a few are endemic. My error, thanks for pointing it out.



Most of the diseases you mention are not endemic in Zimbabwe, and some do not occur there at all. I think you also need to double check the definitions of "endemic" and "epidemic". Because an infection has been reported in a country, or it has had an outbreak of disease, that does not mean it is "endemic". Perhaps your sources of information on this one are off beam.


I'm going to check. This is a huge problem with sources. Not only can they not be trusted, they conflict at times. And I have no way of finding out where the mothers actually live, or what the living conditions are. Huge holes in a study on infant mortality. If the mothers with dead babies are all dirt poor, and the ones that have live babies are all well off, what does that do to the study?

There are far too many variables when it comes to infant mortality in Africa to draw conclusion from stunted data, gathered to test Vitamin A on infant mortality.

[calebprime]

But I think it is best if interested parties look for themselves.

I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic I don't know personally, unless there was no choice, based on past experience.

But I have no doubt that HIV causes some people to have immune problems, that some people develop AIDS, and die. Most of these people will be drug users or homobisexual.

This is based on my research, my mind, the time I spent finding out for myself. If you have information that will change my mind, I will change my mind. I have many times over the last fifty years'

[I]
The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
~ Wilfred Trotter


You also say "Based on my experience, if you want to educate somebody, you show them how you did it."


Robinson, if I--like you--wanted to learn to change my brakes, or become expert on the issue of AIDS, then your statement and your example would be exactly what was wanted.

But they aren't, because I don't. I wanted your summary.

In fact, you do have something interesting to say. You could have said it earlier, without suspense.

We don't all have to change our own brakes. I'm busy being an individualist/contrarian/original thinker in the areas that matter most to me.

For the rest, I'm relying on others.

Specialization, division of labor: It means we don't all have to live like the protagonist in Mosquito Coast.

[Antiquehunter]

But I have no doubt that HIV causes some people to have immune problems, that some people develop AIDS, and die. Most of these people will be drug users or homobisexual. Almost all women get HIV from men. Some medications prolong life and decrease suffering from AIDS. Some medications reduce babies chance of infection. People with infectious or opportunistic disease benefit from sanitation, good food, low stress, proper medical treatment, and certainly from the truth, that just because you have HIV, it is not guaranteed you will get AIDS, or that you will die horribly, far before your time. This is based on my research, my mind, the time I spent finding out for myself. If you have information that will change my mind, I will change my mind. I have many times over the last fifty years'

I don't disagree with much of this statement - I have many friends who have been HIV+ for a very long time, and while they have battled a number of HIV-related illnesses, they are going strong after 20+ years of seroconversion. I refer specifically to three HIV+ friends - and I'm not sure if the medical community would say they've ever developed full-blown 'AIDS' - they certainly have a very intensive medication and health regimen. And, they all have spent far more time in and out of doctor's offices and hospitals than I have.

Will they die of AIDS? I don't know - I certainly hope not. Will their lifespans be significantly shortened by being HIV+? I'd have to speculate yes - from a combination of the various illnesses and problems they tend to suffer, and from the rigour of the treatments that have carried them this far today - treatments which have, I'm quite confident, extended their lives from what we knew about HIV/AIDS in the early 80s. Is seroconversion a death sentence? Well, I'm not sure I want to answer that question - but I'm 100% convinced its much better health-wise to be HIV- than +. If I was sexually active outside of my monogamous relationship I would definitely engage in safe sex practices, because I wouldn't want to seroconvert when it is generally 99.9% avoidable given what we know today. If I were at risk from drug use or my job, again, I'd take whatever precaution was available to me.

And - it is this approach to HIV/AIDS which is what makes me shake my head when I hear deniers rabbit on about the 'conspiracy' of AIDS. There is NO data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA which suggests being HIV+ is a GOOD thing. A FEW people on the fringe allege that being an HIV carrier is innocuous. Well - when it really takes next to zero effort to protect oneself from something which at BEST is an extreme longshot at being innocuous, but carries a huge amount of scientific evidence that its a BAD thing - well, why not use that condom? Really, what is the point of debating this any further?

