AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

Maybe something other than homeopathy once in a while? Alright, here's my beef with AIDS: Its not a disease or a condition, it is first of all a definition.

Example: If you got HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got AIDS. If you don't have HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got tuberculosis.

Ergo, we have
-Tuberculosis ("Immune Deficiency") without HIV+
-HIV+ without disease ("Immune Deficiency")

Doesn't that mean that HIV might not cause of any "Immune Deficiency"?

But halt! Studies have shown that HIV causes AIDS and only HIV positive people can get AIDS?!

Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes, when one is HIV positive, people who are HIV positive *will* develop "AIDS" eventually, since most people get sick once in a while. Vice versa, no HIV negative person will ever develop AIDS. Because of the definition of AIDS.

Thus, we can empirically "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, using this circular definition, when in reality an HIV infection may not cause anything more than a slight fever 4 weeks after infection.

[Rob Lister]

I bet 1000 posts that this is a troll.

[robinson]

Alright, here's my beef with AIDS: Its not a disease or a condition, it is first of all a definition.


Yes, but that isn't the entire situation. All syndromes are made up things. When a group of symptoms are labeled a "syndrome", it is a way of talking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndrome

Example: If you got HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got AIDS. If you don't have HIV and you've got tuberculosis, you've got tuberculosis.


That is correct. Except for one small fact. AIDS is a label, a name, it does not exist, except as a definition. The definition has changed over time, and may change again. But you are quite correct, in that what you have will change, according to what a Doctor believes. If you have TB, and test positive for HIV, you have AIDS. If 10 minutes later it is discovered they had the wrong test result, and you test HIV-, now you have TB.

See? It is labeling, it doesn't mean anything more than what somebody believes it does.


Ergo, we have
-Tuberculosis ("Immune Deficiency") without HIV+
-HIV+ without disease ("Immune Deficiency")

Doesn't that mean that HIV might not cause of any "Immune Deficiency"?


No.

Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes, when one is HIV positive, people who are HIV positive *will* develop "AIDS" eventually, since most people get sick once in a while. Vice versa, no HIV negative person will ever develop AIDS. Because of the definition of AIDS.

Part of that is true. You can have all the symptoms of AIDS, and not have AIDS, if you test HIV-

Likewise, you can have no symptoms, but test HIV+, and some people will claim you have AIDS, or will get AIDS.

But your reasoning, "Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes", does not match the current definition of AIDS. You need to do some research.

Thus, we can empirically "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, using this circular definition, when in reality an HIV infection may not cause anything more than a slight fever 4 weeks after infection.

In reality, there is a bit of controversy over this. Be prepared, it will get ugly.

Many people who test HIV+ have never come down with AIDS. As the years went by, the definition of AIDS changed, and now they say it might be twenty years before you get AIDS. Maybe 30 years.

But the definition of AIDS is what AIDS is. As you said, it is a definition, and it is subject to change, and it is not to be confused with reality, which always defies our attempts to be 100% correct.

There is good evidence that A LOT of people who become HIV+ will get sick with the diseases that AIDS defines as AIDS. But there are also people who have tested HIV+ for many years, and have not exhibited any symptoms of AIDS.

It is strange.

Now go forth, and troll no more.:wackywink:

[Rob Lister]

quote from a pm I just received from troll Dab --
It isn't really helpful to a thread if the first post is something like that. I suggest you edit away the pointless abuse, and instead, come up with a point.

I raise my bet to 2000 posts.

[kellyb]

Cwazy twolls...

To feed or not to feed, that is the question....

[Rob Lister]

oh, feed on. they need food too.

[andyandy]

oh, feed on. they need food too.

it's a bit harsh to label someone a troll based on one post - HIV and AIDS is an interesting and complicated topic - and i am looking forward to learning more about it....

this from wiki seems a helpful graph (if accurate)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/933846993a97e47dd.png

perhaps as Robinson said, you shouldn't get too hung up on labels.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

[Dabljuh]

A mostly thoughtful answer. Allow me the rebuttal. I approve of your answers to my statements until this point:

Originally Posted by Dabljuh View Post
Ergo, we have
-Tuberculosis ("Immune Deficiency") without HIV+
-HIV+ without disease ("Immune Deficiency")

Doesn't that mean that HIV might not cause of any "Immune Deficiency"?
No.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. If you can have "Immune deficiency" as defined by the AIDS definition minus the HIV requirement, and you can find HIV without any sort of "Immune deficiency", then this really does beg the question of whether HIV does cause any immune deficiency at all.

Further, if you use a circular AIDS definition such as the CDC's, it is impossible to disprove that HIV is the causative agent for "AIDS".

Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes, when one is HIV positive, people who are HIV positive *will* develop "AIDS" eventually, since most people get sick once in a while. Vice versa, no HIV negative person will ever develop AIDS. Because of the definition of AIDS.Part of that is true. You can have all the symptoms of AIDS, and not have AIDS, if you test HIV-

Likewise, you can have no symptoms, but test HIV+, and some people will claim you have AIDS, or will get AIDS.

But your reasoning, "Since AIDS is defined as basically any disease, including no disease at all sometimes" does not match the current definition of AIDS. You need to do some research. Actually no I don't, I did do my research. I merely chose not to go into too much detail as not to confuse the lay person with technical descriptions. The definition of AIDS is actually a lot more complex, the CDC definition (which is the most important definition in the western world) defines AIDS as being HIV positive AND having one of 20something "AIDS defining diseases", or alternatively, having a CD4 count of below 200/ml. (link to CDC definition) (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm) Interestingly, the CD4 count was found not to have any validity in determining the integrity of a human adult's immune system.

Alternatively, the so called Bangui definition which is used in third world countries to diagnose AIDS without expensive HIV tests, more loosely defines AIDS as having two to three symptoms of a short list, such as diarrhea, or a persistent cough.

In reality, if you want to put it as simple as possible, it comes down to this:

If you've got an HIV positive test, *or* you are a black african, you get "AIDS" by just getting sick.

[tkingdoll]

I thought that there was a finite list of specific conditions which, when combined with HIV, means you have AIDS (rather than the 'anything' definition we seem to have here). That's what I was taught on an AIDS awareness course. Is that no longer the case?

[Dabljuh]

Crap, Double post

[Dabljuh]

I thought that there was a finite list of specific conditions which, when combined with HIV, means you have AIDS (rather than the 'anything' definition we seem to have here). That's what I was taught on an AIDS awareness course. Is that no longer the case?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.

[JoeEllison]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Can somebody clue me in?

[Dabljuh]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "AIDS" probably doesn't exist, at least not in the way I was told in sex ed.

[kellyb]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. If you can have "Immune deficiency" as defined by the AIDS definition minus the HIV requirement, and you can find HIV without any sort of "Immune deficiency", then this really does beg the question of whether HIV does cause any immune deficiency at all.
Almost every pathogen known to infect people works the same way.
It's like asking if mumps causes mumps. Some people get mumps and never show any symptoms. Some people get all the symptoms of mumps, and there is no mumps virus there.

Further, if you use a circular AIDS definition such as the CDC's, it is impossible to disprove that HIV is the causative agent for "AIDS".

Which is why it's pretty cool that we're going off a lot more than a CDC definition. There's virology, immunology, epidemiology, etc.

Actually no I don't, I did do my research. I merely chose not to go into too much detail as not to confuse the lay person with technical descriptions.

How sweet of you!

The definition of AIDS is actually a lot more complex, the CDC definition (which is the most important definition in the western world) defines AIDS as being HIV positive AND having one of 20something "AIDS defining diseases", or alternatively, having a CD4 count of below 200/ml. (link to CDC definition) Interestingly, the CD4 count was found not to have any validity in determining the integrity of a human adult's immune system.

There are exceptions to every rule.

Alternatively, the so called Bangui definition which is used in third world countries to diagnose AIDS without expensive HIV tests, more loosely defines AIDS as having two to three symptoms of a short list, such as diarrhea, or a persistent cough.

In reality, if you want to put it as simple as possible, it comes down to this:

If you've got an HIV positive test, *or* you are a black african, you get "AIDS" by just getting sick.

If you're HIV+, and your immune system deteriorates, and you get really sick...yes, you do have AIDS.

If you want to say that the actual line of when someone crosses over from "HIV+" to "has AIDS" is a bit imprecise and arbitrarily determined, you might have a point. But that doesn't mean "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"...unless you are just wanting to play semantics.

[Dabljuh]

Usually I don't like semantics, but in this case, it is vital to understand the semantics of the issue since we are dealing with a circular definition.

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

but thanks to the AIDS definition, in the first case, you die *because* of the HIV.

[kellyb]

Usually I don't like semantics, but in this case, it is vital to understand the semantics of the issue since we are dealing with a circular definition.

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

but thanks to the AIDS definition, in the first case, you die *because* of the HIV.

Ok.
I guess to discuss this, we need to be clear on what the opposing claims are.
There are several different flavors of "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" claims.
Do you believe that the HIV virus exists?
Do you believe viruses can make people sick?
Do you believe that the HIV virus impares the human immune system sometimes?
Do you believe the HIV virus infects immune system cells?
Do you subscribe to the "harmless passenger virus" theory?

[Loss Leader]

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.



Without treatment, HIV cuts a population's average life expextancy in half. (source (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-06-02-07)).

So, the current world average life expectancy is about 67 years old. (source (http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/life/index.html)) Without treatment, a population's average life expectancy is 33.5 years.

Debunked.

Get back under your bridge.

[Dabljuh]

Ok.
Do you believe that the HIV virus exists? Yes
Do you believe viruses can make people sick? Yes
Do you believe that the HIV virus impares the human immune system sometimes? Yes, but the question is: to what extent?
Do you believe the HIV virus infects immune system cells? Isn't that the whole point of the HI-Virus? Other viruses infect other things...
Do you subscribe to the "harmless passenger virus" theory? I'm not sure what your particular branch of this theory is, but I guess: Yes.

[JoeEllison]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "AIDS" probably doesn't exist, at least not in the way I was told in sex ed.

I'm guessing the flaw was in the gym coach teaching the class, and not with the worldwide medical community. Just a hunch.

[JoeEllison]

If you got HIV, you will get sick and die.
If you don't have HIV, you will get sick and die too.

but thanks to the AIDS definition, in the first case, you die *because* of the HIV.

Well, ultimately, we all die of the same thing: brain function ceases. Does that mean that cancer doesn't kill you? Of course not: underlying causes matter.

You should watch that House, MD show on the TV.

[kellyb]

Do you believe that the HIV virus impares the human immune system sometimes? Yes, but the question is: to what extent?

Just to be clear, you agree that being infected with HIV makes some people sick eventually?
That the HIV virus can and does negatively effect some people's immune systems?

Would you agree with this statement?
"There are people who are dead, who would be alive had they not been infected with HIV".

[Dabljuh]

Just to be clear, you agree that being infected with HIV makes some people sick eventually?
That the HIV virus can and does negatively effect some people's immune systems?

Would you agree with this statement?
"There are people who are dead, who would be alive had they not been infected with HIV".I'd say this post reveals several fallacies, most importantly it assumes that HIV is infectious. Which it is only barely.

[kellyb]

I'd say this post reveals several fallacies, most importantly it assumes that HIV is infectious. Which it is only barely.

If it's not infectious, how does it spread?

Do you think some people spontaneously generate the virus in their own bodies or something?

[JQH]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "AIDS" probably doesn't exist, at least not in the way I was told in sex ed.

So how do you explain the millions who have died of it?

In the townships of South Africa (I don't know about the rest of the continent) AIDS is a plague on a par with the worst medieval European epidemics.

[Dabljuh]

If it's not infectious, how does it spread?

Do you think some people spontaneously generate the virus or something?No, the HI Virus has a prevalence of about 0.35% amongst the north american population. its most important venue for spreading is human reproduction: it is spread from mother to child. It is almost impossible to get the HI Virus by sexual contact.

The problem that you probably don't understand, is, the HIV tests, and how they are performed, are complete ****.

[Wings]

HIV is a virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), AIDS is a syndrome (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

You can be HIV positive and not have AIDS, Dabljuh. While HIV is acknowledged as the underlying cause of AIDS, HIV can remain in a dormant state and thus not cause the person to have AIDS, at least for a period of time.

AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome. Look at the acronym, Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS is the label we put on an immune system that has been damaged by HIV.

[kellyb]

It is almost impossible to get the HI Virus by sexual contact.
ALL sexual contact? How do you define "almost impossible" there?
What about blood transfusions and needle sharing among IV drug users?

its most important venue for spreading is human reproduction: it is spread from mother to child.
You know that's considered a form of "infectiousness" don't you? A virus that passes from a mother to a child is an infectious disease.


The problem that you probably don't understand, is, the HIV tests, and how they are performed, are complete ****.

I agree that they're imperfect.

Do you think PCR testing is "complete bull****", too?

[Dabljuh]

ALL sexual contact? How do you define "almost impossible" there?Say... There's only the ~4 weeks time between infection and consecutive immunization in which an HIV host can really infect someone.
What about blood transfusions and needle sharing among IV drug users?If you're getting blood transfusions or take IV drugs, then the immunodepressive effect of those actions will far outweight that of a virus.
You know that's considered a form of "infectiousness" don't you? A virus that passes from a mother to a child is an infectious disease.I said "barely". People tend to assume, because of **** learned in sex ed classes, that HIV can be sexually transmitted just like gonnorhoe, or syphillis. Which is not the case. Those are real STI.Do you think PCR testing is "complete bull****", too?Especially PCR testing. Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR test, says its unsuitable for HIV tests and does not believe HIV causes AIDS.

[Dabljuh]

HIV is a virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), AIDS is a syndrome (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

You can be HIV positive and not have AIDS, Dabljuh. While HIV is acknowledged as the underlying cause of AIDS, HIV can remain in a dormant state and thus not cause the person to have AIDS, at least for a period of time.

AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome. Look at the acronym, Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS is the label we put on an immune system that has been damaged by HIV.

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".

[kellyb]

Say... There's only the ~4 weeks time between infection and consecutive immunization in which an HIV host can really infect someone.

What do you mean by "really infect someone"???
ETA:
Do you not agree that the HIV viral load is high in many people who qualify as "AIDS"?

If you're getting blood transfusions or take IV drugs, then the immunodepressive effect of those actions will far outweight that of a virus.
Yeah, that's not what we're talking about, though.
And getting a single blood transfusion is not immunosupressive anyway.

Do you agree that HIV can be transmitted by blood transfusion and needle sharing?

I said "barely". People tend to assume, because of **** learned in sex ed classes, that HIV can be sexually transmitted just like gonnorhoe, or syphillis. Which is not the case. Those are real STI.

It's not my fault that your highschool sex ed teacher sucked, or that you misunderstood something. Also, it might have been a long time ago that you were in school for all we know, so maybe there wasn't a lot of data in at that time on exactly how transmissible HIV is under various circumstances and through various modes of transmission.

Especially PCR testing. Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR test, says its unsuitable for HIV tests and does not believe HIV causes AIDS.
Why would PCR be unsuitable for testing for HIV?
Why do you think PCR and the antibody tests usually agree?

[JoeEllison]

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".
Here we go with the woo-woo conspiracy nonsense.

How about you stop for a second, and use whatever critical thinking skills you have. Forget what you think you know(which is all wrong) and think about the consequences if what you are claiming is true. And then ask yourself why the entire world doesn't know it, but somehow you are magically the smartest, most knowledgeable person alive, and you know all the secrets that no one else can figure out.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

[kellyb]

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".

The definition is not used to "prove" that HIV causes AIDS. Some of the best proof is in the cell biology. The epidemiology also "works" very well, but would be debateable without the cell biology/virology. Robinson a while back located a good "logical thought experiment" that you might like.

[JoeEllison]

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".
Really? The whole world just made it up?

[Dabljuh]

What do you mean by "really infect someone"???
ETA:
Do you not agree that the HIV viral load is high in many people who qualify as "AIDS"?"Viral Load" is a ******** PCR term.
Why would PCR be unsuitable for testing for HIV?
Why do you think PCR and the antibody tests usually agree?I think it's better if you ask those questions to Kary Mullis, since he is far more suitable to elaborate.(Linky) (http://web.archive.org/web/20070210121223/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980714.html)

Here we go with the woo-woo conspiracy nonsense.

How about you stop for a second, and use whatever critical thinking skills you have. Forget what you think you know(which is all wrong) and think about the consequences if what you are claiming is true. And then ask yourself why the entire world doesn't know it, but somehow you are magically the smartest, most knowledgeable person alive, and you know all the secrets that no one else can figure out.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?Imagine, for a second, that 1000 years ago people believed diseases were caused by demons and stuff. But they werent! How could everyone believe it was demons when it wasn't? Since the majority of people obviously is always right, and the truth can be democratically voted for, Demons must be the real cause for diseases. Right? Thanks for this revelation Mr. Critical Thinker. Also: If you do think that I'm the only person in the world who thinks that way, do your research, and until you did, shut up.

The definition is not used to "prove" that HIV causes AIDS. Some of the best proof is in the cell biology. The epidemiology also "works" very well, but would be debateable without the cell biology/virology. Robinson a while back located a good "logical thought experiment" that you might like. I'd like to see that experiment. There is no mechanism known to molecular biology that explains how HIV is supposedly destroying the immune system. It is just assumed it does, but it has to, since after all, it does cause AIDS, right?

[JoeEllison]

Imagine, for a second, that 1000 years ago people believed diseases were caused by demons and stuff. But they werent! How could everyone believe it was demons when it wasn't? Since the majority of people obviously is always right, and the truth can be democratically voted for, Demons must be the real cause for diseases. Right? Thanks for this revelation Mr. Critical Thinker. Also: If you do think that I'm the only person in the world who thinks that way, do your research, and until you did, shut up.

I'd like to see that experiment. There is no mechanism known to molecular biology that explains how HIV is supposedly destroying the immune system. It is just assumed it does, but it has to, since after all, it does cause AIDS, right?LOL, thanks for confirming everything we know about conspiracy theorists.

We're talking about evidence-based medicine. Why do the VAST MAJORITY of doctors and scientists in relevant fields accept the evidence, and a tiny minority pretend the evidence simply doesn't exist? Why is it that besides that tiny number of medical experts, the vast majority of AIDS/HIV deniers are people who have no idea about science, and are simple conspiracy crackpots?

I'm not talking about "democracy"... I'm asking what special insight into the evidence you claim to have, that the entire world has missed?

[strathmeyer]

Just to be clear, Dabljuh, you would have unprotected intercourse with someone with AIDS?

[calebprime]

Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR test, says its unsuitable for HIV tests and does not believe HIV causes AIDS.

"Viral Load" is a ******** PCR term.
I think it's better if you ask those questions to Kary Mullis, since he is far more suitable to elaborate.(Linky) (http://web.archive.org/web/20070210121223/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980714.html)



Kary Mullis is an interesting guy. Loves to surf. Loves to get high--weed and acid, mostly. Loves to be a contrarian. He's had some good ideas, but isn't right if he thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

But what I want to know: There were a lot of gay men in the U.S. dying of AIDS. Then multi-drug anti-viral therapy came along, and the same population of men is now living much longer. So much so, that we say that AIDS is no longer a death sentence. So we have a fairly effective therapy. What's your theory about what is actually happening in this case?

[Dabljuh]

Just to be clear, Dabljuh, you would have unprotected intercourse with someone with AIDS?Someone with AIDS is probably very sick and/or malnourished. Not the kind of person you'd want sex with, regardless of HIV/AIDS.

Maybe your question would be: Would I do someone who merely tested positive on HIV? Yes, if they were hot.

[kellyb]

"Viral Load" is a ******** PCR term.
Hmmm...so I'll take that as a "no".
Let me rephrase it, then. Do you think lots of HIV virons are infecting immune system cells in people with AIDS?

I think it's better if you ask those questions to Kary Mullis, since he is far more suitable to elaborate.(Linky)
He doesn't explain there why PCR would not be good for finding HIV.
The interview is also from 10 years ago, and he says some things there I think he'd recant now, like this:

interviewer:They say it's a blood-borne disease.

Mullis:Well, they don't have any proof of that. There's no proof of it at all.

So, why wouldn't PCR be good for detecting the HIV virus, Dabljuh?

There is no mechanism known to molecular biology that explains how HIV is supposedly destroying the immune system.

No, the mechanisms are known and understood fairly well now.
Would you like for me to find some of the current research for you?

It is just assumed it does

Incorrect. What makes you think that?

[Dabljuh]

Kary Mullis is an interesting guy. Loves to surf. Loves to get high--weed and acid, mostly. Loves to be a contrarian. He's had some good ideas, but isn't right if he thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

But what I want to know: There were a lot of gay men in the U.S. dying of AIDS. Then multi-drug anti-viral therapy came along, and the same population of men is now living much longer. So much so, that we say that AIDS is no longer a death sentence. So we have a fairly effective therapy. What's your theory about what is actually happening in this case?The drugs against HIV/AIDS don't work. None of them have, ever, except as active placebos. If you have a placebo that makes you puke, **** blood and so on, it has hell of a stronger placebo effect than a sugar pill. The reality of those drugs is, that they do not >at all< prolong the lives of "AIDS" victims. The only reason the FDA allows them to be used for AIDS treatment is because the AIDS victims "feel better" when using them, not because they actually cured anything or even prolonged the lifespan.

[kellyb]

Someone with AIDS is probably very sick and/or malnourished. Not the kind of person you'd want sex with, regardless of HIV/AIDS.

Maybe your question would be: Would I do someone who merely tested positive on HIV? Yes, if they were hot.

Would you recieve a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV+?

[Dabljuh]

Hmmm...so I'll take that as a "no".
Let me rephrase it, then. Do you think lots of HIV virons are infecting immune system cells in people with AIDS?Irrelevant.
He doesn't explain there why PCR would not be good for finding HIV.
The interview is also from 10 years ago, and he says some things there I think he'd recant now, like this:

So, why wouldn't PCR be good for detecting the HIV virus, Dabljuh?PCR multiplies genes. For HIV testing purposes, it multiplies RNA. The problem is: it doesn't specifically multiply HIV genes, but any sort of RNA. And it does not multiply it by any consistent factor, but rather randomly in fact. The Result? "Viral Load" doesn't say anything and you can't test for HIV either.
No, the mechanisms are known and understood fairly well now.
Would you like for me to find some of the current research for you?Yes Please. How does the HI-Virus destroy the Immune system, again?

Would you recieve a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV+?Nope.

[Terry]

How does the HI-Virus destroy the Immune system, again?

It screws over important populations of T-cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/escan.fcgi?db=PubMed&uid=12524385&dopt=Citation&field=Title&DateField=MeshDate

[calebprime]

I think your placebo theory could not be true--we're not talking about feeling a little better or worse, we're talking about living or dying. Placebos don't work for that.

here's a study:

A dramatic increase in life expectancy for people infected with HIV has been achieved since the introduction of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), say Medical Research Council (MRC) scientists today (Friday 17 October 2003).


New research conducted at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit in London and published in this week’s issue of The Lancet shows that in the first four years after the introduction of HAART, death rates from AIDS fell by over 80%.

More than 50,000 people in the UK are living with HIV and worldwide, more than 40 million people have been infected with the virus.

Anti-retroviral drugs work by attacking the virus (HIV) that causes AIDS, slowing the progression of the disease and prolonging life. HAART is the name given to anti-retroviral combination treatments that include three or more drugs.

Using data from CASCADE*, a large collaboration of 22 different studies across Europe, Australia and Canada, scientists led by Dr Kholoud Porter of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit assessed the effect of HAART on life expectancy and development of AIDS in people with a known date of HIV infection.

The researchers found that when HAART was introduced in 1997, death rates immediately halved. By 2001, death rates had been cut by over 80%. Over this four year period, use of HAART therapy increased from one in five patients to over half the people infected with HIV.

Before 1997, the risk of developing AIDS was much higher in those aged 45 years or older when they were infected with HIV compared with people who were 16-24 years old. The study found that older people infected with HIV no longer appear to have a reduced life expectancy compared with younger people.

However, the researchers also found that people with HIV who were infected through injecting drug-use were four times more likely to die of AIDS than men infected through sexual contact. Similarly, people infected through other routes, such as haemophiliacs, were three times more likely to die. The researchers suggest that these findings could be due to these groups of people spending less time on HAART, or benefiting less from therapy because of reduced adherence or other existing infections such as Heptatitis.

Dr Porter said: “The introduction of highly active anti-retroviral therapy has been a tremendous success. Before this therapy was introduced, about half of those infected were expected to live for ten years after diagnosis, much less if they were, say, 40 years old when infected. Now, people treated with these combinations of drugs can almost all expect to live at least ten years after diagnosis, regardless of their age at infection.

“However our findings do point to the importance of an early diagnosis so that people can access the best treatments at the right time. We also need to continue to explore what happens when therapy starts to fail, for example due to resistance to anti-retroviral drugs, if we are to maintain improved life expectancy for people living with HIV.”

The collaboration is funded through a grant from the European Union and has received additional funding from GlaxoSmithKline.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a national organisation funded by the UK tax-payer. Its business is medical research aimed at improving human health; everyone stands to benefit from the outputs. The research it supports and the scientists it trains meet the needs of the health services, the pharmaceutical and other health-related industries and the academic world. MRC has funded work which has led to some of the most significant discoveries and achievements in medicine in the UK. About half of the MRC’s expenditure of over £413 million is invested in its 40 Institutes, Units and Centres, where it employs its own research staff. The remaining half goes in the form of grant support and training awards to individuals and teams in universities and medical schools. Web site at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk.
Source: alphagalileo
Further information: www.mrc.ac.uk

[Dabljuh]

Looks a lot like a PR pamphlet by a pharma firm, rather than an actual study.

Did you know the majority of people dying of "AIDS" now die to liver failure? That is, poisoned by HAART and AZT?

[Dabljuh]

It screws over important populations of T-cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/escan.fcgi?db=PubMed&uid=12524385&dopt=Citation&field=Title&DateField=MeshDate
It presents a model. A hypothesis. Not tested for validity, not proof for anything. It just postulates the theory that HIV destroys important populations of T-Cells. It does not explain how it does that in detail or how it somehow stops the production of new T-Cells.

[JoeEllison]

Looks a lot like a PR pamphlet by a pharma firm, rather than an actual study.

Did you know the majority of people dying of "AIDS" now die to liver failure? That is, poisoned by HAART and AZT?Where's the proof that AZT causes liver failure?

If they die of liver failure without AZT, it is liver failure.

If they die of liver failure with AZT, it is the AZT.

Seems that you accept the majority viewpoint, developed by experts, when it supports your conspiracy theory. However, you reject the majority viewpoint, developed using the exact same methods and techniques, when it comes to HIV/AIDS.