Does science know EVERYTHING about HIV/AIDS - clearly not. We don't know everything about... well... almost everything. So why not use one's head to make sensible, well-informed decisions, and give the scientists the time and resources to figure it out?

[robinson]

Based on what just is, the facts, it is possible that everybody is correct. Regarding HIV/AIDS.

That sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Let me explain why this might be so, you can peek inside my thought process here.

If these are the facts, then everybody is correct. A big if, and one that should be determined, in my view.

HIV is a new retrovirus.
HIV resembles very old retroviruses.
HIV damages the immune system in some people.
HIV is harmless in some people.
HIV mutates all the time, and there are multiple types.
HIV is spread by, sex, blood, and organ transplants.
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.
HIV is hard to detect in infected people.
HIV is impossible to detect in some people.
HIV can be combined with other retroviruses in a lab.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus.
HIV is limited by certain drug treatments.
HIV is not killed by any drug treatment.
HIV vaccines don't work because of rapid mutation.
HIV is passed from mother to child, sometimes.
HIV combined with drug use and homobisexual behavior almost always leads to AIDS.
HIV can be stopped from spreading.
HIV has shown up in isolated Indian Tribes that have had no contact ever with the outside world.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
HIV is very difficult to isolate from infected serum.
HIV is easy to clone and grow in vivo.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
HIV has been fought about since it was "discovered".
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
HIV is a political, economic, social issue, as well as medical.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
HIV is different in Africa than it is in America and Europe.
HIV statistics for many countries are estimates, and they have been shown to be wrong.
HIV test, in some cases, are not accurate.
HIV is known to damage CD4 receptor cells, and invade other tissue. How this happens is still not known.
HIV is a Pandemic.
HIV, by causing AIDS, is a minor cause of death.
HIV is the source of a lot of death.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
HIV is spread by heterosexual sex.
HIV is mostly spread by homobisexual sex and drug use.
HIV was spread through the blood supply before it was known about.
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
HIV has been found in tissue samples from a long time ago.
HIV was unknown before 1979.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research.
HIV is not able to infect non-primate mammals.
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.
HIV is not spread by mosquitos or any other insect.
HIV is not spread by eating it.
HIV is spread by mothers milk.
HIV is spread by needlestick accidents.
HIV is almost never spread by needlesticks.
HIV was around for years before it was detected.
HIV has almost never infected a Surgeon or Doctor, except by sex or I.V. drug use.
HIV can survive in blood stored for use, for a long time.
HIV can't survive outside the body for long.
HIV is found in sperm and seminal fluid.
HIV is very hard to detect in sperm or seminal fluid.
HIV is spread through oral sex.
HIV is almost never spread by female to female sex.
HIV is in saliva.
HIV is not spread by kissing.
HIV can't reproduce without human DNA.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
HIV is theorized to have started in Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/
HIV is believed to have started from monkeys and chimps infecting Africans.
HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV have been created for research.
HIV is easy to modify in a lab.
HIV couldn't be created by science.
HIV strains are created by scientist to study it.
This is by no means a complete list.

If those are true, and I have read numerous sources that say those are facts, then the issue isn't black or white. What is true, is the heart of the matter. This isn't a simple issue by any definition. Except to those who think they know it all.

I would like to know if those statements are true. I'm sure most of them are. Even the ones that don't make sense.

[robinson]

Feel free to delete or add items, especially if good evidence is available to show why they are crap.

I have my doubts about some of those, but without open source on data and research, it is impossible for me to tell with out doubt.

Especially something like viral load.

[calebprime]

Based on what just is, the facts, it is possible that everybody is correct. Regarding HIV/AIDS.

That sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Let me explain why this might be so, you can peek inside my thought process here.

If these are the facts, then everybody is correct. A big if, and one that should be determined, in my view.

HIV is a new retrovirus.
HIV resembles very old retroviruses.
HIV damages the immune system in some people.
HIV is harmless in some people.
HIV mutates all the time, and there are multiple types.
HIV is spread by, sex, blood, and organ transplants.
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.
HIV is hard to detect in infected people.
HIV is impossible to detect in some people.
HIV can be combined with other retroviruses in a lab.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus.
HIV is limited by certain drug treatments.
HIV is not killed by any drug treatment.
HIV vaccines don't work because of rapid mutation.
HIV is passed from mother to child, sometimes.
HIV combined with drug use and homobisexual behavior almost always leads to AIDS.
HIV can be stopped from spreading.
HIV has shown up in isolated Indian Tribes that have had no contact ever with the outside world.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
HIV is very difficult to isolate from infected serum.
HIV is easy to clone and grow in vivo.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
HIV has been fought about since it was "discovered".
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
HIV is a political, economic, social issue, as well as medical.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
HIV is different in Africa than it is in America and Europe.
HIV statistics for many countries are estimates, and they have been shown to be wrong.
HIV test, in some cases, are not accurate.
HIV is known to damage CD4 receptor cells, and invade other tissue. How this happens is still not known.
HIV is a Pandemic.
HIV, by causing AIDS, is a minor cause of death.
HIV is the source of a lot of death.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
HIV is spread by heterosexual sex.
HIV is mostly spread by homobisexual sex and drug use.
HIV was spread through the blood supply before it was known about.
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
HIV has been found in tissue samples from a long time ago.
HIV was unknown before 1979.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research.
HIV is not able to infect non-primate mammals.
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.
HIV is not spread by mosquitos or any other insect.
HIV is not spread by eating it.
HIV is spread by mothers milk.
HIV is spread by needlestick accidents.
HIV is almost never spread by needlesticks.
HIV was around for years before it was detected.
HIV has almost never infected a Surgeon or Doctor, except by sex or I.V. drug use.
HIV can survive in blood stored for use, for a long time.
HIV can't survive outside the body for long.
HIV is found in sperm and seminal fluid.
HIV is very hard to detect in sperm or seminal fluid.
HIV is spread through oral sex.
HIV is almost never spread by female to female sex.
HIV is in saliva.
HIV is not spread by kissing.
HIV can't reproduce without human DNA.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
HIV is theorized to have started in Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/
HIV is believed to have started from monkeys and chimps infecting Africans.
HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV have been created for research.
HIV is easy to modify in a lab.
HIV couldn't be created by science.
HIV strains are created by scientist to study it.
This is by no means a complete list.

If those are true, and I have read numerous sources that say those are facts, then the issue isn't black or white. What is true, is the heart of the matter. This isn't a simple issue by any definition. Except to those who think they know it all.

I would like to know if those statements are true. I'm sure most of them are. Even the ones that don't make sense.

thank you. I just learned more in 2 minutes about the problem than in the whole rest of the thread.

Sorry if I missed other points that others made.

Are there items on Robinson's list that are known to be wrong?

[Capsid]

These are wrong.

HIV is found in chimps and monkeys. You mean SIV. Although HIV can infect chimps.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick. You mean SIV, see above.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus. Maybe you are confusing with HIV-2, HTLV-I and HTLV-II? For most purposes people mean HIV-1 when they say HIV.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research. Which viruses specifically?
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts. Perhaps in mossy guts.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys. Chimps only.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures. It was spread by infected factor VIII clotting factors in haemophiliacs.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV strains are created by scientist to study it. Only parts of HIV can be genetically engineered with other viruses/bacteria.

[robinson]

I haven't started on the AIDS list yet. Anybody that feels like starting one, jump in. And please, if you have debunking for any of my items, post links.

Remember, one important fact. HIV is not some Universal same everywhere retrovirus. It is a political, social, economic, scientific medical, sexual, cultural nightmare.