Would you like to explain the apparent hypocrisy?

[kellyb]

Irrelevant.

No, it's actually quite relevant to the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS.

PCR multiplies genes. For HIV testing purposes, it multiplies RNA. The problem is: it doesn't specifically multiply HIV genes, but any sort of RNA. And it does not multiply it by any consistent factor, but rather randomly in fact. The Result? "Viral Load" doesn't say anything and you can't test for HIV either.

You're sort of all over the place here, man.
I'm asking you why you're assuming PCR isn't good for detecting HIV.

Do you think PCR is useful for detecting other viruses?

If so, why would you see HIV as different?

Do you think PCR is useful for detecting influenza viruses?

[kellyb]

It presents a model. A hypothesis. Not tested for validity, not proof for anything. It just postulates the theory that HIV destroys important populations of T-Cells. It does not explain how it does that in detail or how it somehow stops the production of new T-Cells.

How about this one?
(It's only one piece of the picture, but a good start).

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-199910010-00005.htm;jsessionid=GZbJy3nL4YnJLWKpSJ1Vn0GQrpSyT q4Lc8ynkyXsY1t6XMyMJKlb!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

[kellyb]

Nope.

Why?

[Dabljuh]

Where's the proof that AZT causes liver failure?

If they die of liver failure without AZT, it is liver failure.

If they die of liver failure with AZT, it is the AZT.

Seems that you accept the majority viewpoint, developed by experts, when it supports your conspiracy theory. However, you reject the majority viewpoint, developed using the exact same methods and techniques, when it comes to HIV/AIDS.

Would you like to explain the apparent hypocrisy?Well, you probably don't understand what "Liver Failure" means. It usually means "poisoned" - The liver is there to neutralize poisons in the body. For example Alcohol. So you die drinking too much alcohol, causing a catastrophic liver failure. A large number of poisons can thus cause a lethal liver failure, for example certain mushrooms, the toxins produced by a few bacteria, and very importantly: most pharmaceutical drugs, such as paracetamol, can strain and cause liver failure.

The liver doesn't just fail randomly as far as I know. There is always a toxin, a bacteria or a virus involved. Hence If they die of liver failure without AZT, it is liver failure.
If they die of liver failure with AZT, it is the AZT.Is a fallacy. They always die of liver failure. The question is merely: which was the toxin that caused that?

Liver failure is not a known/suspected effect of HIV. But it is a *known* adverse effect of antiretroviral therapy.(source) (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=ar-05-01)

This means when people with HIV die of liver failure, then this may well mean they may have survived *longer* without the treatment.

[JoeEllison]

You still haven't explained your apparent hypocrisy. You accept science when it supports your claims, and reject science when it refutes your claims. You cannot have it both ways... unless you have a very good explanation for it.

[andyandy]

ok....i now agree with Rob :D

[Dabljuh]

How about this one?
(It's only one piece of the picture, but a good start).

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-199910010-00005.htm;jsessionid=GZbJy3nL4YnJLWKpSJ1Vn0GQrpSyT q4Lc8ynkyXsY1t6XMyMJKlb!675572714!181195628!8091!-1
This is hilarious:Objective: We have previously demonstrated that complement-mediated antibody-dependent enhancement (C-ADE) of HIV-1 infection correlates with accelerated immunosuppression and disease progression in HIV-1-infected individuals.Translation: "We found that people who have HIV-1 experienced a deteroriation of their immune system when we gave them C-ADE"

It doesn't even pose the question of whether HIV has adverse effects on the immune system in the first place. They don't even use a real control group. Trash Science.

[kellyb]

the toxins produced by a few viruses

Viruses don't produce toxins. You're thinking of bacteria.

[Dabljuh]

You still haven't explained your apparent hypocrisy. You accept science when it supports your claims, and reject science when it refutes your claims. You cannot have it both ways... unless you have a very good explanation for it.LMAO

"Science: You are either for us, or against us"

Viruses don't produce toxins. You're thinking of bacteria.Right... but the Hepatitis A-Z are viruses, and being too lazy to read up on how exactly they harm the liver, I assume its not purely mechanical.

[kellyb]

This is hilarious:Translation: "We found that people who have HIV-1 experienced a deteroriation of their immune system when we gave them C-ADE"

How did they give them C-ADE?


It doesn't even pose the question of whether HIV has adverse effects on the immune system in the first place.

No, it demonstrates a mechanism you claimed did not exist.

[JoeEllison]

LMAO

"Science: You are either for us, or against us"

Right... but the Hepatitis A-Z are viruses, and being too lazy to read up on how exactly they harm the liver, I assume its not purely mechanical.


Whatever. You accept science when it suits you, and reject it when it doesn't, with no logic or evidence to support your choices.

[calebprime]

Is this you?

from the Wiki:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
[edit]WP:CIV
04:55, December 16, 2005: "You may fool the regular ****tard here that easily. I want arguments. ... I want real arguments why circumcision is good, other than "I have studies that..." I want a priori, theoretical, rational arguments why circumcision would be medicinally beneficial, as well as why it would preferrably be done on infants rather than consenting adults. No weaseling around, I demand the answers, now!"
15:16, December 16, 2005: "Since you continously fail to provide any argument pro (infant) circumcision, I make you an ultimatum: Argue with me, convince me, or I will add both a disputed and an npov flag to the article's header."
05:01, January 9, 2006: "Screw prudes"
[edit]WP:NPA
02:13, January 7, 2006: Describes user as a 'lunatic' (note - also demonstrates assumption of bad faith)
07:32, January 12, 2006: In response to (requested) criticism: "I'm not going to let me being filibustered by fringe view POV pushers."
21:33, January 8, 2006: (likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
02:09, January 11, 2006: "You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. ... User:Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from."
02:47, January 11, 2006: (likens editor to Adolf Hitler) (See also what provoked this)
09:35, January 11, 2006: "Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in #consensus?. You're certainly all sane otherwise"
19:25, January 12, 2006: "Jake, seriously, stop worrying and take a wikibreak, you know why. This here is just distracting you from your real life problems"
00:49, January 11, 2006: (playground diagnoses)

[Dabljuh]

You don't "Demonstrate" a mechanism by assuming it is there and then testing whether you can "alter" the supposed mechanism. That is bad, bad science.

[JoeEllison]

How did they give them C-ADE?



No, it demonstrates a mechanism you claimed did not exist.Somehow, the evidence is good enough for the scientists, and for the people funding the scientists... and not good enough for conspiracy crackpots.

[kellyb]

Right... but the Hepatitis A-Z are viruses, and being too lazy to read up on how exactly they harm the liver, I assume its not purely mechanical.

The Hepatitis viruses are not genetically related, except that they're viruses and from earth. (well, unless you're a panspermiest, I guess).
They each "work" differently. It has nothing to do with "viruses that excrete toxins". There's no such thing.

[Dabljuh]

Is this you?

from the Wiki:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DabljuhYeah, I was edit-warring on the circumcision article complex. Jayjg and Jakew are the local pro-circumcision-propagandists, being that jayjg is an administrator he eventually removed me.

[Dabljuh]

The Hepatitis viruses are not genetically related, except that they're viruses and from earth. (well, unless you're a panspermiest, I guess).
They each "work" differently. It has nothing to do with "viruses that excrete toxins". There's no such thing.

Viruses don't have a metabolism on their own. But they can infect cells and have them produce toxins. I don't know the details of the hepatitis viruses, I simply assumed that the destructive process was more toxic than mechanical in nature.

[kellyb]

You don't "Demonstrate" a mechanism by assuming it is there and then testing whether you can "alter" the supposed mechanism. That is bad, bad science.

You already agreed earlier that the HIV virus infects immune system cells.
Do you wish to change your position now?

[kellyb]

Viruses don't have a metabolism on their own. But they can infect cells and have them produce toxins. I don't know the details of the hepatitis viruses, I simply assumed that the destructive process was more toxic than mechanical in nature.

Here's part of how hepB does it.
Do you think this is junk science, too?
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v24/n27/abs/1208628a.html

[andyandy]

Is this you?

from the Wiki:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

lol

there's no hiding place on the web....:D

[Dabljuh]

You already agreed earlier that the HIV virus infects immune system cells.
Do you wish to change your position now?Um... Infecting Immune system cells != Destroying the Immune system. Especially not irreversibly. Do you wish to wisen up now?

Here's part of how hepB does it.
Do you think this is junk science, too?
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v24/n27/abs/1208628a.htmlDon't know, don't care about hepatitis B. Is hepatitis B interesting?

[JoeEllison]

Um... Infecting Immune system cells != Destroying the Immune system. Especially not irreversibly. Do you wish to wisen up now?

Don't know, don't care about hepatitis B. Is hepatitis B interesting?
What is interesting is how you can accept parts of reality, and reject other parts. You accept that HIV attacks the immune system, right? You accept the evidence supporting that HIV attacks the immune system?

[Dabljuh]

lol

there's no hiding place on the web....:DIndeed. Which is why I have some 5 internet aliases :/

[kellyb]

Um... Infecting Immune system cells != Destroying the Immune system. Especially not irreversibly. Do you wish to wisen up now?

I guess I do need to wisen up since I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you or do you not still agree that the HIV virus infects human immune system cells?

Don't know, don't care about hepatitis B. Is hepatitis B interesting?
All viruses that infect humans are interesting. :)
I was wondering if you saw PCR and thought "junk science".

[Dabljuh]

What is interesting is how you can accept parts of reality, and reject other parts. You accept that HIV attacks the immune system, right? You accept the evidence supporting that HIV attacks the immune system?Reality? You're talking about reality? I'm talking about the NHI/CDC opinion of HIV/AIDS that currently dominates mass media and sex ed. Reality? Are you high?

Secondly: Attacking? I never talked about attacking. I said HIV infects immune system cells. I said there is no mechanism known to science by which HIV destroys the immune system, or even the T-Cells it infects. It doesn't destroy them, it doesn't stop new cells from being generated. And neither is HIV immune to the antibodies that are generated to immunize the body after 2-4 weeks of infection.

So, what are you on about? That, unlike SCIENCE, you found some magical way by which HIV destroys the entire immune system?

All viruses that infect humans are interesting. :)There's too many of them to consider all of them interesting.
I was wondering if you saw PCR and thought "junk science".PCR isn't junk science, its used every day. PCR to detect HIV infection is junk science.

[JoeEllison]

Reality? You're talking about reality? I'm talking about the NHI/CDC opinion of HIV/AIDS that currently dominates mass media and sex ed. Reality? Are you high?

Secondly: Attacking? I never talked about attacking. I said HIV infects immune system cells. I said there is no mechanism known to science by which HIV destroys the immune system, or even the T-Cells it infects. It doesn't destroy them, it doesn't stop new cells from being generated. And neither is HIV immune to the antibodies that are generated to immunize the body after 2-4 weeks of infection.

So, what are you on about? That, unlike SCIENCE, you found some magical way by which HIV destroys the entire immune system?

There's too many of them to consider all of them interesting.PCR isn't junk science, its used every day. PCR to detect HIV infection is junk science.More proof of my initial impression of you.

Science is all over this one. You just reject all of the science. You accept PCR, except where it confuses your conspiracy theory. You accept HIV infecting the immune system, yet you fail to see that infection as an attack on the immune system.

Do you think a viral infection is some sort of positive thing?

[Dabljuh]

More proof of my initial impression of you.

Science is all over this one. You just reject all of the science. You accept PCR, except where it confuses your conspiracy theory. You accept HIV infecting the immune system, yet you fail to see that infection as an attack on the immune system.

Do you think a viral infection is some sort of positive thing?

Do you realize that every human has between 30 and 70 retroviruses inside them, and none of them cause any problems? That every human has around 10'000 retroviral genes in his genome, but only the HIV one supposedly causes any problems?

Yes of course, any viral infection is a strain for the immune system. after all, the immune system has to produce an immunological reaction to it. But when even 100's of viruses at the same time don't cause problems, why do you believe that HIV, which is only different from other retroviruses in that its target cell is the immunologically relevant T-Cell, where other retroviruses infect othercell types such as muscle cells, nerve cells, fat cells etc is the only retrovirus that destroys the immune system and kills its host?

Don't you understand that a retrovirus requires its host to live and reproduce? Any retrovirus that would kill its host would soon die out.

[Miss Anthrope]

Wow, my brother died of..................nothing?
Amazing.

[kellyb]

PCR isn't junk science, its used every day. PCR to detect HIV infection is junk science.

Why?

Is PCR good for detecting influenza?

[Hokulele]

Wow, my brother died of..................nothing?
Amazing.


And two of my uncles. Life is a funny thing, isn't it? You think you know something, and then a stranger on the internet tells you that you are completely wrong. I just don't know.

* Shakes head sadly *

[JoeEllison]

But when even 100's of viruses at the same time don't cause problems, why do you believe that HIV, which is only different from other retroviruses in that its target cell is the immunologically relevant T-Cell, where other retroviruses infect othercell types such as muscle cells, nerve cells, fat cells etc is the only retrovirus that destroys the immune system and kills its host?If you can't puzzle my answer out of your own post, I seriously doubt you'd understand me if I told you.

You're abnormal psychology is immensely fascinating, however, so please keep posting.

[kellyb]

Don't you understand that a retrovirus requires its host to live and reproduce? Any retrovirus that would kill its host would soon die out.

Unless it kills it's host slowly.
If HIV had emerged in a way that led to a quick death for it's host, it, too, would have probably killed itself off. Or attenuated itself over time to become less lethal.
It survives because it acts slowly, though.

ETA:
Same with Hepatitis B. If it killed it's chronic carriers quickly, it wouldn't have made it vary far.
Come to think of it, there are a few similarities between HIV and HepB. If you're into "conspiracy theories", you should look into the "serial passage" theory of HIV. (It's not exactly a conspiracy theory, but it's "juicy" like one).

[Dabljuh]

You never considered that a virus can be completely harmless and just propagate itself? Without causing its hosts any harm?

[JoeEllison]

You never considered that a virus can be completely harmless and just propagate itself? Without causing its hosts any harm?

What evidence do you have that HIV acts in this way? None, of course.

[Complexity]

Can't believe that we're arguing with an idiot that named himself 'W' after Cheney's monkey.

What a sleaze.

[kellyb]

You never considered that a virus can be completely harmless and just propagate itself? Without causing its hosts any harm?

Sure. It happens all the time. Again, with HIV, the proof is largely in the cell biology. And the epidemiology. I totally understand that the people who are killed quickly by HIV often have other issues, so the epidemiology on it's own is questionable. But then there are things like the people (and there are lots of them) who are brought back from the brink of death with antiretrovirals. Others, of course, who die from the meds, too. More...many more...who are kept alive longer, though, than those who completely abstain from medication.

Then there are the children who are born with HIV who almost inevitably die without treatment. Seriously look into that group and most of the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" theories start to crumble. What do you think Christine Maggiori's daughter died from? Do you think the coroner faked the autopsy? Was he "in on" the conspiracy? Then there was Cuba, where a draconian quarantine was imposed on all HIV positive people at the beginning of the epidemic. They now have no HIV and no AIDS in the country. On and on and on.

[The Atheist]

It is almost impossible to get the HI Virus by sexual contact.

The problem that you probably don't understand, is, the HIV tests, and how they are performed, are complete ****.

Have to say, you've picked a doozy here. Your evidence so far is fairly comprehensive, however. People like Kary Mullis can't be swept away like a Behe. He may not necessarily be right, but his opinion has to be respected.

quote from a pm I just received from troll Dab --

I raise my bet to 2000 posts.

I'd take that double and raise you to 4K that he isn't.

I see someone posting a highly controversial point, but with evidence. Trolls never do that. Well, not with respectable evidence, anyway.

Kary Mullis is an interesting guy. Loves to surf. Loves to get high--weed and acid, mostly. Loves to be a contrarian. He's had some good ideas, but isn't right if he thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

When, along with getting high, he has time to win a Nobel Prize, take the award for R & D scientist of the year, plus other sundry honours, I suspect those homours say more about him than his having the occasional spliff. Sagan used to smoke dope, I believe? Is Cosmos bunkum?


Fascinating stuff so far, Dabljah. (Mind if I just call you Dubbya? Your way is a pest to type.)

Not related to John Hewitt are you?

[The Atheist]

Can't believe that we're arguing with an idiot that named himself 'W' after Cheney's monkey.

What a sleaze.

Well, until someone can post adequate refutation of his position, I'll continue to not consider him a complete idiot or troll. I see lots of assertion masquerading as fact in effort to refute him, but none of it's worked so far.

Is there a doctor or microbiologist in the house? Has anyone refuted Mullis' position? Seems to me Dab has taken Mullis' position on board - if that's been refuted, we can put him to bed right now.

[JoeEllison]

People like Kary Mullis can't be swept away like a Behe. He may not necessarily be right, but his opinion has to be respected.

I'd disagree with you. Everyone from Shermer to Penn & Teller to Randi have commented that very intelligent people can fall into the woo at least as easily as anyone else. And, once they do, they use their intellect to construct very complex and elaborate rationalizations for the woo... making it more difficult to bust through.

Or, more simply: I respect Newton's work in physics, but the man was a moron when it came to religion... just 'cause someone's sharp as a tack doesn't mean they can't also be an idiot.

[JoeEllison]

Is there a doctor or microbiologist in the house? Has anyone refuted Mullis' position? Seems to me Dab has taken Mullis' position on board - if that's been refuted, we can put him to bed right now.

Seems like we've seen some pretty good evidence, plus the evidence points towards a "conspiracy theorist crackpot" mindset... not conclusive, but really damned solid.

[calebprime]

more on Kary Mullis

HIV / AIDS Controversy
Mullis has also drawn controversy for his past association with Peter Duesberg and his skepticism about the evidence for the idea that HIV causes AIDS. (For more on this topic, see also AIDS reappraisal and the interviews listed below.) As the recipient of a Nobel Prize for the PCR technique that is used to measure viral load in people with AIDS, he has often been cited by people within the AIDS dissident movement as someone who supports their views.
[edit]Global Warming
Mullis is skeptical about the concern over global warming, disagreeing with the scientific consensus that it is caused by humans, and with the idea that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) cause ozone depletion.
[edit]Authorship

Dr Mullis wrote the 1998 autobiography "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field", which gives an account of his initial invention of PCR, as well as providing insights into the opinions and experiences of the author. Several examples of supposedly atypical behavior for a scientist, including the use of LSD, belief in astrology, and the belief in an extraterrestrial encounter, are also chronicled within the book. These accounts have made Dr. Mullis a controversial figure within the scientific community.


I'm saying his love of being a contrarian goes beyond the occasional spliff.

This doesn't discredit him, any more than his belief in E.T. encounters.

[kellyb]

Can anyone (W?) verify that Mullis still disbelieves that HIV causes AIDS?
The most recent quotes I can find are from 1998.
And there's this:

http://www.aidstruth.org/Nobel-Denial.pdf

Incidentally, it is not at all clear that Mullis still objects to the use of PCR to detect viral nucleic acids. In an exchange with HIV expert Peter McDonald in the context of the Adelaide trial of Chad Parenzee (an Australian HIV-positive man who was accused and convicted of knowingly endangering the lives of his sexual partners), Mullis wrote that PCR appears to work well and correctly observed that the validity of the technique is not dependent on his opinion, anyway. While this does not necessarily mean that Kary Mullis has entirely rejected HIV/AIDS denialism, it does suggest that denialists should be more careful when formulating his supposed pronouncements on the value of PCR.
In conclusion, apart from Kary Mullis—a dubious authority at best, and whose position seems to have changed over the years—no Nobelist denies that HIV causes AIDS

A LOT of research has been done in the past 10 years. I can almost see how in 1998 it might have still been just a wee tiny bit "open".

[Dabljuh]

Mullis isn't even the most important AIDS critic. I'd say the most important one is Duesberg, who is a tenured professor and expert on retroviruses. His most important book is "Inventing the AIDS Epidemic"

Mind you: Intelligent people do make honest mistakes, but these mistakes are very rarely of the type where they lose their jobs over controversial opinions. Because for those type of controversial opinions and statements, you want to double-check you didn't just make a mistake somewhere in your logic.

Remember, Duesberg is the guy who first had the suggestion to look for retroviruses as a cause for cancer. A year later, he retracted that, figuring he was wrong about that. Didn't stop the cancer researchers of course. He's not the type of guy who stays on a wrong course when he knows its wrong. Kary Mullis neither does have any financial or economical reason to criticize the medical establishment for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.

On the other hand, there's a multi, multi multi billion industry based on the HIV->AIDS assumption. Every single one of them has a good, financial reason to dismiss any evidence that point away from HIV causing diseases, and instead overstressing the threat that AIDS supposedly causes.

Conspiracy? I think you have the wrong impression of what's going on. Gallo was famous for blaming all sorts of diseases, such as alzheimers, parkinsons, and others on retroviruses, and none of his theories ever held up to the scientific scrutiny of real scientists like Duesberg in the journals. The process of science does not prevent bad science from being published, what it does is, it allows for the bad science to be eventually corrected.

1983 or so, Gallo got to talk with the president of the health department, and simply convinced her with his small presentation that the cause for the AIDS disease had been found in this retrovirus Montagnier discovered a few months earlier. The Health Department's President simply announced this to the public, and from then on, everyone went with it. Billions upon billions were granted on AIDS research, and those people would have been stupid to suddenly come out and say "Hey, HIV probably isn't the cause for this AIDS thing"

Well, only Duesberg and a few others were stupid enough. Now that is some serious scientific integrity and courage, for which I believe Duesberg should get a medal or something. Mind you, the NIH or the CDC aren't interested in disproving the AIDS myth either: They both would get much less money if infectious diseases were understood to be less of a danger.

And Africa? In africa, AIDS is just a way to get world health organization funding for old tropical diseases such as malaria. Malaria causes diarrhea, fever, and by itself can satisfy the Bangui AIDS definition. But with Malaria, the doctors, the country, and the individual do not receive as much money, as when they claim another AIDS case.

Children die to malnutrition and poor sanitation every day in the third world, but thanks to the AIDS definitions, instead of poverty, these deaths can now be attributed to a disease.

[kellyb]

http://garlan.rethinkingaids.info/Cases/Parenzee/McDonald-Mullis.html

I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two “primer target sequences” comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way.

The matter which you are considering, if I understand it correctly, is that the presence or absence of a given nucleic acid sequence, as determined by PCR, can be used as a reliable marker for a living organism in a biological sample. This is done quite often in scientific studies, but that does not mean there could never be exceptions. Remember scientific studies are done with the understanding that findings will be subject to scrutiny from colleagues. A nucleic acid segment very similar in size and terminal base could easily, in a cursory examination, be mistaken for the sequence in question. If this happened in the course of a normal scientific finding, somebody would finally notice it. Papers are retracted all the time. I am not aware of the nature of the evidence you are considering, but when it comes to legal issues, retractions don’t necessarily make up for the original mistake, and if I were to offer advice to the courts system of Australia, I would plead that they realize that the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR.
Mullis agrees that PCR is good for finding the HIV virus, but is iffy on if the HIV virus causes AIDS.

Anyway, W....do you now agree that PCR is useful for finding the HIV virus?

[The Atheist]

I'd disagree with you. Everyone from Shermer to Penn & Teller to Randi have commented that very intelligent people can fall into the woo at least as easily as anyone else. And, once they do, they use their intellect to construct very complex and elaborate rationalizations for the woo... making it more difficult to bust through.

Or, more simply: I respect Newton's work in physics, but the man was a moron when it came to religion... just 'cause someone's sharp as a tack doesn't mean they can't also be an idiot.

Agree entirely. I chat to a bloke on a christian forum who's a PhD Theoretical Neuroscientist and he's unquestionably one of the smartest blokes on the planet.

He's also a raving Roman Catholic.

That said, Mullis' Nobel was in his specialist subject, which is very close to what he talks about.

Like KellyB, I'm a bit concerned that everything he raises in "evidence" is a decade old. The has certainly been an enormous amount of money spent and research into AIDS/HIV during that time, while I doubt Mullis has done much more.

Bloody interesting, though - I'd been discussing the Karposi's Sarcoma/AIDS business just a few days ago, wondering why it wasn't seen as a symptom of AIDS any longer, and how the disease/syndrome seems to keep changing shape - metaphorically speaking, from our humble human perspective. I'm no doctor, but I spot inconsistencies in stuff. Why I'm an atheist, really.

Seems like we've seen some pretty good evidence, plus the evidence points towards a "conspiracy theorist crackpot" mindset... not conclusive, but really damned solid.

Fair. Plus, it isn't as though drug companies don't feature in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, drug companies do not have a squeaky clean image. Thalidomide, anyone?

more on Kary Mullis

Mullis is skeptical about the concern over global warming, disagreeing with the scientific consensus that it is caused by humans, and with the idea that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) cause ozone depletion(bolding mine)

AGW, the jury may still be out, but only for a quick ciggie break before returning a guilty verdict, but I understand that CFC/ozone depletion was a simple chemical reaction which is well-documented? I'm no chemist either, but I recall the link being nothing else.

belief in astrology

Not good.

belief in an extraterrestrial encounter, are also chronicled within the book.[/B] These accounts have made Dr. Mullis a controversial figure within the scientific community.

I'm saying his love of being a contrarian goes beyond the occasional spliff.

Hmm. All he needs is a touch of homeopathy and he could go for the full house.

A LOT of research has been done in the past 10 years. I can almost see how in 1998 it might have still been just a wee tiny bit "open".

Agree entirely.

Looking at it dispassionately, I've seen a great deal of animosity, lack of agreement and dis/misinformation around the disease since it was first discovered.

Take this early post!

Without treatment, HIV cuts a population's average life expextancy in half. (source (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-06-02-07)).

So, the current world average life expectancy is about 67 years old. (source (http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/life/index.html)) Without treatment, a population's average life expectancy is 33.5 years.

Debunked.

Get back under your bridge.

Now, this is statistic mining of the worst kind.

From that same page, I will mine a few things:

what is the life expectancy of someone with HIV? We don't know exactly

Well, if you don't know, you don't know... How then does that back up an assertion that HIV cuts life expectancy in half?

What we are starting to see is that deaths among people with HIV are now caused more and more by things like injuries and heart attacks, rather than by AIDS

Not all that compelling, but gets worse with:

Heart disease may be related to HIV or its treatments,

So let's make our first guess that the AIDS or the treatment is causing it? Don't we ask first and decide second? They may well be right, but it would be nice to put the data before the hypoethesis.

More:

but it seems that if people have their cholesterol monitored and take medication to lower it as needed, stop smoking, and take care of other risk factors like high blood pressure, the risk of heart attack should be greatly reduced.

Very good, positive changes in diet and smoking and other dangerous habits will make you live longer! This is new?

Cut to the chase:

Dabjah:

Do you have any hard data to back up your position, other than the out-of-date stuff by Mullis?

Anyone else:

Why is Kenya's AIDS rate dropping so quickly? HIV/AIDS prevalence was 6.7 percent in 2004, down from about 10 percent in the late 1990s (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_2621.html)

Given that the AIDS rate - blamed for most of Africa's ills - is dropping so quickly, it should have an immediate impact on life expectancy.

Funny how Kenya's is still decreasing:

Average life expectancy
2004 47.5 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2006
2003 47.2 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2005
2002 45.2 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2004
2001 46.4 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2003
2000 50.8 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2002

link (http://www.alertnet.org/db/cp/kenya.htm)

Why do some people have vastly reduced CD4 cells and not contract AIDS?

[skeptigirl]

From a CIA plot/accident (HIV was supposedly a mutant version of smallpox vaccine) to HIV hasn't really been "proved" as the cause of HIV-AIDS....the human psyche is so bizarre. There must be some sort of neurosis that affects people like Behe (irreducible complexity) and Mullis, some as yet inexplicable desire to be 'the one' who went against the establishment and was vindicated. Trouble is, a few people actually had evidence such as Darwin or Wegener (plate tectonics), but people like Behe and Mullis only have a fantasy. Yet the fact they have some university degree or Nobel Prize gives people who are looking for reinforcement of denial or of some anti-establishment conspiracy belief a cause celebre.

Here are a few debunking web sites of this particular nonsense and Dabljuh's twisted logic.

AIDS Denial is Pseudoscience (http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/) is a very thorough web site with multiple links including this one: AIDSTruth.org (http://www.aidstruth.org/).

AIDSTruth has a list of most of the most prominent AIDS Denialists (http://www.aidstruth.org/aids-denialists.php) and addresses their unsupported claims. Pareto's Law would predict that 20% or fewer of the denialists would account for 80% or more of the denialist activity. Below are some of the more notorious members of the first category.


THE AIDS DENIERS, (By Jim Nelson; GQ Sept. 2001), (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jndeniers.htm) is an interesting short story, non-fiction, about a couple of HIV Denialists that are now both dead from HIV-AIDS. One died in 2004 and one just this year according to aidstruth.org's list of AIDS Denialists that have died of AIDS (http://www.aidstruth.org/aids-denialists-who-have-died.php).Michael Bellefountaine - A member of the denialist ACT UP/San Francisco, Michael Bellafontaine died on May 10, 2007. He was 41. His Bay Area Reporter obituary said that "According to Andrea Lindsay, a friend and fellow activist, Mr. Bellefountaine died of a sudden systemic infection, though the exact cause has not been determined." (http://ebar.com/obituaries/index.php?sec=ob&article=252)

David Pasquarelli - David Pasquarelli, a leader of the denialist group "ACT UP San Francisco" developed PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and disseminated CMV before he died in March of 2004. He was 37. (http://www.davidpasquarelli.com)


Mother Jones had an article on The Foo Fighters front man Dave Grohl (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/02/foo.html), another AIDS Denialist with a public microphone, (Feb 2000).

And here's a skeptical review of Mullis' "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". (http://www.aidstruth.org/Dancing-Naked-in-the-Mind-Field.pdf)

And as for Duesberg, (http://www.aidstruth.org/inventing.php) the following excerpts are from a review in Nature of his 1996 book, Inventing the AIDS Virus. A decade more has not led to any supporting evidence for this tripe. According to Bryan Ellison, who co-wrote with Peter Duesberg an earlier version of Inventing the AIDS Virus, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tried to suppress the publication of this book. I can't think why they would want to bother. But conspiracy theories so pervade the book and that I shouldn't be in the least surprised if Oliver Stone does the movie.

Duesberg's central thesis is that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a harmless virus, and that life-style (especially recreational drug use) is the principal reason why people die of AIDS. The use of AZT as an AIDS therapy is blamed for exacerbating the problem. In the first section of his book, Duesberg tells the story of an obscure syndrome (SMON) that was present in Japan from the 1950s to the 1970s. Despite persistent theories of a viral cause, SMON was found to be a toxicological problem caused by anti-diarrhoea drugs sometimes used to treat SMON symptoms. Duesberg draws an analogy from these events to AIDS, with AZT analogous to the anti-diarrhoea drugs. An interesting tale, but documenting this and a few other old medical mistakes scarcely proves that AZT causes AIDS and that HIV is a mere passenger virus. But according to Duesberg, "No fatal viral disease is known to cause death in nearly all infected people -- except the paradoxical 'AIDS virus'." Try telling that to those who came across Ebola-Zäire; their mortality rate was about 80 per cent, for this virus is literally more lethal than a bullet in the head.Rabies is close to 100% fatal in humans and the only known survivor was treated with Rabies Immune Globulin very early on. And the AZT hypothesis is so ridiculous since it wasn't even used until HIV-AIDS was well into a full blown pandemic, not to mention all the people in third world countries with HIV-AIDS who haven't had access to any anti-retrovirals, ever.

The review goes on to sayThe book contains no new revelations on the 'non-link' between HIV and AIDS since September 1995, when the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases released its 61-page document on The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. This contains all the facts, and I strongly recommend people to read it. Of course, seeing that it was written by government scientists, it will no doubt be dismissed by Duesberg's sympathizers as part of a continuing cover-up. For according to Duesberg, the AIDS epidemic became the "salvation" of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) of the CDC is described as the "medical CIA" and ex-members are said to "have obtained prominent positions in the media". One even edits a scientific journal. How sinister! Whatever next? Essentially, Duesberg's case is that the fundamental purpose of the CDC is to invent medical emergencies for the National Institutes of Health to resolve - anything is justified so long as the tax dollars just keep on rollin'. Implicit, and often explicit, is that tens of thousands of health-care professionals and research scientists are either too stupid to realize that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, or too venal to do anything about it for fear of losing income from the government or drug companies.

Duesberg mounts an assault on the virology "establishment", with special emphasis on the tumour virologists of the 1960s and 1970s. Researchers mistakes, real and opined, are gleefully documented - a veritable virological Who's Who is castigated. And the trend continues when the HIV section is finally reached. There, all the 'big name' retrovirologists of the 1980s are targeted, and the early scandals of AIDS research are picked over yet again. So many scientists and so many of the "mistakes" are listed that I was eventually reminded of the old joke about the brigade of guards on parade, with one little guardsman horribly out of step. When the drill sergeant bawls at him, an old lady attacks him with an umbrella saying: "Leave him alone, my boy Peter is in step, it's all them other so-and-so's what are the problem!" All this ancient history is very entertaining, but it hardly seems central to the purpose of the book. Or is it?

Although some vengeance might be expected from a virologist whose eminent career was ended by the AIDS epidemic, one might have wished for a better understanding of modern virology from Duesberg. One of his main complaints about HIV and other 'slow' viruses is that they "violate the laws of virology". But what are these laws? Was it carved in stone that the Lord God spake unto the retroviridiae and commanded: "Thou shalt not kill"? The great beauty of biology - indeed, of science in general - is that as knowledge advances, so paradigms shift; if HIV acts differently from the viruses Duesberg grew up with, what of it? And herein, I suspect, lies the basic problem: Duesberg clearly has an outstanding knowledge of the relatively simple avian leukaemia viruses with which he made his professional reputation. But he draws his views on how HIV 'should' behave from his early research experience; he has never published any papers based on his own work with HIV at the laboratory bench. Reading the AIDS literature can take one only so far: experimenting gives active researchers a whole new dimension to their knowledge.

I can list here only a few of the more egregious examples of Duesberg's misunderstanding of HIV virology. He states that "retroviruses do not kill cells". This assertion is not even correct for all avian leukaemia viruses, and anyone who has cultured HIV can attest to its prominent cytopathic effects. HIV is not a leukaemia (onco)virus; it is a lentivirus, and behaves distinctly differently from the oncoviruses both in vivo and in vitro. To extrapolate from avian leukaemia virus to HIV is like asserting that because one can stroke a pussy-cat with impunity, it is perfectly safe to put one's head in a lion's mouth. Duesberg sees a fatal paradox in the fact that HIV can be grown in permanently infected, immortal T-cell lines in vitro, yet is supposed to cause AIDS by killing T cells in vivo. There is no such paradox. When a chronically infected cell culture is started, clones of cells relatively resistant to the cytopathic effects of HIV are gradually selected for and eventually take over the culture. There can also be some adaptation of the cells (and virus) to the culture conditions. The principal phenotypic change in the cells is a partial reduction in the surface expression of the HIV receptor, which reduces the extent of cell-killing in the culture. But the HIV produced in these cultures is still highly cytopathic when plated back onto unadapted primary T cells. And sadly, HIV produced from permanent cell lines is pathogenic in vivo – it is today causing disease in at least one accidentally infected laboratory worker.

Duesberg writes: "Only rare luck … can extract HIV from an antibody-positive person". Perhaps I should get the technicians in our laboratory to buy my lottery tickets; they succeed in isolating HIV almost every time they try. Many of Duesberg's problems with the pathogenic effects of HIV seem to lie in his belief that HIV is dormant in vivo, that HIV-infected people "never have more than one in every 10,000 T-cells actively producing copies of the virus". This old canard, derived from research in the mid-1980s, has long since been proved incorrect. In the early days of HIV research, analytical techniques were obviously more primitive than they are now, so why still rely on them? The true figure for the frequency of infected cells is more like 1 in 100, although there is a wide range, depending on the state of disease progression. The documented loss of more than a hundred million T cells a day as a result of the generation of more than a billion virus particles a day attests to the virulence of HIV.

...

Duesberg believes that HIV is essentially not a sexually transmitted virus; indeed, the very cover of his book states that "AIDS is not sexually transmitted". Instead, he argues that "HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries". The first statement ignores the entire body of data on the epidemiology of HIV spread in the United States and Europe, whereas the second ignores the death rate among children infected by HIV from their mothers; only a tragically small proportion of these children survive long enough to have the chance of having children of their own. How could transmission from mother to child permit sustained HIV spread under these conditions?

....

Duesberg wraps together his twisted facts and illogical lines of argument to create a tangled web to trap the unwary, desperate or gullible. But however much he attempts to gild his writings with philosophies of scientific truth, the reality is that his premises are based not on facts but on faith: faith that he is right, and that everyone else is wrong. This was his position long before AIDS appeared, as tumour virologists know well.

Duesberg ends by detailing his ostracism by the virology community, his inability to get research funding, the personal snubs he has suffered. The advent of HIV has clearly been a personal tragedy for a once highly respected retrovirologist, but one's sympathy must of course be tempered by thoughts of those for whom AIDS has been a rather greater personal tragedy. Three years ago, I likened Duesberg to the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". This character had his limbs hacked off one by one, but the game little torso tried to bite the knee-caps from his assailant. The events of the past few years have extracted the Black Knight's teeth, leaving him with the sole recourse of spitting at those whose views of virology have differed from his over the past two decades. But where the spittle lands is on the graves of those millions of people killed by HIV, and on those it has yet to slaughter. How sad, and how ultimately pathetic.Looks like a pretty agenda/sour grapes driven mentality.

What's your beef, Dabljuh? Denying your own HIV? Have some anti-establishment conspiracy belief underlying your attraction to pseudoscience?

As someone who grew up during a war 'against the establishment', I'm really annoyed that so many people think mainstream science is the equivalent of the 'establishment'. That's an image we need to change if we are ever going to reach some of these conspiracy theorists.

[JoeEllison]

Bloody interesting, though - I'd been discussing the Karposi's Sarcoma/AIDS business just a few days ago, wondering why it wasn't seen as a symptom of AIDS any longer, and how the disease/syndrome seems to keep changing shape - metaphorically speaking, from our humble human perspective. I'm no doctor, but I spot inconsistencies in stuff. Why I'm an atheist, really.

Let's you and I play a game, shall we? You seem bright, skeptical, and also intuitive enough to follow along with the general sort of path my mind takes. So, let's dissect an area of the HIV/AIDS issue.

Unless it kills it's host slowly.
If HIV had emerged in a way that led to a quick death for it's host, it, too, would have probably killed itself off. Or attenuated itself over time to become less lethal.
It survives because it acts slowly, though.

Except, of course, that AIDS did NOT "act slowly" in the early 1980s. Once you developed Kaposi's Sarcoma, you were dead in under a year, 99.999% of the time. The fact that suppression of the HIV virus also slows the mortality of KS is yet another bit of proof of the HIV/AIDS connection. Further, the fact that the advent of AIDS treatments has reduced the occurrence of KS can be seen as a coincidence only by the most die hard of HIV/AIDS denial crackpots.

Let's look more closely at the claim made by kellyb, that HIV/AIDS didn't burn itself out by killing its hosts because it "killed slowly". That is false, based on the evidence. However, there are two ways a virus can survive and thrive within a population: kill slowly, or spread quickly. HIV had a perfect host population among the gay/IV drug user populations. it could kill relatively quickly, because each host could spread the disease to dozens before showing any outward symptoms.

This also explains the "changing shape" you've noticed. The virus has gone from spreading rapidly/killing rapidly to spreading slowly/killing slowly.... so we can logically expect a significant shift in the way it presents.

[kellyb]

Anyone else:

Why is Kenya's AIDS rate dropping so quickly?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=54309

HIV prevalence in Kenya has declined to 5.9% this year from 6.1% last year, and HIV prevalence among women in the country is 7.7%, compared with 4% among men, according to statistics released Wednesday by Kenya's National Aids Control Council, the East African Standard/AllAfrica.com reports (Mwai, East African Standard/AllAfrica.com, 10/12). NACC Acting Director Alloys Orago speaking Wednesday in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, attributed the decrease to several initiatives, including voluntary HIV testing and counseling and programs to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ocbP7cUAVdEJ:www.nacc.or.ke/downloads/KNASP_2005-2010_Final_Report.doc+Kenya+National+HIV+and+AIDS+ Strategic+Plan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

HIV/AIDS continues to be a major challenge to our socio-economic development. Since the first case was discovered in 1984, it is estimated that over 1.5 million people have died due to AIDS-related illnesses, resulting into 1.8 million children left as orphans. It is also estimated that 1.4 million people are living with the HIV today.

However, there is hope, as we have noted a decline in the HIV prevalence which reached a peak of 14 percent in 2000, and which has fallen to 7 percent in 2004, due to successful multi-sectoral responses including the fact that HIV/AIDS has now become everybody’s concern. The scale up in condom uptake, voluntary counselling and testing services, antiretroviral therapy, and increased co-ordination among stakeholders is expected to result into a further reduction in HIV prevalence.

Basically, a more complete understanding of how HIV "works" and the suggested interventions are obviously having a positive effect. Not great, mind you. But better than nothing.

Given that the AIDS rate - blamed for most of Africa's ills - is dropping so quickly, it should have an immediate impact on life expectancy.

Funny how Kenya's is still decreasing:

Average life expectancy
2004 47.5 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2006
2003 47.2 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2005
2002 45.2 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2004
2001 46.4 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2003
2000 50.8 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2002

The UNICEF link explains it. They've had a long drought, and a lot of war. They're dying from starvation and violence, and a small decrease in HIV prevalence isn't going to eclipse that. Also, a lot of HIV infected individuals are dying, and apparently no longer quite replacing themselves with one or more new infections there so quickly before death.
Make sense?

[JoeEllison]

There must be some sort of neurosis that affects people like Behe (irreducible complexity) and Mullis, some as yet inexplicable desire to be 'the one' who went against the establishment and was vindicated.
My current bet leans towards the sort of Joseph Campbell "hero monomyth", most currently seen in the Matrix movies, where each conspiracy theory nutball sees himself as the next "Neo", fighting unseen malevolent forces in order to bring the truth to the brainwashed masses.

[kellyb]

Except, of course, that AIDS did NOT "act slowly" in the early 1980s. Once you developed Kaposi's Sarcoma, you were dead in under a year, 99.999% of the time. The fact that suppression of the HIV virus also slows the mortality of KS is yet another bit of proof of the HIV/AIDS connection

Compared to most viruses, that's still slow. Very slow. Many or most deadly viruses, if they're going to kill you, do it within a matter of weeks. Sometimes days. Any time you're talking about a virus that takes more than a year...with a looooog asymptomatic phase where you can infect who knows how many people before you show any symptoms, it's slow for a virus.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Viruses don't have a metabolism on their own. But they can infect cells and have them produce toxins. I don't know the details of the hepatitis viruses, I simply assumed that the destructive process was more toxic than mechanical in nature.

Maybe I can help you out here... :wackynah:

Hepatitis viruses replicate in the liver cells. The real damage is a result of the immune reaction of the body against the virus, which also destroys the liver cells (carrying the antigens of the virus). The transformation into HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma) is slightly different from that: it's the incorporation of viral DNA and mutagenesis of the cellular DNA leading to cancer.

If you give someone with Hepatitis corticosteroids, the liver damage will decrease, but the viral load will increase dramatically and infect more and more cells, so you will end up dying anyway from the viral load that eventually will trigger a response with disastrous effects. Therefore, we never give corticosteroids.

Getting rid of one type does not always protect you from another type. Hepatitis B is often found with C in chronic infections. Often the chance to have the other when you have one of them is greater (same risk groups). Reduced immunity (not vaccinated), may make you more vulnerable...etcetera...

You see many roads (immune reaction, additional infection, viral load) lead to the same end result: you die from the virus.
That's why the definitions are often rather complex for chronic infections with viruses.

Feel free to ask any question, but I really have more important things to do then fight conspiracy believers. Glaxo-Wellcome has done less then admirable things in Africa, maybe that is your problem or maybe you are one of the few that honestly believe or wish to believe that HIV and AIDS are something else then what current science says they are. I think you are missing the point that science is something that evolves and is led by evidence that usually convinces most of the scientists in time after careful consideration.

It's not democratic rule nor a popularity contest, your preference or mine for a specific "truth" or outcome are completely irrelevant, they bare no weight at all.

SYL :)

[skeptigirl]

....Bloody interesting, though - I'd been discussing the Karposi's Sarcoma/AIDS business just a few days ago, wondering why it wasn't seen as a symptom of AIDS any longer, and how the disease/syndrome seems to keep changing shape - metaphorically speaking, from our humble human perspective. I'm no doctor, but I spot inconsistencies in stuff. Why I'm an atheist, really.This article sheds some light on your questions about the changing pattern of Karposi's epidemiology. HHV-8 and Kaposi's Sarcoma: Epidemiology, Transmission, and Therapy (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/440149)Alexandra M. Levine, MD

The etiology of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is complex and multifactorial.[1] Underlying immunosuppression clearly increases the risk of KS; thus, the incidence of KS in organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy is 400-500 times higher than that in the general population. Genetic factors related to various immune functions may also play a role.[2,3]

Aside from immunosuppression, infection by human herpesvirus type 8 (HHV-8; also known as Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus [KSHV]) is required for the development of KS in humans.[4] Genomic material from HHV-8 is found within tissues from virtually all types of KS, including AIDS-KS, classic Mediterranean KS, endemic KS from Africa, and transplantation-associated KS. A number of HHV-8-encoded gene products have been identified which have the capability to induce the multiple aberrations found microscopically within KS tissues and macroscopically within affected patients.
Transmission of HHV-8

Several studies of men who have sex with men (MSM) have shown that HHV-8 may be transmitted sexually.[5] Thus, increasing numbers of sexual partners, history of a sexually transmitted disease, and presence of underlying HIV infection are all risk factors for HHV-8 infection among MSM.[6,7] Deep kissing, sex with a partner with KS, and use of inhaled nitrites or amyl nitrite capsules are also risk factors for HHV-8 infection among HIV-negative MSM without KS.[8] Increasing numbers of heterosexual partners is a risk factor for HHV-8 infection among heterosexual persons studied in Africa.[9]

Recent data have also identified infected saliva as a potential source of HHV-8 transmission.[8,10] Investigators at the University of Washington, Seattle, looked for the presence of HHV-8 in various anatomic sites and secretions from a group of 50 HHV-8-infected men without KS.[8] Of interest, saliva was the secretion that was the most consistently infected over time, with HHV-8 detected in 34% of oropharyngeal samples, 0.3% of urethral swabs, 1% of anal swabs, and 5% of semen samples. Furthermore, the titers of HHV-8 in mucosal pharyngeal swabs and saliva were 2-3 logs higher than those found in semen, prostatic secretions, or anal-rectal swabs.

The discovery that HHV-8 may be transmitted by infected saliva may explain the increased risk of KS among MSM who engage in deep kissing[8] or oroanal sexual contact,[11] and may also explain the widespread epidemic of KS among children in Africa. In this regard, Sitas and colleagues[12] have shown a relationship between maternal HHV-8 infection and HHV-8 infection among their children, with no statistically significant relationship to the father's HHV-8 status. These children appear to acquire HHV-8 infection at some stage after birth, with increasing rates of infection over time. Sexual or parenteral routes of HHV-8 transmission would be most unlikely in these children. Salivary transmission is possible, however. In resource-rich areas of the world, the weaning of children from milk to solid foods is accomplished with the use of commercially available blended baby foods. Such products are not available in resource-poor regions, where mothers commonly premasticate the food for their infants, depositing this food, admixed with maternal saliva, into the baby's mouth. It is possible that the epidemic of KS in African children may have evolved from this practice.
New Data on HHV-8 Transmission

In an attempt to study the transmission of HHV-8 from mothers to their children, Phiri and colleagues[13] studied 3136 mother-infant pairs from Zambia, Africa. The overall seroprevalence of HHV-8 in the mothers at time of delivery was 40% (1259 of 3136), and 30% were HIV-1-seropositive. HIV-1-infected mothers were more likely to be infected with HHV-8 than were HIV-1-seronegative women. A cohort of 494 mother-infant pairs was studied again 12 months after delivery. The HIV-1 seroconversion rate in the mothers was 3% during the year, and the HHV-8 seroconversion rate was 10% during the same period. Among the infants, 20% developed new HHV-8 infections and 8% seroconverted to HIV-1. HHV-8 transmission was more likely in infants whose mothers were coinfected with both HIV-1 and HHV-8. All infants in the study had been breast-fed, although information was not available regarding presence of HHV-8 within breast milk per se. It is of interest that the infants were more likely to develop HHV-8 infection (20%) than HIV-1 infection (8%) during their first 12 months of life. Furthermore, HHV-8 infection appears quite prevalent among Zambian women and their children.

Webster-Cyriaque and colleagues[14] from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied the presence of the HHV-8 genome within throat washings, peripheral blood, and buccal scrapings from a group of immunocompetent, HIV-negative, HHV-8-seropositive patients in the United States, who did not have clinical evidence of KS. Presence of HHV-8 latency-associated nuclear antigen (LANA) was detected in the majority of buccal epithelial cell specimens of these individuals, indicating that the saliva may be a potential source of HHV-8 transmission within the general population of immunocompetent individuals.

The prevalence of HHV-8 infection among 192 healthy blood donors in the United Kingdom was studied by Kumar and colleagues.[15] This study differed from previous studies in that both serologic methods and direct PCR of peripheral blood mononuclear cells were employed. A nested PCR method was used to amplify a 172-base-pair fragment of ORF 26 and a 246-base-pair fragment of the VR1 region of K1. A total of 16% (31 of 192 individuals) tested positive for the presence of the HHV-8 genome, with subsequent confirmation by sequencing. A total of 34% were seropositive for HHV-8, while 42% were seropositive for cytomegalovirus, 87% for Epstein-Barr virus, 21% for herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 1, and 1% for HSV-2. This study again demonstrates the fact that healthy, immunocompetent individuals may be infected by HHV-8, without clinical illness.

Epidemiology of KS in the Era of HAART

One of the most fascinating outcomes of the widespread use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the United States and Europe has been the remarkable decline in Kaposi's sarcoma. Thus, in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) of MSM, rates of KS fell by 66% when comparing the periods 1989-1994 and 1996-1997, coincident with the period in which HAART use increased substantially.[16] In the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, Ledergerber and colleagues[17] demonstrated a substantial reduction in incident cases of KS, with a relative risk of 0.08 when comparing data from 1992-1994 with data from July 1997 to June 1998, after the introduction of HAART. Similar data were reported from a large international collaborative study that evaluated cancer incidence data from 23 prospective studies, including 47,936 HIV-infected individuals from North America, Europe, and Australia.[18] In this study, the adjusted incidence rate for KS declined from 15.2 per 1000 person-years in 1992-1996 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years in 1997-1999, representing a rate ratio of 0.32.

The remarkable decline in the incidence of KS in the era of HAART could be explained by the ability of potent antiretroviral therapy to inhibit HIV replication and ameliorate HIV-induced immunosuppression. An alternative possibility, however, is that HHV-8 prevalence and transmission rates may have fallen within the same time interval. To address this issue, Osmond and colleagues[19] recently studied the prevalence of HHV-8 infection among MSM in San Francisco, California, over time, using blood samples acquired in 1978-1979, 1984-1985, and 1995-1996. Of interest, the prevalence of HHV-8 infection was 26.5% in 1978-1979 and remained essentially unchanged over time. In contrast, the prevalence of HIV infection declined from 49.5% in 1984-1985 to 17.6% in 1992-1993. With regard to sexual behaviors, the rates of unprotected oral intercourse remained relatively constant over time (60% to 90%) but the proportion of men practicing unprotected receptive anal intercourse decreased from 54% in 1984 to 11% in 1993. These data would suggest that the decline in KS documented in the HAART era is not due to any significant decrease in the prevalence of HHV-8, or to any change in the sexual behaviors (oral-anal contact) that are thought to be operative in terms of HHV-8 transmission. Instead, the recent decline in KS is likely to a consequence of the improved immune function and decrease in HIV-1 viral load induced by HAART.

Use of HAART to Treat KS

In light of the significant decline in KS incidence coinciding with the widespread use of HAART,[17,18] and the known importance of the HIV tat gene and its protein product in the pathogenesis of AIDS-related KS, the efficacy of HAART as a specific treatment for KS has been entertained. At this time, no prospective trials addressing this issue have been completed. However, there are several anecdotal reports of KS regression in patients receiving HAART alone.[20-22]

A recent study of 78 patients with AIDS-related KS, who had previously received therapy for KS, sought to determine the time to treatment failure both before and after the initiation of HAART therapy.[23] The median time to KS treatment failure before starting HAART was 6 months. In contrast, the median time to KS treatment failure from the start of HAART was 1.7 years (P < .001). Of interest, loss of HIV viral control (defined as HIV-1 RNA levels > 5000 copies/mL) was associated with a statistically increased risk of requiring therapy for KS, but change in CD4+ cell count was not.