It is DIFFERENT depending on where you are. Cuba shows this without any doubt. By any statistics, Cuba's population shows that many of those facts are true.

But in Africa, some facts are not true.

Interesting. What is true, depends on your point of view.

[Capsid]

Time for a thread split methinks.

[robinson]

Done.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2788882#post2788882

[Capsid]

Done.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2788882#post2788882
But my response to your list wasn't copied over.

ETA done it now. How do you split a thread again?

[Belz...]

Umm... no. Ever caught a "cold" ?

Yes, and never because I had been "cold". In fact, mostly because I hadn't.

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.

You're told wrong. Viruses don't appear magically from lack of heat. In fact, they don't like the cold at all.

Hunger causes immune system depression.

Only in the most extreme cases, surely.

The body requires a large amount of ressources and chemical energy to fight disease. Ever heard of vitamin C?

The damn thing we can't synthesise ?

I refuse to answer this question because it is a fallacy.

The question is a fallacy. Right. Good one.

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).

EXCELLENT!!! Than you agree that a virus that weakens your immune system puts you at greater risk of early death.

However the mechanism by which HIV supposedly destroys the T-Helper cell population is not known

I'd have guessed that it does so the same way all viruses destroy all cells: reproduction.

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!

The correct answer was "yes". But thanks for playing.

[Belz...]

Actually... you're just speculating there.

And yet you cling to your own speculations like a frightened kid holds on to his teddy bear.

The medical establishment at large is not concerned with healing or keeping people healthy, but with making money.

Especially in countries with public health care and research.

[Belz...]

HIV isn't just one retrovirus.

I thought retroviruses were strands of DNA hidden in our genome... ??

[robinson]

I'm waiting for somebody, I can't remember who, to show up, because they know almost everything about HIV and AIDS. Now that the thread is split, maybe a new voice will arise.

Now, do I post the next list, the one that starts with AIDS is..

do I post it here? Or there?

[robinson]

I thought retroviruses were strands of DNA hidden in our genome... ??

Wiki -
A retrovirus is any virus belonging to the viral family Retroviridae. They are enveloped viruses possessing a RNA genome, and replicate via a DNA intermediate. Retroviruses rely on the enzyme reverse transcriptase to perform the reverse transcription of its genome from RNA into DNA, which can then be integrated into the host's genome with an integrase enzyme. The virus then replicates as part of the cell's DNA.

That clears it all up, doesn't it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't disagree with much of this statement - I have many friends who have been HIV+ for a very long time, and while they have battled a number of HIV-related illnesses, they are going strong after 20+ years of seroconversion. I refer specifically to three HIV+ friends - and I'm not sure if the medical community would say they've ever developed full-blown 'AIDS' - they certainly have a very intensive medication and health regimen. And, they all have spent far more time in and out of doctor's offices and hospitals than I have.
...Let's not get confused in this discussion. 'W' claims HIV is just coincidental to AIDS. And he goes on to say the real mortality is coming from a number of other things including AZT.

Poppycock.

Then you have this discussion where you are pointing out that HIV is now a treatable disease. That is a completely different discussion.

I'll have to read more of robinson's post above. He has posted all sorts of erroneous facts. I've been addressing them as he posts them. Now there is a new slew of 'facts' there I need to review before I can comment.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought retroviruses were strands of DNA hidden in our genome... ??There has been recent genetic research suggesting some ancient retroviruses have become part of the human genome.