Several new studies of the impact of HAART on KS were presented at the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies. To illuminate the ability of specific types of antiretroviral agent to treat known KS, Bower and colleagues[24] reported their experience with a cohort of 8640 HIV-infected patients cared for at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, United Kingdom. Of these patients, 1204 were diagnosed with KS, including 198 cases diagnosed after 1996 when HAART became widely available. The incidence of KS within the cohort was as high as 30 cases per 1000 person-years of follow-up from the 1980s through 1995, then fell to 7.6 cases per 1000 person-years during 1995-1996, when dual antiretroviral therapy was commonly administered. Most recently, the incidence fell to 0.03 cases per 1000 person-years between 1997 and 2001, when HAART was routinely administered. With regard to the characteristics of the underlying HIV-1 disease, no differences between the pre-HAART and post-HAART era were observed in terms of nadir CD4+ cell counts or CD4+ cell count at the time of KS diagnosis; however, patients with KS diagnosed in later time periods were statistically more likely to have KS as their first AIDS-defining diagnosis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with the diagnosis of KS since 1996. Factors included in the model were age, gender, ethnic origin, nadir CD4+ cell count, most recent CD8+ cell count (as a surrogate for presence of cytotoxic T lymphocytes), and antiretroviral drug exposure. In the multivariate analysis, the factors that were statistically associated with an increased risk of Ks were age (2% increased risk of KS per year older at entry into the cohort), a nadir CD4+ cell count < 150 cells/mm3, and lack of antiretroviral drug exposure. Of interest, the rate ratios for KS were statistically decreased for all types of antiretroviral drug use, as shown in Table 1.
This study is of importance in defining the factors associated with KS in the era of HAART. It is clear that the majority of these patients have simply not been receiving HAART, and among those who are treated, development of KS is associated with virologic and immunologic treatment failure. This study thus emphasizes, once again, the importance of effective antiretroviral therapy in preventing the development of KS. Moreover, apparently any effective antiretroviral regimen will likely be efficacious in preventing KS.
Update: Therapy of AIDS-Related KS
Phase 3 Study of IM 862

Several papers were presented regarding treatment options for patients with AIDS-related KS (AIDS-KS). Ariela Noy[25] presented data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored AIDS Malignancy Consortium regarding IM 862, a compound initially isolated from extracts of the thymus glands of cows in Russia and used as an immune adjuvant in that country. Initial work by Gill and colleagues indicated that this dipeptide had antiangiogenic properties, and a subsequent randomized phase 2 trial[26] in 44 patients with advanced AIDS-KS documented a response rate of 36%, following administration of a fixed dose of 5 mg given intranasally either every other day or in 5-days-on, 5-days-off cycles. In an attempt to ascertain the potential value of IM 862 in patients with AIDS-KS, Noy and colleagues[25] initiated a phase 3 study of IM 862 (5 mg intranasally every other day) vs placebo. A total of 202 patients were enrolled between December 1998 and February 2001. Eligibility criteria included biopsy-proven KS with 5 or more measurable lesions on skin or mucus membranes in patients who were not believed to require systemic chemotherapy. Antiretroviral therapy was required to be unchanged for at least 8 weeks before enrollment, to exclude the possibility that any effect might have been due to effective HAART. The baseline characteristics and results are summarized in Table 3.


References

1. Antman K, Chang Y. Kaposi's sarcoma. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1027-1038.
2. Lehrnbecher T, Foster CB, Zhu S. Variant genotypes of Fc gamma RIIIA influence the development of Kaposi's sarcoma in HIV infected men. Blood. 2000;95:2386-2390.
3. Nagy K, Kemeny B, Horvath A. HIV co-receptor mutation affects course of Kaposi's sarcoma in HIV/HHV8 positive patients. Program and abstracts of the 1st IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment; July 8-11, 2002; Buenos Aires, Argentina. Abstract 274.
4. 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.
5. Gao S-J, 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.
6. Martin J, Ganem DE, Osmond DH, et al. Sexual transmission and the natural history of human herpesvirus 8 infection. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:948-954.
7. Grulich AE, Olsen SJ, Luo K, et al. Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus: A sexually transmissible infection? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1999;20:387-393.
8. Pauk J, Huang-M-L, Brodie SJ, et al. Mucosal shedding of human herpesvirus 8 in men. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1369-1377.
9. Sitas F, Carrara H, Beral V, et al. Antibodies against human herpesvirus 8 in black South African patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1863-1871.
10. Brodie SJ, Johnson A, Vieira J, Coelle D, Wald A, Corey L. Oral shedding and propagation of HHV8 in pharyngeal lymphoid tissues: Potential cofactor role of HIV. Program and abstracts of the 5th International AIDS Malignancy Conference; April 23-25, 2001; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 48.
11. Grulich AE, Kaldor JM, Hendry O, et al. Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and oro-anal sexual contact. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145:673-679.
12. Sitas F, Newton R, Boshoff C. Increasing probability of mother-to-child transmission of HHV8 with increasing maternal antibody titer for HHV8. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1923.
13. Phiri S, Brayfield B, Muyanga J, et al. Kaposi's sarcoma associated herpesvirus (KSHV/HHV-8) and HIV-1 infections in a cohort of mother/infant pairs in Zambia. Program and abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies; April 22-24, 2002; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 18.
14. Webster-Cyriaque J, Quinlivin EB, Kendrick K. Detection of KSHV in the saliva of immunocompetent and immunosuppressed individuals. Program and abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies; April 22-24, 2002; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 25.
15. Kumar N, Porter SR, Teo CG. Prevalence of HHV-8 in healthy blood donors. Program and abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies; April 22-24, 2002; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 39.
16. Palella FJ Jr, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:853-860.
17. Ledergerber B, Telenti A, Effer M. Risk of HIV related Kaposi's sarcoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with potent anti-retroviral therapy: Prospective cohort study. BMJ. 1999;319:23-24.
18. International Collaboration on HIV and Cancer. Highly active antiretroviral therapy and incidence of cancer in human immunodeficiency virus infected adults. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1823-1830.
19. Osmond DH, Buchbinder S, Cheng A, et al. Prevalence of Kaposi's sarcoma associated herpesvirus infection in homosexual men at beginning of and during the HIV epidemic. JAMA. 2002;287:221-225.
20. Tavio M, Nasti G, Spina M, Errante D, Vaccher E, Tirelli U. Highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV related Kaposi's sarcoma. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:923.
21. Lebbe C, Blum L, Pellet C, et al. Clinical and biological impact of antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors on HIV related Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS. 1998;12:F45-F49.
22. Conant MA, Opp KM, Poretz D et al. Reduction of Kaposi's sarcoma lesions following treatment of AIDS with ritonavir. AIDS. 1997;11:1300-1301.
23. Bower M, Fox P, Fife K, Gill J, Nelson M, Gazzard B. Highly active antiretroviral therapy prolongs time to treatment failure in Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS. 1999;13:2105-2111.
24. Bower M, Portsmouth SD, Mandalia S, Nelson M, Gazzard BG. HIV-1 related Kaposi's sarcoma n the highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) era. Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are as effective at preventing KS as protease inhibitors. Program and abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies; April 22-24, 2002; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 4.
25. Noy A, Gill P, Scadden D, et al. Angiogenesis inhibitor IM 862 is ineffective against AIDS-KS in a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Program and abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies; April 22-24, 2002; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 5.
26. Tulpule A, Scadden DT, Espina BM, et al. Results of a randomized study of IM862 nasal solution in the treatment of AIDS related Kaposi's sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 2000;8:716-723.
27. Gill PS, Wernz J, Scadden DT, et al. Randomized phase III trial of liposomal daunorubicin (DaunoXome) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine (ABV) in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2353-2364.
28. Northfelt DW, Dezube B, Thommes JA, et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS related Kaposi's sarcoma: Results of a randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2445-2451.
29. Little RF, Aleman K, Pluda JM, et al. Preliminary results of combination liposomal doxorubicin and interleukin-12 (IL12) followed by chronic IL-12 maintenance therapy in advanced AIDS related Kaposi's sarcoma. Program and abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS & Other Immunodeficiencies; April 22-24, 2002; Bethesda, Maryland. Abstract 6.Edited, I put most of the article here sans the tables and last couple paragraphs since the link wants you to log in. When I found the article via Google, no log in was required. (I am not registered with Medscape myself.)

....Why is Kenya's AIDS rate dropping so quickly? HIV/AIDS prevalence was 6.7 percent in 2004, down from about 10 percent in the late 1990s (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_2621.html)

Given that the AIDS rate - blamed for most of Africa's ills - is dropping so quickly, it should have an immediate impact on life expectancy.

Funny how Kenya's is still decreasing:

Average life expectancy
2004 47.5 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2006
2003 47.2 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2005
2002 45.2 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2004
2001 46.4 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2003
2000 50.8 years UNDP - Human Development Report 2002

link (http://www.alertnet.org/db/cp/kenya.htm)There should be a lag time. I don't know why you would think the life span would increase immediately when the disease has such a long incubation period.

Why do some people have vastly reduced CD4 cells and not contract AIDS?Well this article was made to order in answering your question.

Viral Load and T-Cell (CD4) Counts: Why They Matter (http://www.thebody.com/content/treat/art31975.html)May 11, 2001
Note: This article is part of our series answering the AIDS denialists, who say that HIV does not cause AIDS and who often urge patients to reject medical advice. Writer Bruce Mirken prepared this simple-language version to help agencies prepare materials for their clients....

...While there have been a few medical reports of people who seemed healthy even though they had very low CD4 counts, these cases are rare. Research overwhelmingly shows that people with low CD4 counts are much more likely to get sick than people who have a normal amount of CD4 cells.

The AIDS denialists who claim that CD4 counts are meaningless often point to a study of AIDS patients called the Concorde study, in which people who had a small increase in CD4 counts did not live longer than those whose CD4 counts stayed the same. But that study was done nearly 10 years ago, before modern combination therapy, and the CD4 increases were very small. Newer studies with more potent treatments show that a big boost in CD4 cells almost always lowers the risk of getting seriously ill.

For example, the deadly pneumonia called PCP occurs much more often in people with very low CD4 counts. In one study with over 1,000 patients, almost everyone who got PCP had a CD4 count below 200. Study after study has shown the same thing: The lower your CD4 count, the greater your chance of getting PCP or other serious infections.

The AIDS denialists leave out these important facts. ...

[JoeEllison]

Compared to most viruses, that's still slow. Very slow. Many or most deadly viruses, if they're going to kill you, do it within a matter of weeks. Sometimes days. Any time you're talking about a virus that takes more than a year...with a looooog asymptomatic phase where you can infect who knows how many people before you show any symptoms, it's slow for a virus.

You're right, and I had considered this point the very moment after posting. I was immediately struck by how fast ebola acts, or how quickly necrotizing fasciitis can spread. However, it is still short compared to how the disease behaves when treated by drugs... drugs designed based on the facts of the disease that people like Dabljuh aggressively deny.

[The Atheist]

This also explains the "changing shape" you've noticed. The virus has gone from spreading rapidly/killing rapidly to spreading slowly/killing slowly.... so we can logically expect a significant shift in the way it presents.

I was more referring to the shape of the human perspective of the disease than the virus itself, but I take your point - even though I'm not sure your analogy is all that accurate.

I think the changing spread of the disease is more about changing behaviour than viral mutation.

Here are a few debunking web sites of this particular nonsense and Dabljuh's twisted logic.

Extremely well put case. Thanks.

The UNICEF link explains it. They've had a long drought, and a lot of war. They're dying from starvation and violence, and a small decrease in HIV prevalence isn't going to eclipse that. Also, a lot of HIV infected individuals are dying, and apparently no longer quite replacing themselves with one or more new infections there so quickly before death.
Make sense?

Sure. I'm actually very well aware of the Kenyan situation. I know that AIDS education is #1 priority from birth in the parts of Kenya actually receiving education, so the message is clearly getting through. The fact that changes in sexual behaviour have resulted in immediate lowering of AIDS cases and deaths does tend to support conventional thinking.

I'm not 100% convinced by UNICEF's picture of drought and violence causing the decreasing life expectancy, either. The drought's peak effects were in 2004/5, by which time the life expectancy has shown a small upturn, which would kind of dent their theory a little. Interesting that Dabjah mentions TB, because that's a disease which has increased enormously in Kenya in the time frame under question. 30% increase between 2000 and 2002 (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=77&Country=KE)

Given that AIDS was falling at the time, I think it's reasonable to assume that the non-AIDS sector of TB may have been rising by as much as 50% in that time. That has a pretty deleterious effect on mortality rates.

[kellyb]

You're right, and I had considered this point the very moment after posting. I was immediately struck by how fast ebola acts, or how quickly necrotizing fasciitis can spread. However, it is still short compared to how the disease behaves when treated by drugs... drugs designed based on the facts of the disease that people like Dabljuh aggressively deny.

Yeah...I also remember when you were considered "lucky" if you made it several years.

[skeptigirl]

Adding to SYLVESTER1592's comments on the ways which viruses can produce illness, here are a couple of additional discussions.

Viral pathogenesis in idiopathic autoimmune diseases (http://ard.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/58/8/454)Independent lines of evidence suggest a viral aetiology in autoimmune rheumatic diseases. The possibility of a viral aetiology was raised by findings of virion-like tubuloreticular structures in endothelial cells and lymphocytes as well as demonstration of increased serum concentrations of type I interferon (IFN) in lupus patients.38 Virus-like particles were also noted in RA synovium.39 Many viral infections are accompanied by production of autoantibodies and viral proteins have profound effects on both antigen presentation and effector functions of the immune system. Dysregulation of programmed cell death has been reported in HIV infected40 and lupus patients as well.41 Similar to SLE, anaemia, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, polymyositis, and vasculitis have been widely reported in patients with AIDS.42 Direct virus isolation and transmission attempts from tissues of autoimmune patients have not been successful.43 Nevertheless, it is possible that a (retro)virus, responsible for provoking an immune response cross reactive with self antigens, has been cleared from the host, so the absence of viral particles is not conclusive. An alternative retroviral aetiology---that is, activation of endogenous retroviral sequences (ERS) was initially proposed by a study of the New Zealand mouse model of SLE.44 Endogenous retroviral envelope glycoprotein, gp 70, was found in immune complex deposits of autoimmune lupus prone NZB/NZW mice. Abnormal expression of an ERS was noted in the thymus of lupus prone mouse strains.45 More recently, expression and autoantigenicity of human ERS has been demonstrated in patients with SLE.46-50

Below, two possible mechanisms of viral pathogenesis will be discussed. The first scenario involves molecular mimicry causing abnormal self reactivity.51 Naturally, viral infections elicit potent antiviral immunity that may lead to cross reactivity against self antigens. Analysis of molecular mimicries that is delineation of autoantigenic epitopes of self antigens may provide clues to the identity of viral antigens responsible for triggering the cross reactive immune responses. Secondly, infection of genetically susceptible hosts by a potentially large number of commonly occurring viruses may lead to T and B cell dysfunction and autoimmunity. Immunoregulatory aberrations triggered by well defined viral proteins at the level of antigen presentation, modulation of cytokine activities, and disruption of cell death pathways, will be discussed.

MECHANISMS OF VIRAL PATHOGENICITY (http://www.kcom.edu/faculty/chamberlain/Website/Lects/MECHANIS.HTM) * Arthus reaction
* Cell-mediated viral hypersensitivity
* Cell-transformation
* Immune allergic mechanisms to virus infection
* Polykaryocytosis
* Pyknosis
* Syncytia
* Viral alteration of host cell membrane
* Viral induction of non-normal host-specified products
* Viral induction of structural alterations of cells
* Viral teratology
* Viral toxins
* Viral-induced cell lysis
* Viral-induced chromosome abnormalities

[skeptigirl]

Necrotizing fasciitis has a bacterial, not a viral cause.

[JoeEllison]

I was more referring to the shape of the human perspective of the disease than the virus itself, but I take your point - even though I'm not sure your analogy is all that accurate.

I think the changing spread of the disease is more about changing behaviour than viral mutation.

My point is that the change in the way we view the virus is affected directly by the way we have dealt with the virus. It is the same way that views on aging have changed as lifespans have increased. As you survive longer, the things that are likely to kill you change. Living longer has changed the sorts of diseases that we are forced to live with... it has been said that if you live long enough, everyone gets cancer. In the same way, as drugs have extended the lives of people infected with HIV, the deaths by AIDS-related illnesses have changed.

[JoeEllison]

Necrotizing fasciitis has a bacterial, not a viral cause.
Yes, I know... I was speaking towards speed, not source.

[skeptigirl]

Yeah...I also remember when you were considered "lucky" if you made it several years.If you are referring to HIV-AIDS, the usual course before anti-retrovirals was ~5 years until symptoms and ~2 years until death after symptoms. There were some rapid progressors, ~80% of infected newborns were symptomatic by age 2. Some people especially those who got large initial doses such as with a blood transfusion were often symptomatic within a year. And then there were the long term non-progressors who have gone 10-15 years without treatment and without advancing to AIDS. The CCR5 deletion is believed to have accounted for some of those cases.

[JoeEllison]

Yeah...I also remember when you were considered "lucky" if you made it several years.And, when you consider that fact...

In the history of humanity, there has NEVER been a situation like this. A disease appeared suddenly, was always fatal, and the causes were unknown. In ONE GENERATION, the cause was identified, treatments were developed, and "100% fatality' was converted into "chronic illness and a lifespan of possibly two decades or more." Never before has an illness been identified and treated this successfully and this quickly. It is this unprecedented success that makes the HIV/AIDS pseudo-skeptics seem so ridiculous.

Could we really have had this much success, if no one had any clue as to what caused the whole thing in the first place? It just seems stupid to think so.

[JoeEllison]

And then there were the long term non-progressers who have gone 10-15 years without treatment and without advancing to AIDS. The CCR5 deletion is believed to have accounted for some of those cases.

Would you mind expanding on that?

[kellyb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

CCR5-Δ32
CCR5-Δ32 (or CCR5-D32) is a genetic variant of CCR5.[1] [2]

It is a deletion mutation of a gene specifically impacting the function of T cells. CCR5-D32 is widely dispersed throughout Northern Europe and in those of European descent. It has been hypothesized that this allele was favored by natural selection during the Black Death, or during smallpox outbreaks, which is unlikely, given that the frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in Bronze Age samples is similar to that seen today.[3] The allele has a negative effect upon T cell function, but appears to protect against smallpox, plague and HIV. Individuals with the Δ32 allele of CCR5 are healthy, suggesting that CCR5 is largely dispensable. However, CCR5 plays a role in mediating resistance to West Nile virus infection in humans, as CCR5Δ32 individuals are enriched in cohorts of West Nile virus symptomatic patients, indicating that all of the functions of CCR5 may not be compensated by other receptors.

While CCR5 has multiple variants in its coding region, the deletion of a 32-bp segment results in a nonfunctional receptor, thus preventing HIV R5 entry; two copies of this allele provide strong protection against HIV infection.[4] This allele is found in 5-14% of Europeans but is rare in Africans and Asians.[5] Multiple studies of HIV-infected persons have shown that presence of one copy of this allele delays progression to the condition of AIDS by about 2 years. It is possible that a person with the CCR5-Δ32 receptor allele will not be infected with HIV R5 strains.

[JoeEllison]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Thanks a whole bunch.

[kellyb]

Yer welcome.
:)

W asked how HIV kills immune system cells.

Ok. First read his. It's pretty cool (if you think biology is neat).

Cell suicide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis

Here's (part of) what HIV does when it infects some immune system cells.

It even has a control group, like W asked for.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102271406.html

Preferential Apoptosis of HIV-1 Specific CD4+ T cells.


A greater frequency of ex vivo HIV-1 specific CD4+ T cells were preferentially undergoing apoptosis compared to CMV specific CD4+ T cells, by about 5-fold (35.2% vs 6.9 % of antigen specific cells expressed activated caspase-3, respectively, p<0.05). HAART abrogated the degree of apoptosis as well as skewing towards HIV-1 specific cells, (1.3% vs 1.2% of HIV-1 and CMV-specific CD4 cells, respectively). CMV-specific CD4+ T cells showed a greater susceptibility to Fas-induced apoptosis. In untreated individuals, HIV-1 specific CD4+ T cells tended to show decreased expression of the anti-apoptotic proteins, Bcl-2 and FLIP, when compared to CMV-specific CD4+ T cells. In 3/6 individuals, overnight pre-treatment of PBMC with MnTBAP significantly enhanced the frequency of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Apoptosis is an important mechanism for the preferential destruction of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T cells. Furthermore, this effect can be abolished by HAART, and supports the notion that HAART can preserve HIV-1-specific CD4 immunity.

Of course,W will think this is more "junk science", I'm sure.

[JoeEllison]

Yer welcome.
:)

My thanks again. Your links show a pretty serious chink in the armor of our pseudo-skeptical friend.

How much evidence DOES it take to convince?

[SYLVESTER1592]

If you are not ready to read all the literature on AIDS (which is A LOT) there are some good videos that can make it more imaginable what happens at the cellular/ viral level.

I think these may be useful to you:

O8thgFLpRNk
oPC-Dc0fRac
v5LGqi-8eZg
FErrWXDRD7o
RO8MP3wMvqg

Sorry for the long list of videos,(forgot they come with a complete box around them)
Good luck,

SYL :)

[robinson]

Robinson a while back located a good "logical thought experiment" that you might like.

Actually I think I authored the argument, back in the 1990s. Here are some quotes, which also will link you to the original post, which is convenient because it links to another thread about this. Note to the newcomer, I was called a troll in that thread for pointing out some of the fallacies and problems with AIDS, HIV research and such. I think I can understand where you are coming from. However, consider the following ideas, which I can expand upon if needed.


Not everyone who has been exposed to HIV has tested positive for it, and those that have, not all of them have developed AIDS. This is not in dispute. While with enough time, some may, many still have not, even without medical treatment. It is one of those things that is being researched.



The data from Cuba is overwhelming. Before any test was available, Cuba authorities simply stopped any chance of infection from the new disease. Based on symptoms alone. After the tests were available, they simply tested everyone, and continued to do so with any risk groups, and they isolated anybody who tested positive.

The data from Cuba is overwhelming. They are the only country with no AIDS problem.

The controversy over HIV/AIDS is large, convoluted, and involves many many issues. That anyone would deny such controversies exist, is beyond belief. Claiming there is no debate, is dumb.

Even a quick glance at the media stories, the books published, the websites, (there a LOT), the lawsuits, and the medical studies, shows a wealth of issues, many of which involve politics, huge amounts of cash, and death. Civil liberties, employment, even the ability to travel. Health care, drug companies, and privacy issues.

In fact, there are few issues that seem to have as much controversy over them as HIV/AIDS. You might not know it from watching TV, but reading scientific journals, and looking at legal cases, there is controversy baby, and lots of it. The kind that usually makes me want to ignore it. Because it is an ugly fight, and it involves really big sums of money, and powerful special interest groups.

Not the kind of thing I like to step in, even on the best of days.

The Cuba issue is a good example. While Cuba offers the best place in the know Universe for a study of HIV/AIDS, you have to be insane to try and do it. Despite having the best health care system in the world, an ideal population for study, and extensive evidence of every AIDS case since 1983, well documented, with a small but living population of HIV infected subjects, dating back to 1983, you face a huge obstacle to doing research on it.

Just talking about it can lead to real trouble. Notice how it just isn't mentioned on any page "debating" AIDS, or HIV. Its like it doesn't exist. Nowhere has better long term scientific data on HIV and AIDS than Cuba. You can find every single person on the island that has HIV, you can check the records on every single person who has AIDS, or has died from it. It is a small number, out of a huge population.

Its a no-brainer. It is obvious. I doubt anyone who reads the data on Cuba will object to that. It is the kind of hard evidence that shows "something" detectable with HIV test can be spread, can make you sick, can kill you, and can be tested for.

While a lot of the stuff about HIV and AIDS is questionable, that there is some problem, that it can be spread, and more importantly, it can be stopped, is the lesson from Cuba. I have no doubts.

Never have.

To sum up, while there are problems and politics galore with HIV/AIDS, and always have been, there is good evidence that HIV is associated with a decreased immune system, which can lead to opportunistic infections, and death.

The policy of diagnosing Africans with AIDS, without doing an HIV test, is problematic, and may well be a funding issue.

And yes, the hype about catching AIDS from unprotected sex was hype, and yes, there have been a lot of people who used AIDS to promote agendas, as well as conspiracy theories, and yes there is dispute over many of the issues around HIV.

Based on my research, AIDS has not spread or killed anywhere near what the predictions were, it hasn't spread like a sexually transmitted disease, and it certainly hasn't killed the number of people in Africa that some would have you believe.

Now before somebody jumps in demanding I back up all that with links and quotes and evidence and stuff, I would say this.

If you claim AIDS has killed the number of people that it was predicted it would, you have to show that.

If you want to claim AIDS has spread sexually, you have to show that it has.

And if you want to claim Africa has been decimated by AIDS, you have to show that this is true.

Because the onus of proof is on the person making some wild ass claim, not the person who debunks it, and tells you that they don't believe it. :wackywink:

[kellyb]

If you want to claim AIDS has spread sexually, you have to show that it has.

What do you make of the HIV/circumcision RCTs?

[skeptigirl]

Are you implying those latter assertions have not been supported by the data, robinson? I am confused by your post.

[skeptigirl]

Adding to what kellyb posted on CCR5 deletion, (thanks, BTW) ...CKR5 deletion and chemokine levels in long-term HIV-infected non-progressors. (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102225297.html)Balfe P, Churcher Y, Easterbrook PJ, Goodall R, Gotch F, McKeating J.
Program Abstr 4th Conf Retrovir Oppor Infect Conf Retrovir Oppor Infect 4th 1997 Wash D C. 1997 Jan 22-26; 4th: 145 (abstract no. 439).

University of Reading.