...human endogenous retroviruses make up a substantial part of the human genome. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020802075138.htm)

Tree of Life classifications of viruses. (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/TreeofLife?q=viruses&sa=Search)Viruses
Lovisolo, O., R. Hull, and O. Rösler. 2003. Coevolution of viruses with hosts and vectors and possible paleontology. Advances in Virus Research 62:325-379. ...
www.tolweb.org/Viruses/5 - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
DNA-RNA Reverse Transcribing Viruses
DNA-RNA Reverse Transcribing Viruses. Version 22 December 2005 (temporary). ... Explore Other Groups. other Viruses. Double-stranded RNA Viruses ...
www.tolweb.org/DNA-RNA_Reverse_Transcribing_Viruses/21831 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Double-stranded DNA Viruses
Vaccinia virus is normally confined to cattle, but is conveyed to humans through vaccination, thereby, imparting immunity to the smallpox virus. ...
tolweb.org/Double-stranded_DNA_Viruses/21830 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
Double-stranded RNA Viruses
Double-stranded RNA Viruses. Version 05 February 2006 (temporary). ... Double-stranded RNA Viruses; Single-stranded Negative Sense RNA Viruses ...
www.tolweb.org/Double-stranded_RNA_Viruses/21833 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Single-stranded DNA Viruses
Single-stranded DNA Viruses. Version 22 December 2005 (temporary). http://tolweb.org/Single-stranded_DNA_Viruses/21829/2005.12.22 in The Tree of Life Web ...
tolweb.org/Single-stranded_DNA_Viruses/21829 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Single-stranded Negative Sense RNA Viruses
Arenaviridae are RNA viruses whose particles are spherical and have an average diameter of 110-130 nanometers. Arenaviridae members are zoonotic, ...
www.tolweb.org/Single-stranded_Negative_Sense_RNA_Viruses/21834 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
Single-stranded Positive Sense RNA Viruses
Single-stranded Positive Sense RNA Viruses. Click on an image to view larger version & data in a new window. Click on an image to view larger version & data ...
www.tolweb.org/Single-stranded_Positive_Sense_RNA_Viruses/21835 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

[Capsid]

I thought retroviruses were strands of DNA hidden in our genome... ??
My beef is with the statement "HIV isn't just one retrovirus". HIV-1 is just one retrovirus. It's simply a matter of defintion. Robinson thinks that because HIV-1 has many subtypes then it is more than just one retrovirus, but it is still defined as a single virus HIV-1.

[Deetee]

For those who are interested, I have a link to a series of articles in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl) which reject the hypotheses of Duesberg about AIDS/HIV. Its now over 10 years old, but that in itself is interesting - since then, Duesberg's arguments have not really advanced or changed tack, nor those of other denialists.

They are worth a good read as they cover many of the principles behind the science of HIV/AIDS, and they also show how Duesberg tries to misrepresent data and spin studies so they seem to support his view.

[robinson]

I just read the most recent Duesberg stuff. http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/MOM-duesberg.php
http://www.duesberg.com/

First, AIDS is not infectious. For example, between 1981 and 2004, 930,000 American AIDS patients had been treated by doctors or health care workers. But, despite the absence of an anti-AIDS vaccine, there is not a single case report in the peer-reviewed literature of a doctor or health care worker, who has ever contracted AIDS (rather than just HIV) from any one of these 930,000 patients in now twenty-five years. Likewise, not one of the thousands of HIV-AIDS researchers has ever contracted AIDS from HIV, nor is there an AIDS epidemic among prostitutes anywhere in the world.

WTF??? What planet does he live on?

He makes some good points, but then goes off into WTF??? mode, I can't fathom it. Yet this is a very intelligent person, so ...


His pointing out the statistics on HIV/AIDS does match what the data shows. Most AIDS patients and deaths (except Africa), are Homobisexual men, with I.V. drug use. That real fact is changing a little right now, but there is no doubt it has been true for a long time.

He is also correct about the very low rate of Doctors and Health care workers who have come down with AIDS. (A good thing, in my opinion). If it was anywhere near as contagious as HVB or HVC, it would suck.The split thread is a bit more interesting to me, I'm trying to bring a conversation around to Cuba and HIV/AIDS there. Unlike most of the statistics and reports from around the world, there is little doubt about the data from Cuba.

[Antiquehunter]

Even if Duesberg is right on his prostitute comments - this is likely not due to correlation of the idea that HIV (AIDS) isn't infectious. Wouldn't a more plausible scenario be that prostitutes as a whole are more likely to take sexual health VERY seriously, and be more likely to take appropriate precautions (ie condom use) before engaging in high-risk activity?