Objectives: To examine the role of the CC-CKR-5 genotype and chemokine production on the rate of HIV disease progression in a UK Caucasian population. Methods: 168 long-term HIV-infected homosexual men (median=10 years) were enrolled into a nested case-control study of the biological determinants of long-term non-progression. Three patient groups were identified: Non-progressors (NPs), n=48; HIV-seropositive greater than or equal to 9 years, asymptomatic and current CD4 count greater than or equal to 500 cells x 10(6)/1; intermediate progressors (IPs) n=69, HIV-seropositive greater than or equal to 9 years, and current CD4 count less than 500 cells x 10(6)/1; and rapid progressors (RP) n=31, who developed AIDS within 5 years of infection. PCR analysis was used to define the two common alleles of CKR5 (+/+ wild type and delta32 deletion) in DNA samples. Levels of chemokines known to interact with CKR5 (RANTES, MIP-1alpha and MIP-1beta) were measured in serum samples from 18 NPs, 18 IPs and 18 RPs using a commercial EIA. Results: 47 (31%) of the study population were heterozygous for CKR5delta32 (+/delta32), and none were homozygous. CKR5 +/delta32 was non-significantly elevated in NPs (41%), vs IPs (28%) and RPs (25%), p=0.2, and when compared with patients carrying the wild type (+/+) allele was associated with delayed progression to a CD4 count less than 200 cells (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.24-0.95), but not with progression to CDC stage IV disease, (HR=0.82, 95% CI=0.45-1.49), or with either initial or current viral load. Serum levels of RANTES were significantly elevated in NPs vs. IPs vs. RPs, p=0.03, but the distribution of MIP-1alpha and MIP-1beta were similar across the three groups. Conclusions: These data provide further support for a role of CKR5 +/delta32 and elevated levels of RANTES in delayed disease progression. However, the power of our study to detect a 40% reduction in progression to CD4 count or clinical endpoints, as observed by others, was approximately 50%. Large collaborative cohort studies of long-term HIV-infected individuals are required to quantify reliably the impact of the CC-CKR-5 genotype on disease progression.


RANTES: (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33462) A cytokine that is a member of the interleukin-8 superfamily of cytokines. RANTES is a protein. It is a selective attractant for memory T lymphocytes and monocytes. It binds to CCR5, a coreceptor of HIV. RANTES is an acronym for Regulated on Activation, Normal T Expressed and Secreted. It is also known as CCL5.

[skeptigirl]

Do you think we scared 'w' away?

[kellyb]

Do you think we scared 'w' away?

No, I think he'll be back. He's just been here all day.

[robinson]

What do you make of the HIV/circumcision RCTs?

I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at the data on circumcision among the two test groups in Africa, and found serious problems with the research. It helps to remember that Africa is a different situation than the rest of the world. Different HIV, different co-factors, different sexual practices, different definition of circumcision, a lot of stuff that confounds the dubious conclusion that circumcision prevents HIV.

Are you implying those latter assertions have not been supported by the data, robinson? I am confused by your post.

Back when we discussed this early this year, I checked the figures. There are no facts to support the theory that HIV is spread by sex, like every other STD is. Yes, you can become infected through sexual contact, but not like an STD. It did not spread like a STD. It does not spread like an STD. If you believe it has, try and find the data to support that theory.

(Now to be fair, I am talking about normal heterosexual sexual relations. Not perversions involving violence and anal penetration. That sort of behavior involves blood and non-sexual transmission of fluids, which I don't define as sex, for purposes of argument.)

Same for the other two claims made about HIV/AIDS. There isn't any evidence to support the claims. If you can show me evidence, I will, of course, change my mind on this. And state that I was in error.

[kellyb]

I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at the data on circumcision among the two test groups in Africa, and found serious problems with the research. It helps to remember that Africa is a different situation than the rest of the world. Different HIV, different co-factors, different sexual practices, different definition of circumcision, a lot of stuff that confounds the dubious conclusion that circumcision prevents HIV.

What problems did you find with the research?

I agree that it's a totally different situation over there. But HIV seems to spread fairly efficiently through heterosexual contact over there.

ETA:

There are no facts to support the theory that HIV is spread by sex, like every other STD is

This is getting semantical again. What qualifies as an "STD" or "STI" is a spectrum. Back to HepB, it doesn't spread really well through sex, like, say, crabs or Herpes do. And neither does HIV. But its still considered an STD.

[robinson]

Semantics. That really is a lot of this thread. But I stand by my conclusions on these difficult semantic matters.

To clarify, HIV is the retrovirus. AIDS is a label for a set of diseases combined with HIV being detected. Neither HIV nor AIDS kills you, it is some disease that kills you, not HIV. Semantics. HIV leads to AIDS leads to some disease, or combination of diseases, which leads to death, which means you don't breath anymore, and your body starts to decompose. Does that help?

HIV didn't spread like it was predicted. HIV didn't spread into the heterosexual population through sex, like other STDs. HIV didn't get spread through needle sticks and medical accidents, as predicted.
HIV didn't kill the massive populations in Africa, as reported, or predicted.

I'm tired of HIV and AIDS. Damn troll. Suckered me into this conversation again.

Damn you troll. Damn you to hell! :mad:

[The Atheist]

Adding to SYLVESTER1592's comments on the ways which viruses can produce illness, here are a couple of additional discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Good luck,

SYL :)

Actually I think I authored the argument, back in the 1990s.

Kudos to all. I'm still not sure Dubbya's a troll, any more than any other deluded person who posts here. His premise is supported by some elements of mainstream science, some of what he says is correct - which shows that myths persist. He has discussed other subjects in a non-trolling manner.

Regardless of that, the thread now contains a lot more facts than it did, which has certainly taught me a few new points about AIDS.

I'm tired of HIV and AIDS. Damn troll. Suckered me into this conversation again.

Damn you troll. Damn you to hell! :mad:

Mate, you're not only a knowledgeable bloke, you're a bloody good bloke, too! Take it on the chin and kick the next dog you see.

[kellyb]

HIV didn't kill the massive populations in Africa, as reported, or predicted.

Well, there are a lot of dead HIV+ 20-somethings and 30-somethings in Africa. Areas where the little kids are alive, granmas are still alive raising the little kids, but the kid's parents are dead.
Yeah, they're starving and coinfected with stuff like malaria, but the kids and granmas are still left. So I think it was the HIV that pushed the infected over the edge. I think there are "massive amounts", but the true number is unknown.

[Taffer]

PCR multiplies genes. For HIV testing purposes, it multiplies RNA. The problem is: it doesn't specifically multiply HIV genes, but any sort of RNA. And it does not multiply it by any consistent factor, but rather randomly in fact. The Result? "Viral Load" doesn't say anything and you can't test for HIV either.

Do you know how PCR works?

[Taffer]

Do you realize that every human has between 30 and 70 retroviruses inside them, and none of them cause any problems? That every human has around 10'000 retroviral genes in his genome, but only the HIV one supposedly causes any problems?

Yes of course, any viral infection is a strain for the immune system. after all, the immune system has to produce an immunological reaction to it. But when even 100's of viruses at the same time don't cause problems, why do you believe that HIV, which is only different from other retroviruses in that its target cell is the immunologically relevant T-Cell, where other retroviruses infect othercell types such as muscle cells, nerve cells, fat cells etc is the only retrovirus that destroys the immune system and kills its host?

Just to clarify, retrotransposons != retroviruses. They are similar, and probably came from retroviruses, but they are not the same.

Don't you understand that a retrovirus requires its host to live and reproduce? Any retrovirus that would kill its host would soon die out.

The same goes for any virus. And any parasite. Does this mean that no parasites and no viruses exist which kill their host?

[Deetee]

Sheesh!
I neglect the board for a day or two and this happens! 4 pages of it, too!

I agree with Robinson (in this one thing, anyway) - Damn troll!

A few points -
Dubya is definitely a troll, albeit a somewhat sophisticated one. He started out all sciency-questioningly, pretending he was unconvinced about certain aspects of HIV/AIDS. He offered opinions, and the only facts or data he produced have been culled from well-trodden HIV denialism web sites. We get the occasional creationist in here who does the same thing, well there are HIV denialists who are fewer in number, but potentially much, much more dangerous. He real agenda became quickly apparent, with his scatter-gun rejection of almost every fact that was thrown his way. His tactic of switching targets each time he was held to account for a dishonest statement is classical too (the HIV whack-a-mole game).

I think Dubya thought he could get away with disinformation, but fortunately our regulars were onto him pronto and he has probably got the message that he cannot get away with his unfettered wild claims. I spend quite a bit of time on other forums engaging these trolls. Try aetiology (http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/) for a flavour of what goes on.

Kudos to all. I'm still not sure Dubbya's a troll, any more than any other deluded person who posts here. His premise is supported by some elements of mainstream science, some of what he says is correct - which shows that myths persist. He has discussed other subjects in a non-trolling manner.

Forgive me, can you point out the posts where what he says is correct, rather than where he is being disingenuously misleading?

[Dabljuh]

Heya robinson. At first, I thought "Finally, a worthy opponent! One that I can learn something from" But alas...

Actually I think I authored the argument, back in the 1990s. Here are some quotes, which also will link you to the original post, which is convenient because it links to another thread about this. Note to the newcomer, I was called a troll in that thread for pointing out some of the fallacies and problems with AIDS, HIV research and such. I think I can understand where you are coming from. However, consider the following ideas, which I can expand upon if needed.

To sum up, while there are problems and politics galore with HIV/AIDS, and always have been, there is good evidence that HIV is associated with a decreased immune system, which can lead to opportunistic infections, and death.

The policy of diagnosing Africans with AIDS, without doing an HIV test, is problematic, and may well be a funding issue.

And yes, the hype about catching AIDS from unprotected sex was hype, and yes, there have been a lot of people who used AIDS to promote agendas, as well as conspiracy theories, and yes there is dispute over many of the issues around HIV.

Based on my research, AIDS has not spread or killed anywhere near what the predictions were, it hasn't spread like a sexually transmitted disease, and it certainly hasn't killed the number of people in Africa that some would have you believe.

Now before somebody jumps in demanding I back up all that with links and quotes and evidence and stuff, I would say this.

If you claim AIDS has killed the number of people that it was predicted it would, you have to show that.

If you want to claim AIDS has spread sexually, you have to show that it has.

And if you want to claim Africa has been decimated by AIDS, you have to show that this is true.

Because the onus of proof is on the person making some wild ass claim, not the person who debunks it, and tells you that they don't believe it. :wackywink:... You agree with everything I say. Or I agree with everything you say. I'm not saying strictly: HIV is harmless. I repeatedly said there is some good possibility that HIV does harm the immune system, but that it was never shown that this is causally the case.

But: According to some of the people here, you're be a conspiracy nut now, since you imply that the threat of AIDS is systematically exaggerated.

Needless to say, there are statistics that have no problem showing that "millions of people died of "AIDS" in africa." But those studies never go into the semantic detail of the quality of the AIDS diagnosis.

Back when we discussed this early this year, I checked the figures. There are no facts to support the theory that HIV is spread by sex, like every other STD is. Yes, you can become infected through sexual contact, but not like an STD. It did not spread like a STD. It does not spread like an STD. If you believe it has, try and find the data to support that theory. Again, by the standards of some people in this forum, you are a conspiracy nut, implying there was a massive conspiracy trying to make people believe HIV was extremely lethal and transmitted sexually. I go a step further now and blame the religious right, mostly, for this hype, seeing HIV/AIDS not only as an opportunity to scare heterosexual kids into abstinence, but also as a righteous punishment for the gays in their mind.
(Now to be fair, I am talking about normal heterosexual sexual relations. Not perversions involving violence and anal penetration. That sort of behavior involves blood and non-sexual transmission of fluids, which I don't define as sex, for purposes of argument.)I don't like how you define anal intercourse as "perversion." I'd define it as "fun".

But anyhow. My position is only a tiny bit different from yours: I acknowledge everything you said there is true
- HIV is not an STD
- AIDS's definition is problematic
- HIV is much less dangerous than advertised
- "AIDS in Africa" is a made up hype
- The danger of HIV/AIDS is systematically exaggerated

I'm just going a step further and consider another possibility, which is a realistic possibility given the data:
- HIV *may* be mostly harmless
- HIV is unlikely to be a new virus at all

I am not saying that I am 100% sure that HIV is completely harmless. I simply consider the possibility that it is. And since we both now are "conspiracy nuts" according to some of the mentally impaired on this forum, I dare another preposition:
-A lot of people know that HIV may be mostly harmless, but dare not to speak up, for fears of losing their jobs.

Also, I disapprove of being called a troll. Or a conspiracy nut. You may think that. I may think "Wow, what an utter retard", but lets both just keep those thoughts to ourselves, as they don't help the discourse.

[Terry]

So what did all the gay guys die of before the anti-viral drugs? And why aren't we still dying of that now?

[Dabljuh]

So what did all the gay guys die of before the anti-viral drugs? And why aren't we still dying of that now?This is mostly Duesberg's theory, but seeing as how Gallo, the inventor of the HIV-AIDS link, now says that KS is caused not by HIV but by amyl nitrate abuse, it does have some credibility in my mind.

Basically, what these people, gays especially, died of, was drug abuse. Poppers and other recreational drugs, are known to depress the immune system, and are known to cause the "AIDS defning diseases" specific to nitrate inhalant abuse and IV drug users.

[kellyb]

W,
Can we get back to PCR?
Why do you think it's not good for identifying HIV? Do you think it's good at finding influenza?

[Dabljuh]

W,
Can we get back to PCR?
Why do you think it's not good for identifying HIV? Do you think it's good at finding influenza?You should ask someone else about PCR. I'm not a molecular biologist (Although I considered this career some 10 years ago) and I don't know enough about PCR to educate you. I suggest you go look for more information on PCR yourself. I only have a rough idea of what PCR does (Multiplication of genetic material)

I said PCR was unsuitable as an HIV test, because even Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR method, does not believe in a causal link between HIV and immunodepression. It is not unreasonable to believe that, while PCR may be the most accurate HIV test, in reality it may still produce far too many false positives.

I repeat: Do your own research. I'm not an expert on PCR. Maybe you can shed some more light on this. I'm not that particularly interested in PCR because I've learned that the other HIV tests are horribly inaccurate, and that PCR, when it is used as an HIV test, is not much better. Simply finding viral rna of an approximate size is not good enough for me, and that is, apparently, how the PCR-HIV test works.

Remember: Kary Mullis said: There has never been a case where a HI-Virus could be isolated from an AIDS patient. I have not seen evidence to the contrary in my (albeit brief) research.

[kellyb]

You should ask someone else about PCR. I'm not a molecular biologist (Although I considered this career some 10 years ago) and I don't know enough about PCR to educate you. I suggest you go look for more information on PCR yourself. I only have a rough idea of what PCR does (Multiplication of genetic material)

The problem here, W, is that pretty much all biologists think PCR, when done correctly, is excellent at identifying viruses. Even HIV. There's no debate about this. None.

I said PCR was unsuitable as an HIV test, because even Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR method, does not believe in a causal link between HIV and immunodepression.

Kary Mullis apparently believe PCR is good for identifying HIV. And it's a little unclear what he's thinking about HIV and AIDS nowadays.

I repeat: Do your own research. I'm not an expert on PCR. Maybe you can shed some more light on this. I'm not that particularly interested in PCR because I've learned that the other HIV tests are horribly inaccurate, and that PCR, when it is used as an HIV test, is not much better.

No, you haven't "learned" that. You just want/need to think that so your theory can stayed artificially glued together. A pretty high rate of false positives with the antibody test is a reality. All kinds of other viruses cross react with it. I'm pregnant and just had a routine HIV test last week. It was the antibody test, and if it comes back positive, I'm not going to flip out. If it's confirmed through multiple tests, then I'll worry.


Simply finding viral rna of an approximate size is not good enough for me, and that is, apparently, how the PCR-HIV test works.
No, that's not how it works.
How silly. No wonder you think PCR is worthless.

If you're not going to take the time to learn about the basic plausibility behind your own claim, then this discussion is utterly futile.

Remember: Kary Mullis said: There has never been a case where a HI-Virus could be isolated from an AIDS patient. I have not seen evidence to the contrary in my (albeit brief) research.
Do you know how viruses are isolated, W? Do you understand what that means?

[Taffer]

Not going to ignore my posts, now, are you?

Simply finding viral rna of an approximate size is not good enough for me, and that is, apparently, how the PCR-HIV test works.

PCR requires primers to work. Sequence specific primers. It doesn't just amplify "any old sequence of the right size".

[Dabljuh]

The problem here, W, is that pretty much all biologists think PCR, when done correctly, is excellent at identifying viruses. Even HIV. There's no debate about this. None.ORLY? You know that pathological phimosis (Lichen Sklerosis / Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans) Is a very good reason to circumcise. Yet "Phimosis" is one of the most overdiagnosed conditions in the western world, and even when limiting the argument to those cases where a correct phimosis diagnosis is made, circumcision is performed far too often? Theory and Reality of a procedure often differ dramatically. When it comes to issues where so much misinformation is spread such as circumcision or HIV, I don't automatically assume that PCR is great at detecting HIV reliably.
Kary Mullis apparently believe PCR is good for identifying HIV. And it's a little unclear what he's thinking about HIV and AIDS nowadays.That's worse than the creationist bullcrap argument that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.
No, you haven't "learned" that. You just want/need to think that so your theory can stayed artificially glued together. A pretty high rate of false positives with the antibody test is a reality. All kinds of other viruses cross react with it. I'm pregnant and just had a routine HIV test last week. It was the antibody test, and if it comes back positive, I'm not going to flip out. If it's confirmed through multiple tests, then I'll worry.You're probably better informed than most people. You state that the antibodytest is crap. Yet you claim I was fantasizing when I say the HIV tests in general are crap. Offer me some proof of the validity of HIV tests, against a reliable gold standard.

What about those, what about when these people who are not as well informed receive a positive HIV test (of any type) ? What about doctors who are not as well informed. Why, in the first place, did you perform an HIV antibody test during pregnancy, when you know that the result is likely going to be a false positive? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, that's not how it works.
How silly. No wonder you think PCR is worthless.

If you're not going to take the time to learn about the basic plausibility behind your own claim, then this discussion is utterly futile. The basic plausibility behind my claim is that the AIDS definition is circular. This has nothing to do with PCR tests, or empirical evidence in the first place. My initial argument is purely semantical, as it allows for a certain possibility: HIV is not the causative agent for diseases, despite apparent empirical evidence to the contrary based on the circular definition.
Do you know how viruses are isolated, W? Do you understand what that means?Basically, you take a sample (e.g. a blood sample) and then centrifuge it. Eventually you're supposed to see the viruses of a specific size and shape at a specific density band under the electron microscope. This was never done, to date, for HIV with a sample from an AIDS patient. Only in vitro samples produced something that may be HIV particles, and there's even people who argue that even this was never done satisfyingly.

PCR requires primers to work. Sequence specific primers. It doesn't just amplify "any old sequence of the right size".Primers are very short sequences of DNA. It is still possible (Mullis stated that) that PCR multiplies not a specific RNA sequence but pretty close to "any old DNA". He also stated that such an error would be detected with more testing. How much testing is performed, realistically, with an HIV test? In practice, that is? Do you have any data?

[Taffer]

Primers are very short sequences of DNA. It is still possible (Mullis stated that) that PCR multiplies not a specific RNA sequence but pretty close to "any old DNA".

Um...no. As someone who regularly uses PCR to amplify DNA, I can tell you how wrong this is. PCR amplifies specific sequences which occur between two primers. For PCR to amplify anything, the sequences have to bind to the DNA. The can only do so if their compliment sequence exists. How does this amplify "any old DNA"?

He also stated that such an error would be detected with more testing. How much testing is performed, realistically, with an HIV test? In practice, that is? Do you have any data?

I have no idea. I feel no need to provide counter evidence for something like PCR. We know it works, how it works, why it works, and how to make it work. Can you provide any evidence to suspect that PCR doesn't work for HIV?

How about normal viruses? dsRNA viruses? What about ssRNA viruses? ssDNA viruses? When does it work and when does it not? Why is HIV any different?

[Dabljuh]

God, what a waste of time. OK: the RT-PCR test is 100% sensitive and 100% specific to detect HIV in humans, even when it is performed by badly trained countryside hospitals in 15 minutes, dozens of times, daily.

So.

And now what does this change about the lack of proof for a connection between HIV and a lethal, irreversible immunosupressive effect?

[kellyb]

ORLY? You know that pathological phimosis (Lichen Sklerosis / Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans) Is a very good reason to circumcise. Yet "Phimosis" is one of the most overdiagnosed conditions in the western world, and even when limiting the argument to those cases where a correct phimosis diagnosis is made, circumcision is performed far too often? Theory and Reality of a procedure often differ dramatically. When it comes to issues where so much misinformation is spread such as circumcision or HIV, I don't automatically assume that PCR is great at detecting HIV reliably.
You know what?
I totally agree with you about the overdiagnosis of phimosis. I even know the nuts and bolts of why it's being overdiagnosed. Every time I hear "Oh, we had to have him circumcisied at a year because of phimosis" I know exactly what's gone wrong. And I'm not psychic. I just know the anatomy, popular practices, popular myths, etc. It's not rocket science.

This is nothing like PCR. But just like you can't convince someone that their 12 month old probably doesn't have "phimosis" if they refuse to learn about that issue, I can't convince you that PCR is excellent if you refuse to learn about it.

That's worse than the creationist bullcrap argument that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.

Do you want me to pll up the KM email again and again quote him?

You state that the antibodytest is crap.
No, I don't think it's crap. It's imperfect, though.

Yet you claim I was fantasizing when I say the HIV tests in general are crap. Offer me some proof of the validity of HIV tests, against a reliable gold standard.

What do you consider the gold standard? Do you want me to find the rate of agreement between various antibody tests, culture, and PCR?

What about those, what about when these people who are not as well informed receive a positive HIV test (of any type) ? What about doctors who are not as well informed. Why, in the first place, did you perform an HIV antibody test during pregnancy, when you know that the result is likely going to be a false positive? That doesn't make sense to me.

Most of the time, most doctors know that there are false positives. For the rest...I don't know what to say. I don't mean to sound brutal, but it's really not my problem.
I got the test because it's just part of the package that comes with the blood draw, and I really don't care. While false positives do happen, they're still unlikely.

The basic plausibility behind my claim is that the AIDS definition is circular.

Which is why you need to dig a little deeper, dude.

This has nothing to do with PCR tests, or empirical evidence in the first place.
If you'd take the time to learn about PCR, you'd change your mind.

My initial argument is purely semantical, as it allows for a certain possibility: HIV is not the causative agent for diseases, despite apparent empirical evidence to the contrary based on the circular definition.

Of course it allows for that possibility. And yes, the profit motive is there, sometimes "science" is highly political and brainwashy, there are confounding factors with "AIDS" that make the whole deal messy, yadayadayada.
It's true.
But just because something is possible doesn't mean it's correct, or "the truth".
Again...please learn about some of the more technical science. It's the only way to troubleshoot the theory you're presently subscribing to. (unless you want to come up with your own thought experiments.

Basically, you take a sample (e.g. a blood sample) and then centrifuge it. Eventually you're supposed to see the viruses of a specific size and shape at a specific density band under the electron microscope. This was never done, to date, for HIV with a sample from an AIDS patient. Only in vitro samples produced something that may be HIV particles, and there's even people who argue that even this was never done satisfyingly.

No, that's not right either, but I still bet I can find an electron microscopy picture of an HIV virus taken from someone with actuals AIDS.
Would that convince you? Or would it just be another waste of time?

When does it work and when does it not? Why is HIV any different?
Watch out, Taffer!
Last time I asked him that he told me to "do my own research".

[Capsid]

There's also the cases of the unfortunate lab workers who got accidentally infected with HIV in the lab , amazingly they went on to develop AIDS. :eek:

[kellyb]

God, what a waste of time. OK: the RT-PCR test is 100% sensitive and 100% specific to detect HIV in humans, even when it is performed by badly trained countryside hospitals in 15 minutes, dozens of times, daily.



Straw man.

PCR can be done incorrectly. Let's look at when it's done by people who are experienced and competent, ok?

[kellyb]

There's also the cases of the unfortunate lab workers who got accidentally infected with HIV in the lab , amazingly they went on to develop AIDS. :eek:

Closet druggies.


:rolleyes:

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.aidstruth.org/

You can debunk every AIDS denier argument at the above link.

[Dabljuh]

92% of those "lab/hospital HIV infections" are men. Just the same quota as the HIV cases in the general public.

Listen: I don't care about PCR. I don't have to. Because the validity and accuracy of the PCR test is in no way important to my argument.

the basic plausibility behind my claim is that the AIDS definition is circular.
Which is why you need to dig a little deeper, dude.Like what? A circular definition is a circular definition. No way around it.

edit: Everything else, such as crappy HIV tests, (which you acknowledge), is just corroborative evidence.

[Eos of the Eons]

To clarify, HIV is the retrovirus. AIDS is a label for a set of diseases combined with HIV being detected. Neither HIV nor AIDS kills you, it is some disease that kills you, not HIV. Semantics. HIV leads to AIDS leads to some disease, or combination of diseases, which leads to death, which means you don't breath anymore, and your body starts to decompose. Does that help?


Damn you troll. Damn you to hell! :mad:

:D Robinson has learned sooo much since this was discussed in detail last. I have to say I'm quite proud of the way you worded that.

Yeah, if you have no immune system left to fight diseases (because HIV took over your T cells), then your body can't fight the diseases we all come into contact with every day. This inability to fight disease because of the HIV infection is called AIDS (acquired immune deficiency). You acquire immune deficiency by acquiring HIV. You will quite readily be killed or weakened by things that your body needs its Tcells to fight off. Your body gets weakened by the infections, then you can even get killed off by even simpler infections (opportunistic).

[Eos of the Eons]

92% of those "lab/hospital HIV infections" are men. Just the same quota as the HIV cases in the general public.

Listen: I don't care about PCR. I don't have to. Because the validity and accuracy of the PCR test is in no way important to my argument.

Like what? A circular definition is a circular definition. No way around it.


What is your argument exactly? HIV exists, and it infects T-cells. No argument needed.

[kellyb]

Listen: I don't care about PCR. I don't have to. Because the validity and accuracy of the PCR test is in no way important to my argument.

That's like saying "The natural age of retraction has nothing to do with my 12 month old's diagnosis of phimosis".

Seriously. That's what I feel like trying to argue with you about HIV.

Like what? A circular definition is a circular definition. No way around it.

If you knew which diagnostic tests were accurate for finding the HIV virus, you could look at populations who aren't on "toxic" meds, aren't starving, aren't infected with other horrible diseases, aren't on drugs and leading otherwise "unhealthy lives", etc.

But if you don't ''believe in" the tests that find the HIV virus, you have nothing to work with, and are only going to see a circular definition.

ETA:
I'm saying this gently, so don't get pissed off, but you're coming at this question of "Does HIV cause AIDS?" from a position of ignorance. Not stupidity, but you don't have the information at this point to really figure it out. This is a fixable situation. You CAN learn about it. It might take a few months, but it's not that hard. All it takes is curiosity and motivation.