[robinson]

Good point. In my are of the world, prostitutes who don't use condoms, and use I.V. drugs or smoke crack, have a very high HIV/AIDS rate. Call girls who are careful and don't use drugs, have almost 0% infection rate.

According to statistics.

[robinson]

Give us a break - the illnesses you mention are quite evident clinically, with the exception of malaria, which can exist at low parasitaemic levels and actually does affect the outcome of pregnancy in those affected, and schistosomiasis, which does not.

Secondly, I am rather disappointed that you of all people should spout out a list of diseases you claim to be "endemic" in Zimbabwe without checking your facts. I thought higher of you.


I was quite wrong. And I apologize. The correct list of diseases for Zimbabwe should have been


bacterial diarrhea,
hepatitis A,
typhoid,
malaria
schistosomiasis.


All of those could have been tested for, and would have helped draw conclusions in the matter. Even so, I don't doubt HIV infection is connected to infant mortality, in some way.

As to the commentary about factors for immune system function, malnutrition and frequent infections, parasites and stress all decrease immune function. So does lack of sleep, bad water and stress.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually hep C isn't very contagious in medical settings either. There have been a couple clinic/doctor based outbreaks, meaning sloppy infection control infected patients. There are hundreds of epidemiological studies that showed the rate of hepatitis C is the same in any number of health care occupations as in matched controls. With the exception there are one or two studies which showed phlebotomists and nurses starting IV lines had a slightly greater risk than controls. The studies were initiated after screening of the Philadelphia Fire Department showed ~6% prevalence of hepatitis C. It turned out the real rate was closer to 4% and that in Philadelphia in matched controls, that was also the rate.

I did a lot of research supporting some worker's comp claims for a couple fire fighters here. Even though the data showed little risk, it was high enough that we still won the cases.

As far as HIV-AIDS in health care workers infected on the job in the US, Occupational Deaths in Health Care Workers, July 2005 (http://origin.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no07/pdfs/04-1038.pdf)To date, 26 (46%) of 57 US healthcare workers with voluntarily reported, documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection have progressed to AIDS, as have 121 (88%) of 138 healthcare workers with possible occupational transmission (25). Job-specific information is available for persons with either documented or possible disease. Twenty-four (42%) of 57 proven transmissions have occurred in nurses, 16 (28%) in clinical laboratory technicians, and 6 (11%) in nonsurgical physicians. Among the 138 persons with possible occupational acquisition, in addition to the occupations above, cases were noted among 12 emergency medical technicians (9%), 6 surgeons (4%), 15 health aide/attendants (11%), and 13 housekeepers and maintenance workers (9%). This distribution by occupation may be applicable to other infections transmitted by percutaneous injury, such as hepatitis B and hepatitis C, but comparable information from recent studies of these infections is not available.

Antiviral therapy to manage an occupational exposure to HIV has resulted in severe hepatitis requiring liver transplant, though no therapy-related deaths have been reported (26). [This was a nurse who was exposed and received PEP drugs after the exposure. I am not certain if she contracted HIV but my understanding is she did not.] The number of healthcare workers who have died from proven or probable occupationally acquired HIV infection has not been reported, but some have died and risk for serious complication persists (27).

[Deetee]

I find it depressing that Duesberg, after at least 15 years of analysing the evidence and debating it widely, still harks back to the old discreditied and disproved concepts he had from the day he first decided to throw his hat into the denialist ring. He truly has learned very little since and it speaks poorly of him as a scientist that he cannot change his core views. Some of his ideas have changed, but this is only tinkering around the edges. He has what is a pretty classic example of cognitive dissonance.

Duesberg's responses (in the Smart interview (http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/MOM-duesberg.php) Robinson cited) to the comments of Candace Pert about CCR mutations causing a degree of resistance to infection with HIV are case in point.
Duesberg lost it completely: "Let's thank God that our mainstream heterosexuals—from our president to our leading HIV-AIDS researchers—are genetically protected against this “deadly” virus via defective HIV receptors, and are therefore AIDS-free."
Also sad that he constantly harks back to his publication on the "Chemical Hypothesis" in 2003. This has been disproved (as I showed with some of my citations earlier in the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2773014&postcount=233)). He is aware that the hypothesis has been comprehensively refuted, but instead of modifying or abandoning it, he makes post hoc rationalisations and excuses as to why it still must hold true, rather in the manner of a clairvoyant explaining why a particular psychic reading was innacurate, or a dowser explaining why he couldn't find any water ("too much negative energy interfering with the channelling").

His persistence with the idea that posessing HIV antibodies means you have successfully eliminated and recovered from an infection is also quite totally and unequivocally wrong. He has repeatedly ignored the fact that antibodies do not necessarily equate with recovery and protection. It is possible to have a persisting latent infection and yet the host can produce antibodies - there are many examples which I know he has had called to his attention but which he ignores. Common examples include chicken pox, glandular fever virus, all the other herpes group viruses, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, parasitic infections, lyme disease, etc. as well as many of the retroviruses which he worked with so closely in the early part of his career.

[Cuddles]

The medical establishment at large is not concerned with healing or keeping people healthy, but with making money. That's capitalism for you, but it's the same principle homeopaths and snake oil traders work. Of course all those groups each believe they would help people (and making a buck off them) but ultimately it is gullible people who suck up medications that are often worthless.

I take it you're from the USA? What about those of us who aren't American? How exactly does a national health service paid for by taxes fit your opinion of doctors? It's in their interest to do the exact opposite of what you claim they do since they do not get any money off the patients. And yet the general workings of state healthcare and the standard of care given are pretty much the same as private healthcare system in the US.

[Belz...]

Wiki -


That clears it all up, doesn't it?

Yes, yes.

I must have confused them with something else.

Aren't there viruses whose DNA has become part of some species' DNA due to freak accidents ?

[Belz...]

I take it you're from the USA? What about those of us who aren't American?

There's civilisation outside the US ???????

[Capsid]

Yes, yes.

I must have confused them with something else.

Aren't there viruses whose DNA has become part of some species' DNA due to freak accidents ?
HIV as with all retroviruses become part of the host (human for HIV) DNA where they are described as proviruses. Effectively they are strands of DNA in our genome as you stated, but I wouldn't call them hidden.

[Belz...]

I meant, integrated into our DNA and passed on to future generations.

[Capsid]

I meant, integrated into our DNA and passed on to future generations.
Yes that can happen such as with endogenous retroviruses, but they have to be integrated into germ cells (eggs and sperm) for them to be inherited. HIV integrates into CD4+ T lymphocytes which are somatic cells (not germ cells).

[kellyb]

Yes that can happen such as with endogenous retroviruses, but they have to be integrated into germ cells (eggs and sperm) for them to be inherited. HIV integrates into CD4+ T lymphocytes which are somatic cells (not germ cells).

Interesting. I'd always wondered what the deal was with that...

[Belz...]

Yes that can happen such as with endogenous retroviruses, but they have to be integrated into germ cells (eggs and sperm) for them to be inherited. HIV integrates into CD4+ T lymphocytes which are somatic cells (not germ cells).

Indeed.

Thanks.

[Deetee]

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

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?

Robinson, we responded before about this anomaly - that kids who didn't have HIV had a greater risk of death if their mother was HIV positive rather than HIV negative.
(We gave a couple of possible explanations, one of which related to poor passive maternal antibody transfer to the infant, increasing their vulnerability to infection.)

However, you might be interested in this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10390292&ordinalpos=66&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum). It shows the same phenomenon, but in New York of all places.
Seems that trauma was a big factor; either accidental or non-accidental. This probably reflects upon the social setting and psychological state of the new mothers (most of whom are likely to be drug users).