[Eos of the Eons]

Weak arguments, when bringing up false positives and such. It is so very rare, and the tests keep getting better:

http://www.aidstruth.org/debunking-denialist-myths.php

In recent years many HIV rapid tests that deliver results within 45 minutes have been developed. When two of these tests are used to measure HIV status they are very accurate (both sensitive and specific). In high HIV prevalence populations they provide an accurate and affordable means for pregnant women to determine their HIV status. See:

Evaluation of rapid tests in pregnant women in Cameroon (http://cvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/12/7/855)

Evaluation of rapid tests in pregnant women in Côte d'Ivoire (http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/42/9/4147)

Review of evidence for screening pregnant women in the United States (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/143/1/38)

[Capsid]

92% of those "lab/hospital HIV infections" are men. Just the same quota as the HIV cases in the general public.
:confused:
Sorry, I don't follow your argument here. 100% of the lab workers with HIV got AIDS.

[Dabljuh]

Originally Posted by robinson View Post

To clarify, HIV is the retrovirus. AIDS is a label for a set of diseases combined with HIV being detected. Neither HIV nor AIDS kills you, it is some disease that kills you, not HIV. Semantics. HIV leads to AIDS leads to some disease, or combination of diseases, which leads to death, which means you don't breath anymore, and your body starts to decompose. Does that help?


Damn you troll. Damn you to hell!:D Robinson has learned sooo much since this was discussed in detail last. I have to say I'm quite proud of the way you worded that.

Yeah, if you have no immune system left to fight diseases (because HIV took over your T cells), then your body can't fight the diseases we all come into contact with every day. This inability to fight disease because of the HIV infection is called AIDS (acquired immune deficiency). You acquire immune deficiency by acquiring HIV. You will quite readily be killed or weakened by things that your body needs its Tcells to fight off. Your body gets weakened by the infections, then you can even get killed off by even simpler infections (opportunistic).
That is the general idea. That's what I basically was tought in Sex Ed.

But, the CDC definition of AIDS is the following:
You have been tested HIV+, and
- You have one of over 20 diseases, some of them actually common
*OR*
- A CD4 cell count of below 200/ml

Essentially, if we remove the HIV+ requirement, we have a pretty basic definition of "Immune deficiency" that says "If you are sick, get one of those diseases, you have a weakened immune system". And the CD4 cell count has never been proven to show anything about the state of the immune system, in fact, before the CDC's AIDS definition was enhanced by this criterion in 1993, a paper was published that said that there was no correlation between someone's "state of the immune system" and their CD4 cell count.

Basically the problem is there is no way to test for a "immune deficiency" - so to make up for that, the CDC's definition for this immune deficiency is that you get sick while you are HIV+.

That's a circular definition right there. If you, based on this definition, try to find empirical evidence that HIV "causes" AIDS, then you will find it. You will not find a single AIDS case without HIV, and you will find that all (or nearly all) HIV cases eventually develop AIDS.

But the definition is circular! Thus, the "empirical evidence" to that effect is worthless.

What is your argument exactly? HIV exists, and it infects T-cells. No argument needed.Hundreds of viruses exist that infect hundreds of different, human cells, which do not cause any harm or problems. Yes, there are viruses that cause disease, but these are the minority - they are simply not adapted to the human being yet. But if you claim a specific virus causes a disease, you will have to offer proof for that. This proof was never offered for HIV. Only empirical evidence that "HIV causes AIDS" using CDC's definition of AIDS was proven, which, due to it being circular, doesn't prove anything.

Using the CDC definition of "AIDS" without the HIV requirement, calling it "Immune deficiency" instead of "AIDS", I can make the following statements, which are all true:

- There is "Immune Deficiency" without HIV
- There is HIV without "Immune deficiency"
- There is no causal link proven between HIV and "Immune Deficiency"

How do you know someone who has the flu and is HIV+, does not just have the flu? Why do you insist they have AIDS now and are going to die within months?

[Eos of the Eons]

I also don't understand the 92% stat. Where is dab getting his information from?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2001report/table7.htm


United States Stats:

Male subtotal from newborn to over 65: 670,687 (83%)

Female subtotal from newborn to over 65: 145,461 (17%)

Total: 816,149

Includes 545 males and 89 females whose race/ethnicity is unknown. Includes 1 person whose sex is unknown.

[kellyb]

- There is no causal link proven between HIV and "Immune Deficiency"

And again, remedy your lack of information and you'll change your mind there.

[Dabljuh]

That's like saying "If you knew which diagnostic tests were accurate for finding the HIV virus, you could look at populations who aren't on "toxic" meds, aren't starving, aren't infected with other horrible diseases, aren't on drugs and leading otherwise "unhealthy lives", etc.

But if you don't ''believe in" the tests that find the HIV virus, you have nothing to work with, and are only going to see a circular definition.I ask for a double-blind RCT to be performed on whether HIV causes complications. Use influenca or a similiar virus for the control group. What you are doing is, drawing arguments from cohort and population studies, which are not very scientifically meaningful. A large scale, double blind, randomized controlled trial could convince me. But using sorry excuses of cohort studies and case studies doesn't do it for me. I request better evidence. And to that end, the validity of HIV tests is irrelevant.

[Eos of the Eons]

This proof was never offered for HIV.

Complete and utter baloney. Again, as with the rest of your misinformed post (about CDC definitions and other hooey), where are you getting this from? It's utter crap.

Here is actual information and studies:

http://www.aidstruth.org/scientific-studies.php

I suggest you study them and leave all the other crap you "learned" behind.

[Dabljuh]

I also don't understand the 92% stat. Where is dab getting his information from?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2001report/table7.htm


United States Stats:

Male subtotal from newborn to over 65: 670,687 (83%)

Female subtotal from newborn to over 65: 145,461 (17%)

Total: 816,149The interview with Kary Mullis that I posted on the first page. Link (http://web.archive.org/web/20070210121223/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980714.html)

[kellyb]

I ask for a double-blind RCT to be performed on whether HIV causes complications. Use influenca or a similiar virus for the control group.
Have fun getting an ethics committee to approve that one.
What you're proposing is another Tuskegee experiment, you know?

What you are doing is, drawing arguments from cohort and population studies, which are not very scientifically meaningful.
To be completely fair, I bet we learned a lot from the Tuskegee experiments!


But using sorry excuses of cohort studies and case studies doesn't do it for me. I request better evidence. And to that end, the validity of HIV tests is irrelevant.

You'll say that for HIV, but I'm assuming you buy it for the other infectious diseases. NONE of them have been studied in the way you're proposing. Because it's unethical nowadays. So science has jumped through a bunch of hoops to find alternative ways of studying stuff. But you don't believe in it, because you don't understand it.

I can't help you.

[Eos of the Eons]

A scanning electron micrograph of the AIDS virus attacking T4 lymphocytes. (http://www.biologyreference.com/images/biol_01_img0018.jpg)

We have pictures, the actual specimens, the RNA codes, the fact that RNA uses reverse transcriptase (and samples of that enzyme) to make dna strands that enter the T-cell dna to make the TCELL make more HIV rna that leaves the cell by taking T-cell cytoplasm with it to go invade more T-cells.

We have everything, and aren't a bunch of ignorant buffoons the way dab is suggesting. We can go to the expense of isolating the HIV virus from every victim, but the more practical testing we utilize is far more cost effective.

http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/AIDS.html

[Dabljuh]

Complete and utter baloney. Again, as with the rest of your misinformed post (about CDC definitions and other hooey), where are you getting this from? It's utter crap.

Here is actual information and studies:

http://www.aidstruth.org/scientific-studies.php

I suggest you study them and leave all the other crap you "learned" behind.Oh, you call the CDC definition crap? Well, I agree there. if you're now asking me for the link, confusedly, I offer it: Link (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm)

[Dabljuh]

A scanning electron micrograph of the AIDS virus attacking T4 lymphocytes. (http://www.biologyreference.com/images/biol_01_img0018.jpg)

We have pictures, the actual specimens, the RNA codes, the fact that RNA uses reverse transcriptase (and samples of that enzyme) to make dna strands that enter the T-cell dna to make the TCELL make more HIV rna that leaves the cell by taking T-cell cytoplasm with it to go invade more T-cells.

We have everything, and aren't a bunch of ignorant buffoons the way dab is suggesting. We can go to the expense of isolating the HIV virus from every victim, but the more practical testing we utilize is far more cost effective.

http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/AIDS.html
That picture is an in vitro infected sample, not from a live AIDS patient.

[kellyb]

The interview with Kary Mullis that I posted on the first page. Link (http://web.archive.org/web/20070210121223/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980714.html)

Your research skills are AMAZING.

You really do a lot of cross referencing, don't you?

[Dabljuh]

Have fun getting an ethics committee to approve that one.
What you're proposing is another Tuskegee experiment, you know?

To be completely fair, I bet we learned a lot from the Tuskegee experiments!

You'll say that for HIV, but I'm assuming you buy it for the other infectious diseases. NONE of them have been studied in the way you're proposing. Because it's unethical nowadays. So science has jumped through a bunch of hoops to find alternative ways of studying stuff. But you don't believe in it, because you don't understand it.

I can't help you.Ever heard of Animal testing? You know, infecting simians with the SIV. They actually did it. Result? SIV is harmless to monkeys' immune systems.

Edit: Oh and Tuskegee was some racist crap, that enforced a natural history investigation on blacks, not an RTC.

[kellyb]

That picture is an in vitro infected sample, not from a live AIDS patient.

Yeah, they should have used the electronmicroscopic nanobot photographytec probe (EMNPP).

[Eos of the Eons]

Kary Mullis

Ah, if AIDS deniers are your only source, then it is no wonder you are so ignorant. Try exploring reality, and then decide. Look into microbiolgy instead of the ramblings from someone outside of the specialty who is decidedly debunked. Every word he utters against HIV flies in the face of the fact that it is proven. What kind of whackjob denies the existence of something you can see in action, and have specimens of? Does he deny the existence of water too?


http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/
http://www.badscience.net/?p=283

[kellyb]

Ever heard of Animal testing? You know, infecting simians with the SIV. They actually did it. Result? SIV is harmless to monkeys' immune systems.

My GAWD you really don't know ANYTHING, do you?

[Eos of the Eons]

Oy, how ridiculous can we get? We have samples of HIV from patients, and surprise, they match the ones they culture from patients in the lab! Of course they are from patients, and cultured. Oy, where are they from? Aliens? Made up by mad scientists? Another idiotic weak argument. Want more pictures?

http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/47/00/470023/art-aids470023.fig4.gif

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470023_3

Complete HIV-1 genomic sequences were determined from plasma viral RNA from all seven subjects.

We have pictures and genome sequences from patients :eye-poppi What a novel idea!

SIV is not HIV. What is your point? You also realize that there are different types of flu bugs, and many of them don't make us sick? Other flu bugs kill us. So what? That is what makes microbes so interesting, it doesn't make HIV harmless or nonexistent.

[kellyb]

SIV is not HIV. What is your point? You also realize that there are different types of flu bugs, and many of them don't make us sick? Other flu bugs kill us. So what? That is what makes microbes so interesting, it doesn't make HIV harmless or nonexistent.


Cats can catch H5N1 from eating dead birds. Doesn't make them sick at all. It kills birds by the millions, AND is highly infectious in them. It makes humans sick when humans get infected, etc. etc. etc.

Sheesh....

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2006/niaid-09.htm (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2006/niaid-09.htm)
Monkeys Vaccinated Against SIV Survive Longer After Infection

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/930401929.Vi.r.html
Both viruses are in the retrovirus family meaning they use RNA as their genetic material which, after the virus enters the cell, must be copied back to DNA for the virus to become active. Both viruses are in the genus Lentivirus which means they are "slow viruses". And both viruses infect the T cells of the host's immune system.

In general, SIV does not cause any symptoms in its natural host monkey species. Hosts and microbes have coexisted for thousands of years and it is not in the microbe's interest to kill the host. Disease can be thought of as something "out of balance" which neither organism wants. But when a microbe crosses its species barrier, the normal controls on its life cycle will be absent and disease can happen. For example, most SIV strains get macaques sick. There is also a case of a chimp developing AIDS and dying about ten years after being infected with HIV.

And what Kelly said. Just because a virus won't kill every organism it invades does not mean it can't infect and affect other hosts. Most viruses are host specific, and some can just hitch rides without doing harm in some organisms. That is why it is not advisable to eat raw meat, you may ingest some microbe that is dwelling within an organism. Well known fact that dab is ignorant of.

Oh, I'd love to know where dab gets his information from! Or is it his own stretches of warped logic that brings him to such ridiculous conclusions? Oh and Tuskegee was some racist crap, that enforced a natural history investigation on blacks, not an RTC.

Tuskegee huh? This is 2007, and if you figure HIV is a conspiracy to infect the black population, then you must be acknowledging that it exists and that it is harmful.

[Rob Lister]

do I win yet?

[[[see post 2]]]

[Eos of the Eons]

Did you bet one thousand of your posts, or do you bet that in 1000 posts we'll figure out if this dab is just trolling along and not willing to learn anything?

If you win, who will up your post count up another 1000 counts, or what exactly did you put up as a bet?


:D

[kellyb]

Tuskegee huh? This is 2007, and if you figure HIV is a conspiracy to infect the black population, then you must be acknowledging that it exists and that it is harmful.

No, no, Eos...
W wants to see a randomized controlled trial where half the people are shot up with HIV, and the other half with influenza, to compare notes on what happens.

THEN, and only then, will he believe that HIV causes AIDS.

I'm just assuming that this will not be able to be a highly publicised experiment, and the subjects will probably not exactly be providing informed consent.

Even W himself said he wouldn't even accept a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV positive.

[Eos of the Eons]

No, no, Eos...
W wants to see a randomized controlled trial where half the people are shot up with HIV, and the other half with influenza, to compare notes on what happens.

THEN, and only then, will he believe that HIV causes AIDS.

I'm just assuming that this will not be able to be a highly publicised experiment, and the subjects will probably not exactly be providing informed consent.

Even W himself said he wouldn't even accept a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV positive.


roflmao. Not only do we know what notes we'll get, making that trial useless and unethical, it's stupid. What is the point of comparing HIV to influenza? We can compare those cases now, but I don't see what the point is that dab wants to declare to us.

I'd gladly make dab the HIV test subject, and I'll take the flu bug. Let's go dab!

[kellyb]

What is the point of comparing HIV to influenza? We can compare those cases now, but I don't see what the point is that dab wants to declare to us.

To prove to denialists who are too lazy to learn about science that HIV causes AIDS, of course!
Learning about PCR and looking at the epidemiology is much too difficult, so they want an easy to understand, murderous test designed to be comprehended by those intellectually suck on the 3rd grade level before they're giving it up.

[Eos of the Eons]

Yuh, cuz we nerd herd thtupid thientists don't know the diff between retroviruses and influenza bugs, so we hasta go dump some in hapless subjects to see what duh will happen :boggled:

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, instead of recipes, wanna try jokes and funny stuff?

Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you'll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don' t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

(I don't know if this is true story, but it's funny :D )

[Rob Lister]

Did you bet one thousand of your posts, or do you bet that in 1000 posts we'll figure out if this dab is just trolling along and not willing to learn anything?

If you win, who will up your post count up another 1000 counts, or what exactly did you put up as a bet?


:D

clearly I bet 1000 of my posts but later upped it to 2000.

not sure how I'll get paid though.

[The Atheist]

Forgive me, can you point out the posts where what he says is correct, rather than where he is being disingenuously misleading?

Karposi's Sarcoma. Not all HIV positive people developing AIDS. The umbrella of diseases it encompasses - Robinson covered most of the points in his post.

Not going to ignore my posts, now, are you?

Well, of course he is! He's not about to argue with someone who has current data.

Watch out, Taffer!
Last time I asked him that he told me to "do my own research".

I'll just note - in Taffer's absence - that Taffer is exactly the right person to tell to "do the research", becauise Taffer is, in fact, a research scientist, geneticist guy.

do I win yet?

clearly I bet 1000 of my posts but later upped it to 2000.

not sure how I'll get paid though.

The bad news is that I doubled you to 4000, coming back.

The good news is that Dubbya is proving that he is a troll by refusing to accept actual evidence which has been gained during the last decade. Ask Darat to deduct 4000 of my posts and add them to yours. (Warning - be very selective about which 4000 you take credit for! :bgrin:

[Capsid]

Hmmm, this circular argument thingy. It's AIDS not IDS, doesn't the Acquired mean just that, ie through HIV infection, you know to distinguish it from other immune deficiencies?

The macaque model uses SIV derived from african green monkeys which do not develop AIDS like disease; however infect indian macaques and they do develop pathogenic disease. It's a zoonotic infection and likewise HIV is most likely derived from infection by SIV derived from chimps which is non pathogenic in its natural host. The newly infected host has to adapt to its new infection and the CCR5 mutation may be one way in which humans can adapt to HIV.

[Deetee]

Karposi's Sarcoma. Not all HIV positive people developing AIDS. The umbrella of diseases it encompasses - Robinson covered most of the points in his post.

Well I was really looking for things Dubya said that were true whcih we disagreed with. I have no quibble with the idea that not everyone who gets HIV goes on to get severe immunodeficiency/AIDS.

The denialists constantly say "But not everyone gets AIDS! - therefore HIV does not exist/does not fulfil Koch's postulates" or some such drivel. By spreading this disinformation they can pretend they have science on their side - straw man to the end.

There are plenty examples of people who are tolerant of the virus or who progress very slowly (long term non progressors / elite controllers) for reasons already explained (host factors, HLA status, CCR allele mutations etc). Denialists try and point out these cases as though they disprove AIDS pathogenesis.

Re Kaposi sarcoma, I seem to recall Dubya saying something about poppers and Gallo saying HIV did not cause KS. Well way back, people did not know whether KS resulted from HIV itself or another virus like CMV (which was an early candidate). The popper theory was roundly dismissed by the available evidence back in the 80s.
Then they discovered HHV-6 (KSHV) was the cause. It causes problems in the immunosuppressed, you see, which is why it affects HIV-infected people. It is sexually transmitted, which is why you only usually see it in sexually transmitted cases of HIV - (hemophiliacs, drug users, babies etc have low prevalence of HHV-6).

I am reminded of what a certain doctor posted on the Aetiology blog:

Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Scientists: HHV-6 causes KS
Duesberg: See, I was right, I told you HIV didn't cause KS!

ETA - I see Dubya actually said this:Gallo, the inventor of the HIV-AIDS link, now says that KS is caused not by HIV but by amyl nitrate abuse

Now, Dubya, would you have a reference for this completely fabricated statement???

[Deetee]

Just a note on the "circular" AIDS definition. Dubya fails to take in what Robinson said in his very first post. Its a label, a syndrome - something contrived to explain a collection of signs/symptoms/disease manifestations.

Yes, the AIDS-defining infections and cancers can affect non-HIV infected people, but they have other causes of immune failure as the underlying cause. Without the HIV, you just have a case of PCP, for example.
However, if you have an individual who has become immunodeficient as a direct result of having HIV infection, and they then fall prey to an infection like PCP, then that person can be said to have "AIDS".

The term AIDS is rather redundant - I prefer "HIV infection", and then to go on and precisely qualify what stage or complications have resulted when describing it in more detail in a particular patient.

[Taffer]

God, what a waste of time. OK: the RT-PCR test is 100% sensitive and 100% specific to detect HIV in humans, even when it is performed by badly trained countryside hospitals in 15 minutes, dozens of times, daily.

So why do you bring it up in the first place?

And now what does this change about the lack of proof for a connection between HIV and a lethal, irreversible immunosupressive effect?

Complete lack of proof? Methinks thou art confused.

ETA: Oh, and while we're on the subject... If HIV tests are performed adequately (surely you are not suggesting that they are always flawed), and they find essentially all AIDS patients to be infected with HIV, what would that tell you?

[Dabljuh]

So why do you bring it up in the first place?I didn't, it was kelly who wouldn't shut up about it.Complete lack of proof? Methinks thou art confused.I can imagine that you think that. But here's a task for you: Find a research study that conclusively proves that HIV irreversibly damages the human immune system in a significant number of cases. Not one that assumes that HIV causes AIDS, but a study that puts this proposition to a test.
ETA: Oh, and while we're on the subject... If HIV tests are performed adequately (surely you are not suggesting that they are always flawed), and they find essentially all AIDS patients to be infected with HIV, what would that tell you?You aren't listening. You can't have AIDS without HIV. If you don't have HIV, you don't have AIDS, per definition. Even when your arms are rotting off. Which is why I think the whole thing is BS in the first place.

[Apathia]

http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/lilly.JPG

[Deetee]

You aren't listening. You can't have AIDS without HIV. If you don't have HIV, you don't have AIDS, per definition. Even when your arms are rotting off. Which is why I think the whole thing is BS in the first place.

No- you aren't listening. Read my post above. The definition of AIDS is a playabout with word semantics and has nothing to do with whether the virus causes immune deficiency. You really have no reason to think the whole thing is BS. Doctors can modify and develop the definition of acute coronary syndrome by using troponin levels rather than EKGs - that doesn't mean angina is a myth.

Now, do you care to provide the reference for your claim that Gallo now thinks poppers cause Kaposi?

[The Atheist]

The term AIDS is rather redundant - I prefer "HIV infection", and then to go on and precisely qualify what stage or complications have resulted when describing it in more detail in a particular patient.

I actually think the term is redundant, clinically. HIV positive is how I always hear it described.

http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/lilly.JPG

I hadn't caught on that you were formerly Hyparxis.

Lovely bunch.

[kellyb]

You aren't listening. You can't have AIDS without HIV. If you don't have HIV, you don't have AIDS, per definition. Even when your arms are rotting off. Which is why I think the whole thing is BS in the first place.

"You can't have Down's without an extra 21st chromosome. If you don't have an extra 21st chromosome, you don't have Down's, per definition. Even when you're deformed and severely mentally impared. Which is why it's all BS."

"You can't have bacterial meningitis without a CSF bacterial cluture. Without a CSF culture that shows bacteria, you don't have bacterial meningitis, per definition. Even when you're almost dead. Which is why it's all BS."

Etc, etc, etc.

[Complexity]

W - What are you really trying to accomplish by posting here on this topic?

[skeptigirl]

It's hard to believe the nonsense being thrown around this thread without a shred of credible supporting evidence. The links to the actual scientific research and debunking of the nonsense is never addressed, just repeating of the inaccurate and discredited information as if no one really presented anything refuting the garbage.

Robinson, if HIV isn't a disease transmitted by basic heterosexual intercourse, how are you claiming it is spread and where's your supporting evidence? In addition, just because you have not seen how HIV is diagnosed in African countries does not mean the diagnoses are inaccurate. Your imagination is inaccurate. It may come as a shock to you but they actually draw blood and run legitimate lab tests in African countries. :rolleyes:

And where did you get this erroneous information:HIV didn't spread like it was predicted. HIV didn't spread into the heterosexual population through sex, like other STDs. HIV didn't get spread through needle sticks and medical accidents, as predicted.
HIV didn't kill the massive populations in Africa, as reported, or predicted. I have met and spoken with Dr Patricia Wetzel who was infected with HIV from a needlestick and Dr. Janine Jagger who started Epinet (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/epinet/index11.cfm) and the first safer needle campaign following the incident. And you have the gall to say, "HIV didn't get spread through needle sticks and medical accidents, as predicted"?

So who "predicted" what that you do not believe occurred? It takes a large inoculate to cause infection. Is that what makes you think something predicted didn't occur?

I've also cared for patients who were infected through heterosexual intercourse and through blood transfusions. So before I debunk your bizarre position, how about explaining a bit more clearly just what you believe and why you believe it?

And, Dabljuh, for your information, not that evidence means much to you, but HIV can be traced by the number of mutations between strains. That means when traced you can tell with an extremely high degree of certainty that a specific source of HIV caused a specific new infection in another person. The 6 patients of the Florida dentist (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00020479.htm) who were infected with HIV (and there is strong circumstantial evidence he injected them with contaminated blood) all had clear evidence they were infected directly by his strain of HIV. The same is true for a number of lab and health care workers who were exposed to HIV infected blood, had lab tests showing they were not already infected, and seroconverted typically 10-12 weeks later. Their seroconversions are documented as well as some of them have confirmation they have the strain of their source patients.

Molecular Investigation of HIV Transmission (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/121/11/889)HIV has an unprecedentedly high mutation rate compared with other pathogens. Human immunodeficiency virus variation can be "tracked" by comparing either viral DNA sequences or viral protein sequences encoded by the DNA; in the case of DNA, the sequenced nucleotide strings typically consist of 300 or more characters (letters) that offer ample information for tracking purposes. We can, accordingly, determine a range of genetic relatedness for intrapatient variants (variants within a single person) and a decidedly different range of degree of relatedness for interpatient variants where there is no evidence of epidemiologic linkage.

Populations of viruses from the same infected person have DNA sequences that are typically 95% to 100% similar by an appropriate measure of sequence relatedness for the viral envelope gene [3, 9]. In contrast, the extent of dissimilarity of viruses from epidemiologically unlinked persons is greater, depending on the length of time a particular subtype of HIV has been circulating in a locale—the "viral diversification" factor—and on the array of highly distinct viral subtypes circulating in a locale—the "viral trafficking" factor. In Florida, for example, where there is currently only a single HIV-1 subtype, most HIV-1 sequences from ostensibly unlinked persons are 83% to 93% similar [3, 10]. In regions of the world where highly divergent viral subtypes are co-circulating, such as Russia, interpatient viral similarities can be as low as 70% or less [8].

The stupidity of accepting these decades old denier hypotheses is highlighted by the fact that genetic research has established not just the fact HIV causes AIDS, but also how it does it, how it is transmitted, some factors which facilitate and hinder transmission, and the same research has resulted in an arsenal of anti-retroviral drugs which are now keeping people with HIV alive for decades.

This is the same stupidity I see in the evolution deniers. They and the HIV deniers are completely ignorant of the entire field of genetic science and the revelations we have gained from genetic research in just the last 2 decades. No one is guessing HIV causes AIDS from epidemiology. We know it does from looking at the genetic and other molecular evidence.

[skeptigirl]

I think all we skeptics will find this article of particualr interest.

J Med Ethics 2004;30:53-60; © 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics GLOBAL RESEARCH ETHICS; Professional responsibilities of biomedical scientists in public discourse; U Schüklenk (http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/30/1/53)Correspondence to:
Dr U Schüklenk
Head, Division of Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Wits 2050, South Africa; udo@udo-schuklenk.org

Abstract

This article describes how a small but vocal group of biomedical scientists propagates the views that either HIV is not the cause of AIDS, or that it does not exist at all. When these views were rejected by mainstream science, this group took its views and arguments into the public domain, actively campaigning via newspapers, radio, and television to make its views known to the lay public. I describe some of the harmful consequences of the group’s activities, and ask two distinct ethical questions: what moral obligations do scientists who hold such minority views have with regard to a scientifically untrained lay audience, and what moral obligations do mainstream newspapers and government politicians have when it comes to such views. The latter question will be asked because the "dissidents" succeeded for a number of years in convincing the South African government of the soundness of their views. The consequences of their stance affected millions of HIV infected South Africans severely.

Introduction

Ever since the retrovirus HIV was declared to be the cause of AIDS, a small but vocal group of scientists has argued in professional journals and publicly either that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, or that there is no evidence that HIV exists at all.

Scientists should be aware of the social harm that can result from the premature proclamation of claims that are weakly founded. Scientists must be particularly careful when their science deals with questions of human import. They have entered the political arena.1

The self declared "HIV dissidents" blame other putative causes for AIDS, including the health consequences of highly active sex lives involving drug taking and multiple partners in developed countries, and/or poverty in developing countries.2 They allege that essential AIDS drugs are one of the real causes of AIDS. A corollary of this position has been the view that AIDS is not infectious at all.

Jürgen Habermas’s insights into our "erkenntnisleitendes Interesse" encourage me to come clear at this stage and declare that I was one of those vocal HIV dissident academics. Some years ago I changed sides in this dispute and accepted that mainstream views of HIV and AIDS are correct. Since I changed my views on this matter, I also happen to have changed my employer. I moved from developed world Australia with its rather small number of people with AIDS, to developing world South Africa, reportedly the country with the largest number of AIDS cases worldwide. Prevalence rates in the country among persons aged 15–49 years old are around 15%.3 Perhaps surprisingly for the uninitiated observer, the South African government’s publicly expressed views on HIV and AIDS, and its policies with regard to the provision of essential AIDS drugs have for a number of years mimicked, in important ways, the views of HIV dissidents. There is some evidence that the government stance on HIV/AIDS moved closer to mainstream views in 2002, but the question of whether this will translate into realistic HIV/AIDS policies remains unanswered at the time of writing. The publicly expressed views of the South African President, Mr Thabo Mbeki, and his health minister, medical doctor Manto Tshabalala Msimang, are very strongly influenced by the views of HIV dissidents.

In this article, I describe in some detail the inner workings of the HIV dissident group, and its impact on high risk groups in developed countries, as well as its impact on South African government policies. My attention will then turn to two interesting ethical questions that arise in this context. The first question is to do with the issue of what responsibilities biomedical professionals have towards a scientifically unqualified public. In the case under consideration, HIV dissidents took their initially scientific dispute out of the arena of biomedical journals, with their standard processes of anonymous peer review, into the public domain, campaigning on TV and in gay magazines, daily newspapers, and similar publications. Indeed, their internet based offerings4,5 persuaded South African President Thabo Mbeki to take their views seriously. The consequences for the provision of essential AIDS drugs to those HIV infected among the country’s impoverished masses were grave.

The question I should like to pose is this: if you are a biomedical scientist who fails to convince your peers of your views on a particular matter of legitimate scientific inquiry, is it acceptable that you take your minority views "to the streets" in order to drum up public and media support for your stance? I will also examine whether one can legitimately blame the proponent of such a minority position for decisions made by members of the public who decide to act on such a minority view.

The second ethical question is to do with the ethical responsibilities of leading politicians and government officials towards their sovereign, the citizens of their country. I shall argue that the South African government has, over many years, neglected its moral obligations towards HIV infected individuals and people with AIDS, while pursuing AIDS policies strongly influenced by dissident views.

[skeptigirl]

I actually think the term is redundant, clinically. HIV positive is how I always hear it described.

HIV-AIDS is the generally accepted terminology for HIV infection which has advanced to AIDS and for the general discussion of the disease. There are several other immunodeficiencies though acquired types besides HIV are rare. (Immunosuppression is a different cookie.)

Idiopathic CD4+ T-Lymphocytopenia -- Immunodeficiency without Evidence of HIV Infection (https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/6/380)

Primary immunodeficiencies. (http://www.aafp.org/afp/20031115/2001.html)

[skeptigirl]

Cats can catch H5N1 from eating dead birds. Doesn't make them sick at all. It kills birds by the millions, AND is highly infectious in them. It makes humans sick when humans get infected, etc. etc. etc.

Sheesh....Actually I think HPAI H5N1 is highly lethal in cats. Of course we mostly know from the few dead ones that were tested. I'm not aware of any seroprevalence studies in house or feral cats. There were quite a few tigers killed in one zoo outbreak of H5N1.

[Dabljuh]

Now, do you care to provide the reference for your claim that Gallo now thinks poppers cause Kaposi?I was still referring to the Kary Mullis interview linked to earlier, but someone criticized my "Cross Referencing Skillz" so I found some other site saying that:


Dr. Robert Gallo: "No longer is HIV believed to cause KAPOSI'S SARCOMA. by itself; at most it may aggravate KS after it has been caused by something else" and "No longer is HIV believed to kill T-cells: whatever damage it allegedly does, it does indirectly".

"You can't have Down's without an extra 21st chromosome. If you don't have an extra 21st chromosome, you don't have Down's, per definition. Even when you're deformed and severely mentally impared. Which is why it's all BS."That's a different argument. You can remove the Trisomy-21 requirement from the down's syndrome's definition, and you still get a very accurate list of mental and physical impairments that someone with Trisomy-21 will suffer from. If "Down's Syndrome" was extended to include "Any sort of birth defect" in presence of a diagnosis of Trisomy-21, implying Trisomy-21 could cause *all* birth defects, and then using this "extended down syndrome" definition to prove that all "extended down syndrome" patients have trisomy-21, hence trisomy-21 causes all known birth defects, that's just horribly bad science. Yet you defend this logic when it's about HIV/AIDS.

Don't get me wrong: I don't deny the possibility that HIV causes a disease (despite lack of proof to that end), but even if it does, the AIDS definition is junk.

It's hard to believe the nonsense being thrown around this thread without a shred of credible supporting evidence. The links to the actual scientific research and debunking of the nonsense is never addressed, just repeating of the inaccurate and discredited information as if no one really presented anything refuting the garbage.Um, when has someone posted anything that wasn't purely speculative, or didn't merely assert without proof?
6 patients of the Florida dentist (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00020479.htm)A case study of a *single* patient that was diagnosed with HIV when she tried to enter the military services, and since all sex partners were tested negative for HIV, it was concluded that the HIV-positive dentist must have somehow infected her. The possibility of the patient to have been infected with HIV in utero is completely ignored. Junk Science. Go back treating your HIV patients, Ms. Nurse.

The stupidity of accepting these decades old denier hypotheses is highlighted by the fact that genetic research has established not just the fact HIV causes AIDS, but also how it does it, how it is transmitted, some factors which facilitate and hinder transmission, and the same research has resulted in an arsenal of anti-retroviral drugs which are now keeping people with HIV alive for decades. Right now there's roughly a dozen of different, speculative theories on how HIV supposedly destroys the immune system. None of them seem to have any merit to them, other than asserting that HIV somehow HAS to do it.

This last piece, for the sake of simplicity, I will shorten and translate.
I think all we skeptics will find this article of particualr interest:

"I used to assert that the HIV/AIDS theory is flawed. Now I subscribe to the mainstream theory and I found a job. Yay!"

[Dr Adequate]

I've only looked at the first page or so of this, but it occurs to me that Dabljuh's silly pseudosemantic games, so far as I've seen them, could be applied to any immune deficiency.

[skeptigirl]

Um, when has someone posted anything that wasn't purely speculative, or didn't merely assert without proof?????? You lost me here. You and robinson have posted all sorts of unsupportable claims that HIV has not been proven as the cause of HIV-AIDS and that HIV has not been proven to be sexually transmitted, yadda yadda.

A case study of a *single* patient that was diagnosed with HIV when she tried to enter the military services, and since all sex partners were tested negative for HIV, it was concluded that the HIV-positive dentist must have somehow infected her. The possibility of the patient to have been infected with HIV in utero is completely ignored. Junk Science. Go back treating your HIV patients, Ms. Nurse.That was the last of the 6 patients to be discovered. Really! You have no clue about Dr Acer, serial murderer?

And HIV in utero? I take it then the genetic research connecting the line of transmission just went over your head?

Right now there's roughly a dozen of different, speculative theories on how HIV supposedly destroys the immune system. None of them seem to have any merit to them, other than asserting that HIV somehow HAS to do it...And another unsupported claim of fact leaks out of your apparently not so well read brain.

[Dr Adequate]

This last piece, for the sake of simplicity saying things which are untrue, I will shorten and translate flagrantly lie about. Fixed that for you.

[kellyb]

Actually I think HPAI H5N1 is highly lethal in cats. Of course we mostly know from the few dead ones that were tested. I'm not aware of any seroprevalence studies in house or feral cats. There were quite a few tigers killed in one zoo outbreak of H5N1.

This is the only one I'd seen:
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/13/2/243.htm

[skeptigirl]

Only 3 of 40 cats were infected and only 2 developed antibodies. I think the study shows more about infection not being transmitted than about lethality. However, the three cats in question did not succumb.

But that wasn't the case in these other reports from your article's bib and a couple more from PubMed..

Influenza A Virus (H5N1) Infection in Cats Causes Systemic Disease with Potential Novel Routes of Virus Spread within and between Hosts (http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/168/1/176)...To study its pathogenesis in a mammalian host, domestic cats were inoculated with H5N1 virus intratracheally (n = 3), by feeding on virus-infected chicks (n = 3), or by horizontal transmission (n = 2) and examined by virological and pathological assays. In all cats, virus replicated not only in the respiratory tract but also in multiple extra-respiratory tissues. Virus antigen expression in these tissues was associated with severe necrosis and inflammation 7 days after inoculation. In cats fed on virus-infected chicks only, virus-associated ganglioneuritis also occurred in the submucosal and myenteric plexi of the small intestine, suggesting direct infection from the intestinal lumen. All cats excreted virus not only via the respiratory tract but also via the digestive tract. This study in cats demonstrates that H5N1 virus infection causes systemic disease and spreads by potentially novel routes within and between mammalian hosts.

Avian H5N1 influenza in cats. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15345779&dopt=Abstract)During the 2003 to 2004 outbreak of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in Asia, there were anecdotal reports of fatal infection in domestic cats, although this species is considered resistant to influenza. We experimentally inoculated cats with H5N1 virus intratracheally and by feeding them virus-infected chickens. The cats excreted virus, developed severe diffuse alveolar damage, and transmitted virus to sentinel cats. These results show that domestic cats are at risk of disease or death from H5N1 virus, can be infected by horizontal transmission, and may play a role in the epidemiology of this virus.

Influenza virus is not known to affect wild felids. We demonstrate that avian influenza A (H5N1) virus caused severe pneumonia in tigers and leopards that fed on infected poultry carcasses. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15663858&dopt=Abstract)

Probable tiger-to-tiger transmission of avian influenza H5N1. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15890122&dopt=Abstract)

The H5N1 avian influenza virus outbreak among zoo tigers in mid-October 2004, with 45 animals dead, indicated that the avian influenza virus could cause lethal infection in a large mammalian species apart from humans. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16194557&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus)

[JQH]

Wow, my brother died of..................nothing?
Amazing.

According to W my sister-in-law did too! Weird!

[Deetee]

Deetee: Now, do you care to provide the reference for your claim that Gallo now thinks poppers cause Kaposi?

I was still referring to the Kary Mullis interview linked to earlier, but someone criticized my "Cross Referencing Skillz" so I found some other site saying that:

Originally Posted by http://www.posh-uk.org.uk/gmh/data.html
Dr. Robert Gallo: "No longer is HIV believed to cause KAPOSI'S SARCOMA. by itself; at most it may aggravate KS after it has been caused by something else"


So, I take it this is a grudging admission you lied about this.

I have pinned you down to a single specific citation you used, and we now see this to be untrue. This pattern is replicated by AIDS denialists everywhere - you are no different. Should we examine your other lies?

You ARE a troll. Why are you posting here? You only make denialists look stupider than they are.

You started out here with some half-arsed claims, pretending you wanted a reasoned debate about the issues. However, in the face of evidence, your claims have become more extreme, strident and unsustainable. You say you have a science background - how about showing you cmprehend the scientific method and understand that scientists admit their errors and learn from their mistakes and from the mistakes and experiences of others? I have yet to see you stick to discussion of one single topic to its conclusion- like all denialists you skip on to another topic as soon as things get uncomfortable for you.

How about we examine in more depth your claim that HIV is only transmitted in utero. What evidence do you have for this statement?

[skeptigirl]

According to W my sister-in-law did too! Weird!

Miss A and JQ, I'm sorry to hear about your loved ones. A young man I grew up with, lived across the street from my entire childhood died from AIDS very early on in the pandemic. I've recently thought about making an AIDS quilt panel (http://www.aidsquilt.org/) for him but haven't yet done so.

Do either of the people you mention have a panel?

[Taffer]

I didn't, it was kelly who wouldn't shut up about it.

Then what do you say to the tests which show that AIDS patients basically always have significant levels of HIVs?

I can imagine that you think that. But here's a task for you: Find a research study that conclusively proves that HIV irreversibly damages the human immune system in a significant number of cases. Not one that assumes that HIV causes AIDS, but a study that puts this proposition to a test.

Just a question: Do you know how viruses reproduce?

You aren't listening. You can't have AIDS without HIV. If you don't have HIV, you don't have AIDS, per definition. Even when your arms are rotting off. Which is why I think the whole thing is BS in the first place.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. To my knowledge, the link between AIDS (a syndrome) and HIV (a Virus) is what is shown, and that is why it is the way it is. You can have HIV and not have AIDS. I guess it is possible to have AIDS and not have an HIV infection.

[Dabljuh]

Then what do you say to the tests which show that AIDS patients basically always have significant levels of HIVs?You can't have an AIDS patient without HIV. Per Definition. If a suspected AIDS patient tests negative on HIV, he doesn't have AIDS. He's just sick.
Just a question: Do you know how viruses reproduce?Yep. Do you know how the HI-Virus destroys the immune system? I guess you don't, since nobody else does.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. To my knowledge, the link between AIDS (a syndrome) and HIV (a Virus) is what is shown, and that is why it is the way it is. You can have HIV and not have AIDS. I guess it is possible to have AIDS and not have an HIV infection.That's where you are wrong. It's not possible to have AIDS without HIV. You don't believe me? Fine, go ahead, check the facts for yourself, but don't post pure speculation here.

AIDS is not "Some Immune Deficiency", but it is "You have HIV and get sick" Don't believe me? I've repeatedly posted the link to the CDC's 1993 revision of the AIDS definition where you can see for yourself.

If I postulate a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" based on the CDC AIDS definition that does not require the host to be HIV positive, we have a completely different thing. But then we find:

- There exists "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" without HIV infection
- There exist HIV-positive people without a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". Many. For 20 years and counting.

Why? Because "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" is merely an umbrella for 20-30 conditions, many of which are not at all rare in healthy humans. Get one of those diseases, and you are now suffering from "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". And if you are HIV positive, you are now suffering from AIDS.

Which *should* make you ask the question whether or not HIV is really related to "Mysterious Immune Deficiency".

How do you know HIV is the cause for the disease? Because that it is was never proven.

[Capsid]

The lab workers and Cuba situations make HIV a very compelling candidate for the cause of AIDS.

[Dabljuh]

Disagree. Mullis goes into detail about the lab workers, and what happened in Cuba is coherent with theories of the "HIV is harmless" variety.

[Capsid]

Disagree. Mullis goes into detail about the lab workers, and what happened in Cuba is coherent with theories of the "HIV is harmless" variety.
Would you care to summarise the details, please? I need to understand your side of the argument.

I found several papers that describe the poor vaccine response in HIV infected individuals. Such as this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16737046&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum). Isn't this evidence that HIV impairs the immune system?

[JoeEllison]

How do you know HIV is the cause for the disease? Because that it is was never proven.
Except, of course, that everyone besides a few sociopathic nutjobs accepts the evidence. Why does everyone in the medical and scientific community accept it as true, if it is so clearly false that a bunch of goofballs on the Internet with no medical or scientific background have more insight than the entire worldwide scientific community?

Can you answer that one?

[Dabljuh]

I found several papers that describe the poor vaccine response in HIV infected individuals. Such as this one. Isn't this evidence that HIV impairs the immune system?The study wasn't double-blind.

Would you care to summarise the details, please? I need to understand your side of the argumentAccording to mullis, the statistical data of the infected "Lab Workers" is consistent with the general population. Meaning, it is more likely that those are closet gays / closet IV drug users, that simply claim they got infected in a lab environment to avoid disadvantages.

In cuba, there was a brief interventionist period and now there is not much action going on. According to e.g. Duesberg's theory, antiretroviral medication causes far more harm than good, i.e. they are capable of depressing the immune system in healthy persons. Cuba, due to being still under embargo, could not employ these antiretrovirals. Also, the cuban gay scene may be nitrite inhalant free compared to the US american one. The expected result would be that only a very small number of people in cuba would ever be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.

[Dabljuh]

Except, of course, that everyone besides a few critical thinkers accept the lack of evidence. Why does everyone in the medical and scientific community assert it as true? Because their jobs depend on it! it is so clearly false that a nobel laureates and a tenured professor of microbiology have more insight than the CDC and NIH!Fixed

Asserting something is this particular way is not making up for a lack of evidence.

[JoeEllison]

Fixed

Asserting something is this particular way is not making up for a lack of evidence.

So, in other words, you don't have an answer, and are willing to accept without evidence the claims of a couple of discredited people over the vast majority of experts in the field... for what reason? You still haven't answered the question.

[Taffer]

You can't have an AIDS patient without HIV. Per Definition. If a suspected AIDS patient tests negative on HIV, he doesn't have AIDS. He's just sick.

Ok, fair point.

So AIDS is a blanket name for a number of different symptoms caused by an HIV infection.

Your problem with this is... what, exactly? Do you think this disproves HIV infections?

Yep. Do you know how the HI-Virus destroys the immune system? I guess you don't, since nobody else does.

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps by breaking said immune cells?

That's where you are wrong. It's not possible to have AIDS without HIV. You don't believe me? Fine, go ahead, check the facts for yourself, but don't post pure speculation here.

AIDS is not "Some Immune Deficiency", but it is "You have HIV and get sick" Don't believe me? I've repeatedly posted the link to the CDC's 1993 revision of the AIDS definition where you can see for yourself.

Fair call. See above.

If I postulate a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" based on the CDC AIDS definition that does not require the host to be HIV positive, we have a completely different thing. But then we find:

- There exists "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" without HIV infection
- There exist HIV-positive people without a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". Many. For 20 years and counting.

Excuse me? Provide evidence that there has ever existed a patient who does not fit the criteria of AIDS and is not found to be HIV positive. You can't? Of course you can't, because you have AIDS if you exhibit certain symptoms, and being HIV positive is one of these.

Again, what is your problem with this?

Why? Because "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" is merely an umbrella for 20-30 conditions, many of which are not at all rare in healthy humans.

It is a description of having a multitude of said conditions, not just one.

Get one of those diseases, and you are now suffering from "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". And if you are HIV positive, you are now suffering from AIDS.

Of course, because that is the definition of AIDS. What is your point?

If you exhibit symptoms which match the definition of AIDS, then you have AIDS. Again, what is your point?

Which *should* make you ask the question whether or not HIV is really related to "Mysterious Immune Deficiency".

Of course it is. Because HIV infection is one of the criteria for the label "AIDS". Yet again, what is your point?

How do you know HIV is the cause for the disease? Because that it is was never proven.

Then let me ask you this: do you think that a progressive decrease of the CD4+ T cell count and an increase in viral load (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#The_clinical_course_of_infection) has no effect on the immune system?

[Taffer]

Meaning, it is more likely that those are closet gays / closet IV drug users, that simply claim they got infected in a lab environment to avoid disadvantages.

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

Duesberg's theory, antiretroviral medication causes far more harm than good, i.e. they are capable of depressing the immune system in healthy persons.

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

[Dabljuh]

So, in other words, you don't have an answer, and are willing to accept without evidence the claims of a couple of discredited people over the vast majority of experts in the field... for what reason? You still haven't answered the question.The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. 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.

[JoeEllison]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. 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.

So, in other words, you believe every stupid thing you read on the Internet, and reject everything that is based in facts and evidence. You need to seek psychiatric help.

[Dabljuh]

Taffer, you asked me in like 6 occasions "What is your point" - and I have tried to explain my point repeatedly - I think I lack the rethorical facilities to properly explain to you my problem. I think its best if you take a short walk and think about it. Maybe you will come up with a good idea of what my point is about all of this. Maybe you will also be able to identify the fallacy of my argument, or its merit.

[Taffer]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. 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.

So... significantly reducing T-cell count has no effect on the immune system?

[Taffer]

Taffer, you asked me in like 6 occasions "What is your point" - and I have tried to explain my point repeatedly - I think I lack the rethorical facilities to properly explain to you my problem. I think its best if you take a short walk and think about it. Maybe you will come up with a good idea of what my point is about all of this. Maybe you will also be able to identify the fallacy of my argument, or its merit.

Oh, I already know what your fallacy is, mate. At least, given what I've read of your posts.

You are basically trying to argue that, because AIDS contains "HIV positive" in its definition, this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS.

The problem is, it does. Because AIDS is a syndrome.

[Dabljuh]

So... significantly reducing T-cell count has no effect on the immune system?Not according to science. The T4 cell count was investigated even before the 1993 revision to include the 200/ml standard, and it basically came up with the conclusion, that the T4 cell count can not only not be used to measure the state of one's immune system, but also, goes up and down, more or less at random. In short: They don't know what the T4 cell count means or why it changes.

And with regards to "HIV" depressing T4 cell counts: HIV infections nowadays take upwards of 20 years to break out into AIDS, it is possible that the T4 cell count simply goes down slightly with increasing age. As I said: double-blind RCTs on HIV were never performed.

[Dabljuh]

Oh, I already know what your fallacy is, mate. At least, given what I've read of your posts.

You are basically trying to argue that, because AIDS contains "HIV positive" in its definition, this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS.

The problem is, it does. Because AIDS is a syndrome.That is purely semantical. Of course "HIV" causes "AIDS" in semantic terms. That's what the semantics of "AIDS" do. The question is: does this accurately reflect what happens in reality? Do you get Herpes because of the HIV infection? Or did you just get herpes, while you were HIV positive?

Remember: HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease. It is inherited in utero most of the time. There's roughly 1 million HIV positive people living in the US (Army survey), but only a handful of AIDS cases. If most people live happily ever after for 40 years after being born HIV positive, and then get herpes, tested for HIV, and now diagnosed with AIDS, don't you see the problem here?

[Taffer]

Not according to science. The T4 cell count was investigated even before the 1993 revision to include the 200/ml standard, and it basically came up with the conclusion, that the T4 cell count can not only not be used to measure the state of one's immune system, but also, goes up and down, more or less at random. In short: They don't know what the T4 cell count means or why it changes.

Citation, please.

Careful. A definition of AIDS != HIV pathology.

And with regards to "HIV" depressing T4 cell counts: HIV infections nowadays take upwards of 20 years to break out into AIDS, it is possible that the T4 cell count simply goes down slightly with increasing age. As I said: double-blind RCTs on HIV were never performed.

As fair as I know, the drop is far more significant in patients with HIV then without.

But not even that. HIV infects T4 cells, and disrupts T4 cell function. T4 cells are vital for a healthy immune system. Therefore...

[Taffer]

That is purely semantical. Of course "HIV" causes "AIDS" in semantic terms. That's what the semantics of "AIDS" do. The question is: does this accurately reflect what happens in reality? Do you get Herpes because of the HIV infection? Or did you just get herpes, while you were HIV positive?

As far as I am aware, HIV does not cause any infection. AIDS is a description of a number of simptoms, including HIV infection. This does not take away from the fact that HIV infection significantly reduces the immune system.

Remember: HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease. It is inherited in utero most of the time. There's roughly 1 million HIV positive people living in the US (Army survey), but only a handful of AIDS cases. If most people live happily ever after for 40 years after being born HIV positive, and then get herpes, tested for HIV, and now diagnosed with AIDS, don't you see the problem here?

For the record, are you suggesting that HIV is never transmitted sexually?

Also, for the record, a problem with incorrect diagnosis of disorders and syndromes != HIV pathology.

[calebprime]

Remember: HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease. It is inherited in utero most of the time. There's roughly 1 million HIV positive people living in the US (Army survey), but only a handful of AIDS cases. If most people live happily ever after for 40 years after being born HIV positive, and then get herpes, tested for HIV, and now diagnosed with AIDS, don't you see the problem here?

stats from WHO: http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/20061121_EPI_FS_NAWCE_en.pdf

In these regions, the total number of people living with HIV continues to increase, in
great part due to the life-prolonging effects of antiretroviral therapy, a relatively steady
number of new HIV infections each year in North America and an increase in the number
of new HIV diagnoses in Western Europe since 2002.
Approximately 2.1 million people were living with HIV in North America, Western and
Central Europe in 2006, including 65 000 people who newly acquired the virus.
In the context of widespread access to effective antiretroviral treatment, comparatively
few people died of AIDS-related illnesses in these regions (an estimated 30 000 in
2006).
Country developments
Worldwide, only seven countries are estimated to have more people living with HIV than
the United States of America, where 1.2 million were living with the virus in 2005.
In 2001-2004, 50% of HIV diagnoses were among African-Americans and 20% among
Hispanics (who constitute only 12% and 14% of the US population respectively).
Men still account for the majority of HIV diagnoses in the US—about 73% in 2004.
Almost two thirds of HIV infections diagnosed in men in 2004 were attributable to unsafe
sex between men, and several studies have reported evidence of an increase in unsafe
sexual behaviour in this group.

[Dabljuh]

Citation, please?I'll have to find the study again, will take some time.
As fair as I know, the drop is far more significant in patients with HIV then without. How would you know? There's not been a blinded RCT on the subject. Cohort- and population based studies don't have enough validity. Or: "Citation, please?"

If HIV is sexually transmitted, why do mostly gay men get it? Isn't most sex, you know, heterosexual? Wouldn't an STD infect vast parts of the population within a short time? Wouldn't a virus infect males and females at the same time?

To tell you a story, I'm acquainted with a gay couple. He is a 60 years old local, and his manbride is a 30 year old Brasilian. About a year ago, the Brasilian was diagnosed with HIV (and his T4 cell counts investigated since then) Interestingly, the 60 year old male, who, by his description, was purely the receiver of the gay sex, is not infected with HIV, despite him having received a fair share of poundings since the two got together a few years back. Another interesting tidbit: The Brasilian's T4 cell count has actually been rising steadily since the HIV diagnosis.

Of course this is just one case that has no statistically relevant meaning. Just like the "OMG my friend died of AIDS you INFIDEL HERETIC" examples.

[Taffer]

I'll have to find the study again, will take some time.

That's fine.

How would you know? There's not been a blinded RCT on the subject. Cohort- and population based studies don't have enough validity. Or: "Citation, please?"

I don't, for certain, and that is a fair call. Personally, I consider it well established enough to no bother look up sorces for you. Others on this forum will gladly, I'm sure, provide you with sources.

Oh, and by the by, a population statistical analysis certainly is valid.

If HIV is sexually transmitted, why do mostly gay men get it? Isn't most sex, you know, heterosexual? Wouldn't an STD infect vast parts of the population within a short time? Wouldn't a virus infect males and females at the same time?

To tell you a story, I'm acquainted with a gay couple. He is a 60 years old local, and his manbride is a 30 year old Brasilian. About a year ago, the Brasilian was diagnosed with HIV (and his T4 cell counts investigated since then) Interestingly, the 60 year old male, who, by his description, was purely the receiver of the gay sex, is not infected with HIV, despite him having received a fair share of poundings since the two got together a few years back. Another interesting tidbit: The Brasilian's T4 cell count has actually been rising steadily since the HIV diagnosis.

Quaint story.

Please explain when I said "only sexually transmitted". In fact, I specifically asked you if you think it is never transmitted sexually.

Of course this is just one case that has no statistically relevant meaning. Just like the "OMG my friend died of AIDS you INFIDEL HERETIC" examples.

A single case has no statistical merit, true. Many cases do.

Oh, and his t-count is probably increasing because of a) drugs, and b) the fact that HIV undergoes a long period of little activity. Of course, you should know this already.

ETA: Oh, and any hypotheses on what causes the immune deficiency effect seen in suffers of AIDS?

[Capsid]

The study wasn't double-blind.They don't have to be double blind These are observational studies not interventional.

According to mullis, the statistical data of the infected "Lab Workers" is consistent with the general population. Meaning, it is more likely that those are closet gays / closet IV drug users, that simply claim they got infected in a lab environment to avoid disadvantages. More likely? It would be better to have definitve proof don't you think?

In cuba, there was a brief interventionist period and now there is not much action going on. According to e.g. Duesberg's theory, antiretroviral medication causes far more harm than good, i.e. they are capable of depressing the immune system in healthy persons. Cuba, due to being still under embargo, could not employ these antiretrovirals. Also, the cuban gay scene may be nitrite inhalant free compared to the US american one. The expected result would be that only a very small number of people in cuba would ever be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.
Not true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2770631.stm).

[Dabljuh]

I don't, for certain, and that is a fair call. Personally, I consider it well established enough to no bother look up sorces for you. Others on this forum will gladly, I'm sure, provide you with sources.That's the major problem. In the 80ies so many assumptions became acknowledged without actual evidence. Stuff like "HIV causes Immunodepression" - Everyone believes it but nobody's ever proven it. That's faith.
Oh, and by the by, a population statistical analysis certainly is valid.The problem with population studies and cohort studies is that you cannot rule out tertiary factors.

For example: A study on kenians and africans may find: Kenians eat a lot more millet than americans. And that kenians are a lot more black than americans. Result of the study? Eating lots of millet makes you black. Only an blinded RCT can rule out tertiary factors. And for HIV and immunodepression, I've seen enough bunk science that I do not accept studies that pitch 50 gay drug users with HIV vs 50 straight ivy league kids and then compare their health data, and somehow of course find that the HIV negative people are more healthy than the HIV positive ones.

Please explain when I said "only sexually transmitted". In fact, I specifically asked you if you think it is never transmitted sexually.Please quote when I said it is "never transmitted sexually" - I said it's not an STD, and robinson said the same thing. That does not mean it's not possible to transmit it sexually, but it means the STD aspect of HIV was extremely overstated in the past. (At least in my sex ed class)

Oh, and his t-count is probably increasing because of a) drugs, and b) the fact that HIV undergoes a long period of little activity. Of course, you should know this already.He doesn't take drugs. As I said earlier: The drug studies that I've read never showed any increased longevity for AIDS patients. The only positive beneficial effect that I could find was that the AIDS patients reported better well-being. Of course the manufacturers now claim that the drugs are sooo effective and many people, due to lack of better knowledge, believe the "HIV epidemic" was under control because of something the pharma industry did.

I mean, 20 years ago, doom was predicted for the human race due to HIV. Nothing of the sort happened. People simply need an explanation on why HIV is so irrelevant nowadays, outside africa that is. if you had asked me two years ago on why HIV isn't a bigger problem in the western world, I wouldn't have known what to answer myself because I never researched it. I might even have suspected that they may have found a cure or something.
ETA: Oh, and any hypotheses on what causes the immune deficiency effect seen in suffers of AIDS?This is a very complex topic. Let me only give you a few of my thoughts.

Someone diagnosed with "AIDS" is, by definition, HIV positive and sick. Someone sick may have a depressed immune system, although there obviously does not have to be a causal connection to the HIV infection. If you find someone who is just abusing his body a lot with drugs, and he gets those opportunistic diseases that are also attributed to HIV/AIDS, and he tests positive on HIV, the diseases he is suffering from will be attributed - medically - to the HIV infection, and not the abusive lifestyle.

Furthermore, someone diagnosed with "AIDS" has been given a virtual death sentence. There is no way to be un-diagnosed with "AIDS" once you have it. Even if your tuberculosis or herpes goes away and you feel better than ever, you still, technically, suffer from AIDS. If you die now - for any reason - chances are it will be attributed to your "AIDS" diagnosis.

In addition: AIDS medication is extremely toxic. Duesberg describes it as "Chemo therapy" that was found to be too ineffective for cancer therapy. For example AZT was developed in the 60ies as a chemo therapy for cancer, which was not allowed by the FDA because it proved to be too toxic and ineffective. And as an AIDS drug, it is dosed higher than as a cancer drug. Chemo therapy on cancer is already very ineffective: You try to kill the cancer cells before the rest of the body dies. But what are you trying to accomplish with chemo therapy on AIDS patients? You can't kill the HIV with antiretroviral drugs, that is not even how the manufacturers claim they work. So what you end up with is purely killing the patient.

[Dabljuh]

They don't have to be double blind These are observational studies not interventional..Please read the study again. They give the HIV positive folks a different amount of compound than the HIV negative folks, and then go on figuring that the two groups have a different reaction. That's junk science, absolute junk.
More likely? It would be better to have definitve proof don't you think?Its always better to have definite proof, but for the time being, I think mullis' hypothesis is better than the alternative. He is a bright guy after all.

[ponderingturtle]

When, along with getting high, he has time to win a Nobel Prize, take the award for R & D scientist of the year, plus other sundry honours, I suspect those homours say more about him than his having the occasional spliff. Sagan used to smoke dope, I believe? Is Cosmos bunkum?


So you support megadose vitamin C as a preventative for cancer because a nobel prize winner thought of it?

A nobel prize is not an assurance that they do not have loony ideas, and reject good science when they want to.

[JoeEllison]

Its always better to have definite proof, but for the time being, I think mullis' hypothesis is better than the alternative. He is a bright guy after all.

Can you explain how you chose between the views of one "bright guy", versus the views of tens of thousands of other people, who also happen to be "bright"? The weight of the accepted evidence points away from your view, and towards the accepted view. What special faculty of observation or insight did you choose the rejected view over the accepted one?

[Dabljuh]

Can you explain how you chose between the views of one "bright guy", versus the views of tens of thousands of other people, who also happen to be "bright"?Gladly. We have here two hypothesises:

A) (Mullis') The "Lab infections" are, to a large degree, closet gays and closet drug users.
->Expected result: The male to female ratio of the lab infections would be roughly equal to the infections in the general public (About 9:1 M:F)

B) (Yours) The "Lab infections" are authentic
->Expected result: We would see infections with those people who actually handle needles in medical environments, (75% female)

What is the result? (Drum roll) The "lab infections" Male to Female ratio closely resembles that of the general public's HIV infections. Hence I find Mullis theory to be more realistic.

[Dabljuh]

So you support megadose vitamin C as a preventative for cancer because a nobel prize winner thought of it?

A nobel prize is not an assurance that they do not have loony ideas, and reject good science when they want to.I don't know much about Vitamin C and cancer. Are you going to tell me the idea of using vitamin C as a preventative measure against cancer has absolutely no merit?

[JoeEllison]

Gladly. We have here two hypothesises:

A) (Mullis') The "Lab infections" are, to a large degree, closet gays and closet drug users.
->Expected result: The male to female ratio of the lab infections would be roughly equal to the infections in the general public (About 9:1 M:F)

B) (Yours) The "Lab infections" are authentic
->Expected result: We would see infections with those people who actually handle needles in medical environments, (75% female)

What is the result? (Drum roll) The "lab infections" Male to Female ratio closely resembles that of the general public's HIV infections. Hence I find Mullis theory to be more realistic.

That's it? Fascinating. Based on that, you claim that there is an evil worldwide conspiracy to murder millions of people, and that every scientist and doctor in the world, except a tiny handful, are in on the conspiracy or are somehow blinded to the reality.

Are you a creationist as well? I ask only because the psychology appears to be similar.

[Capsid]

Please read the study again. They give the HIV positive folks a different amount of compound than the HIV negative folks, and then go on figuring that the two groups have a different reaction. That's junk science, absolute junk.
They gave the HIV+ group a double dose of vaccine and yet they still did not respond as well as the HIV- group receiving the normal dose. This isn't an isolated study there are other studies that support this view.
Did you have anything to say on the Cuban situation?
Post #2 maybe right after all.

[kellyb]

This is really one of the most pointless debates ever. W has set up an impenetrable circular argument. (which is ironic, since that's his fuzzy-headed accusation about the HIV/AIDS link).

He wants a RCT, yet disbelieves in the whole diagnosis of "HIV+", claiming that all the tests are "crap".
So even if you find him a hundred tests of good quality, like this:
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200304110-00012.htm;jsessionid=GbpNkRY8ZZ1Jq5B5npNM1nJgTtyTj 13r39n1tywpq0tF7pf2qR5h!-1740698184!181195629!8091!-1
He can say "Oh...but the tests that look for the HIV virus 'don't work', so it's meaningless!"
He can't say why they don't work, or back that claim up with anything at all, and yet in his twisted little mind, his argument is flawless.

Therein lies the power of woo-antilogic. All that one decides to not understand, 'doesn't count' and ceases to be 'real'.

How do you have a meaningful dialogue with someone who selectively checks out of reality whenever it's convenient for their argument?

[Deetee]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction.
Right, let’s see Duesberg’s arguments, shall we…
He is best known for promoting the idea that AIDS is caused by “chemicals” rather than a viral infection. He asserts these chemicals to be recreational drugs, Factor-8, or anti-HIV medications. He says AIDS in groups who clearly do not have exposures to these agents, such as Africans, is due to malnutrition. (He has no theory for transfusion recipients or occupationally-infected individuals except to say they must all have lied about their past lives and were drug users)

Duesberg stated (http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Aids/duesberg.htm)(2003):
The chemical AIDS hypothesis could be readily refuted by any of the following experiments:
1. Demonstrate that in two matched groups, differing only with regard to HIV infection, HIV-positives develop AIDS but HIV-negatives do not (above the low, longestablished risk of AIDS defining diseases in the general population).

3. Demonstrate that in two matched groups of HIVpositive
humans, differing only in the addiction to recreational
drugs, both groups have the same incidence of
AIDS-defining diseases.

These (among many others) studies have been performed:

Does drug use cause AIDS? Ascher MS, Sheppard HW, Winkelstein W Jr, Vittinghoff E. Nature. 1993 Mar 11;362(6416):103-4. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8095697&query_hl=27&itool=pubmed_docsum)
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.

The lack of association of marijuana and other recreational drugs with progression to AIDS in the San Francisco Men's Health Study. Di Franco MJ, Sheppard HW, Hunter DJ, Tosteson TD, Ascher MS. Ann Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;6(4):283-9. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8876838&query_hl=27&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Not directly comparing +ve and -ve, but groups according to drug use showing there was no difference in progression rate to AIDS:

No statistically significant associations were observed for nitrites, methylene dioxyamphetamines, ethyl chloride, downers, cocaine, stimulants, narcotics, or psychedelic drugs. These data suggest no substantial association between use of these drugs and the development of AIDS among HIV-infected men.


HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS. Schechter MT, Craib KJ, Gelmon KA, Montaner JS, Le TN, O'Shaughnessy MV. Lancet. 1993 Mar 13;341(8846):658-9. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8095571&query_hl=37&itool=pubmed_DocSum)

The belief that HIV-1 infection causes AIDS has been questioned, and the suggestion made that to know the correct cause of AIDS the incidence of disease in patients with and without risk behaviours and with and without antibody to HIV-1 must be known. We describe findings in such a cohort. 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. CD4 counts fell in anti-HIV-1-positive men but remained stable in antibody-negative men, whether or not risk behaviours were present. The hypothesis that AIDS in homosexual men is caused not by HIV-1 infection but by drugs and sexual activity is rejected by these data. HIV-1 has an integral role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.


Or how about hemophiliacs instead of gays?
Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV positive men with haemophilia A. Sabin CA, Pasi KJ, Phillips AN, Lilley P, Bofill M, Lee CA. BMJ. 1996 Jan 27;312(7025):207-10. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8563582&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_DocSum)
Between 1980 and 1990, 16 clinical events occurred in nine of the 17 HIV positive patients. No event occurred in the 17 HIV negative patients (matched for Factor 8 usage). CONCLUSION--These data reject the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immunodeficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia.


Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs. UK Haemophilia Centre Directors' Organisation. Darby SC, Ewart DW, Giangrande PL, Dolin PJ, Spooner RJ, Rizza CR. Nature. 1995 Sep 7;377(6544):79-82. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7659168&query_hl=39&itool=pubmed_docsum)
A demonstration that HIV positives experienced a 10-fold higher mortality than HIV negatives, these excess deaths being certified as due to AIDS (ie they were from AIDS-related illnesses, not something else):

Among 2,448 with severe haemophilia, the annual death rate was stable at 8 per 1,000 during 1977-84; during 1985-92 death rates remained at 8 per 1,000 among HIV-seronegative patients but rose steeply in seropositive patients, reaching 81 per 1,000 in 1991-92.


The impact of HIV on mortality rates in the complete UK haemophilia population. Darby SC, Kan SW, Spooner RJ, Giangrande PL, Lee CA, Makris M, Sabin CA, Watson HG, Wilde JT, Winter M; UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organisation. AIDS. 2004 Feb 20;18(3):525-33. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15090806&query_hl=39&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Not only does the introduction of HIV into an intensively studied cohort cause a leap in AIDS mortality, but the introduction of anti-HIV drugs (which Duesberg says cause AIDS) reduced mortality.

CONCLUSION: These data provide a direct estimate of the effect of HIV-1 infection on subsequent mortality in a population with a high prevalence of hepatitis C. From approximately 3 years after HIV infection, large, progressive increases in mortality were seen. From 1997, after the introduction of effective treatment, substantial reductions occurred.


That all makes the following statement from you look a mite foolish, no?
I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. 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.

I have given you plenty more "science" to investigate. Please do so, and you cannot possibly decide HIV is harmless, or that AIDS is all a question of semantics.

[Miss Anthrope]

Are you a creationist as well? I ask only because the psychology appears to be similar.

Eerily similar. Good call.

[Deetee]

Here (http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/2004/08/refutation-to-some-of-duesbergs-stuff.html) is some further refutation of Duesberg's claims.

[JoeEllison]

Eerily similar. Good call.
It is much more interesting, in my opinion, to identify the underlying causes of mistaken belief, then to attempt to attack those beliefs with reason. Since this sort of belief is not based in any sort of reason or logic, neither reason nor logic have much chance of changing the belief.

[Deetee]

The AIDSTruth web site has an excellent piece (http://www.aidstruth.org/Nobel-Denial.pdf) on the Nobel prize winners who supposedly deny HIV causes AIDS. Seems there is only one after all (Kary Mullis), and no-one is quite sure what he thinks these days.

[calebprime]

Right, let’s see Duesberg’s arguments, shall we…
...

Excellent post.

[robinson]

Gladly. We have here two hypothesises:

A) (Mullis') The "Lab infections" are, to a large degree, closet gays and closet drug users.
->Expected result: The male to female ratio of the lab infections would be roughly equal to the infections in the general public (About 9:1 M:F)

B) (Yours) The "Lab infections" are authentic
->Expected result: We would see infections with those people who actually handle needles in medical environments, (75% female)

What is the result? (Drum roll) The "lab infections" Male to Female ratio closely resembles that of the general public's HIV infections. Hence I find Mullis theory to be more realistic.

That is actually very astute. I've been checking on this, thanks to your re-involving me in this issue, (bad troll, very bad troll), and the statistics show a clear pattern of infection in Medical personal who suffer accidents.

Hepatitis B: Of these HBV is the most transmissible, with a risk of infection following exposure of around 6-30%.
Hepatitis C: Infection from HCV following a needle-stick is around 1.8%.
HIV: Risk of becoming infected with HIV is a mere 0.3%.

But when you look at the statistics based on sex, HIV doesn't match what you see with HBV and HCV, which is more female workers than male. With HIV, just like the HIV figures for the general population, it is mostly males. Which statistically is significant. You might think. In fact, a study found
CONCLUSION--Surveillance data suggest that most health care workers with AIDS acquired their HIV infection through a nonoccupational route. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1660544&dopt=Abstract

The same discrepancy shows up in sexual transmission. While the overwhelming amount of sexual transmission is heterosexual, the statistics have always shown males with high rates of HIV. No double blind study has ever been done to show anything about HIV transmission, through any kind of sexual activity. But going by the current evidence for HIV/AIDS, which is observational, not experimental, then HIV is spread by something other than sex.

Because it didn't spread through heterosexual populations, which is what observational based medicine predicted.

Since it didn't spread and act like an STD, observational medicine would conclude it isn't spread by heterosexual contact.

I mean, if you are going to base science on observational medicine, then you have to go with the facts, not theories about what might happen.

Same goes for Africa. You hear these horrible statistics, scare stories, then you look at the facts, and it doesn't add up.

http://indexmundi.com/africa.html

After somebody claimed entire villages were wiped out, and the population was devastated, I checked. It isn't true.

I don't understand why checking available facts, and looking at what is published by real agencies and stuff, I don't understand why that is considered unscientific, and people spewing stuff with no evidence for it, is considered scientific.

That is dumb.

If you have evidence Africa has suffered 20 million deaths, and there are 30 million orphans, (or whatever statistics, it changes), and it is because of HIV/AIDS, then simply show me.

Same goes for evidence that HIV is transmitted through sex. Is there ANY evidence to show this is a scientific fact?

What is the rate of transmission? What is the vector? What is the mechanism? Where is the data? Has any double blind experiment ever been done? No. Are you going by population statistics? yes. OK, where is the data?

I checked, and HIV/AIDS isn't even on the radar map for cause of death. Why is that?

meh

I can't believe I've been sucked back into this quagmire.

It reminds me of several dead ends which were never answered in another thread.

Especially the anecdotal claims about Africa.

[robinson]

Which I am going to bring up again, because nobody ever responded to it, and it shows how name calling and stuff replaces science and research. Which is dumb.

I'm not saying that AIDS is NOT a problem out here, it's a huge problem. I went up to Malawi and Botswana last year - there are areas that used to contain thriving village populations 15 years ago, now all gone. The extent of depopulation is staggering, and it's all due to AIDS.

Can you provide any recent figures on AIDS/HIV in Malawi? Sorry, but as a skeptic, I like to know if something is true or not. Some quick checking,(I looked it up)
http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/countries/malawi.asp?collID=11&id=1249&malID=1251&tbID=1250&hivIC=1246&malIC=1247&tbIC=1248&map=1253&con=Malawi&p=1

HIV/AIDS in Malawi

12,158,924: population of Malawi (July 2005 est.)

940,000: Estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

14.1%: Estimated percentage of adults (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

500,000: Estimated number of women (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

91,000: Estimated number of children (ages 0-15) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

78,000: Estimated number of deaths due to AIDS during 2005

Those figures make no sense, if AIDS is wiping out the population. Especially in children.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/malawi.htm
Population children <5 years old 2,262,359 (2004)
Annual live births 545,602 (2004)
Life expectancy at birth - male 35.7 years (2001)
Life expectancy at birth - female 36.7 years (2001)

or

http://www.afro.who.int/malaria/country-profile/malawi.pdf

Total population 1990, 9,434,000
Total population 2002, 11,848,000

Annual population growth rate 1990 - 1.21
Annual population growth rate 2002 - 2.36

Pop. less than 5 years 1990- 1,821,000
Pop. less than 5 years 2002 - 2,156,000

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.

Malaria cases reported
1990 - 3,870,904
2002 - 1,362,742

Malaria deaths
1990 - 57,649
2002 - 57,649

The data doesn't seem to match the report that AIDS is "wiping out" the population.

and

The South African writer Rian Malan in a recent article in the UK-based 'Spectator' makes similar conclusions regarding the AIDS pandemic in Southern Africa. In his article "Africa Isn't Dying of AIDS," Mr Malan reacts to UNAIDS claims that almost 30 million Africans now have HIV/AIDS.

- But, says Mr Malan, "the figures are computer-generated estimates and they appear grotesquely exaggerated when set against population statistics." In Botswana, the country with the world's highest AIDS prevalence, several reports had suggested that population had dropped from 1.4 million in 1993 to under a million currently, due to the AIDS pandemic.

Not true, says Mr Malan. "Botswana has just concluded a census that shows population growing at about 2.7 percent a year, in spite of what is usually described as the worst AIDS problem on the planet. Total population has risen to 1.7 million in just a decade. If anything, Botswana is experiencing a minor population explosion," the South African writer concludes.

He continues slaughtering UN and national statistics on South African AIDS deaths. UNAIDS is using a computer simulator called Epimodel to estimate AIDS related deaths, which had produced estimations of 250,000 AIDS deaths in South Africa in 1999 alone.
http://www.afrol.com/features/11116

There is a lot of stuff published about the numbers and such in Africa. More than enough to question the story.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ths-per-capita

Statistics. But no evidence. It looks like estimates are used, rather than doing any actual test.

And if you actually want to just look at the data
http://indexmundi.com/botswana/

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.

Now back to bashing each other about the head and shoulders...

[kellyb]

Hepatitis B: Of these HBV is the most transmissible, with a risk of infection following exposure of around 6-30%.
Hepatitis C: Infection from HCV following a needle-stick is around 1.8%.
HIV: Risk of becoming infected with HIV is a mere 0.3%.

Look at how long those different viruses survive outside the human body, though, and there's a good explaination there.

Because it didn't spread through heterosexual populations, which is what observational based medicine predicted.

Since it didn't spread and act like an STD, observational medicine would conclude it isn't spread by heterosexual contact.

I do remember rumors of doomsday predictions that have not come to fruition.
But remember, there's a difference between "doesn't transmit at all, ever" and "doesn't transmit well".

If you're going to take HIV off the list of STDs, you have to take HepB off the list, too, I think.
Also, HIV does, in fact, transmit fairly well through heterosexual contact in Africa. Lots of differences between Africa and developed nations, though.


Same goes for evidence that HIV is transmitted through sex. Is there ANY evidence to show this is a scientific fact?

In Africa, the circumcision trials should work quite well to demonstrate this.

Especially the anecdotal claims about Africa.

The internet is full of weird anecdotes. You know this. You called it out...now let it go. :)

[calebprime]

Robinson,

I think that's interesting. If prevalence is lower than we've been led to believe, why is that?

It's a separate issue from whether HIV is a dangerous virus that wrecks your immune system over time, no?

It seems malaria is a much worse problem.


Could it be that HIV is sexually transmitted, but not very easily? What's so mysterious about that?

I don't mind being called dumb. I have no expertise in any of the relevant fields. Just curious.

[robinson]

Robinson,

I think that's interesting. If prevalence is lower than we've been led to believe, why is that?

I have no idea. Money is always a good bet.

Robinson,
It's a separate issue from whether HIV is a dangerous virus that wrecks your immune system over time, no?

To me it is. As I said, I believe, based on evidence, that HIV is a cause of Immune system problems. And that it is infectious, and that it is real. I don't believe it is 100% death, based on evidence.

It seems malaria is a much worse problem.?

Malaria is a terrible problem. Parasites as well. They both cause false results on HIV tests in Africa as well.



Could it be that HIV is sexually transmitted, but not very easily? What's so mysterious about that?

Nothing to me. It was in response to comments that what we were taught about sex and HIV was bullpoop. Which it was.

[JoeEllison]

It was in response to comments that what we were taught about sex and HIV was bullpoop. Which it was.

What year was that?

Besides that, I'd say your opinions expressed here are due to you "falling in with a bad crowd"...

[robinson]

That would be dumb. Evidence based decisions are better than making stuff up, or worse, just saying "everybody knows it is true".

Try looking at the facts. You might change your opinion and stuff.

[Taffer]

That's the major problem. In the 80ies so many assumptions became acknowledged without actual evidence. Stuff like "HIV causes Immunodepression" - Everyone believes it but nobody's ever proven it. That's faith.

I remember learning about HIV pathology in my first year of uni. Unfortunately, it's a long time ago and I've forgotten most of it.

I think your claims of "never proved" is bunk, btw.

The problem with population studies and cohort studies is that you cannot rule out tertiary factors.

For example: A study on kenians and africans may find: Kenians eat a lot more millet than americans. And that kenians are a lot more black than americans. Result of the study? Eating lots of millet makes you black. Only an blinded RCT can rule out tertiary factors. And for HIV and immunodepression, I've seen enough bunk science that I do not accept studies that pitch 50 gay drug users with HIV vs 50 straight ivy league kids and then compare their health data, and somehow of course find that the HIV negative people are more healthy than the HIV positive ones.

You still haven't provided evidence that all AIDS patients are drug users.

Please quote when I said it is "never transmitted sexually" - I said it's not an STD, and robinson said the same thing. That does not mean it's not possible to transmit it sexually, but it means the STD aspect of HIV was extremely overstated in the past. (At least in my sex ed class)

My bad.

An STD is a disease which can ONLY be transferred sexually? If so, then HIV is not an STD. Not that this takes away from its pathology, of course.

He doesn't take drugs. As I said earlier: The drug studies that I've read never showed any increased longevity for AIDS patients. The only positive beneficial effect that I could find was that the AIDS patients reported better well-being. Of course the manufacturers now claim that the drugs are sooo effective and many people, due to lack of better knowledge, believe the "HIV epidemic" was under control because of something the pharma industry did.

I mean, 20 years ago, doom was predicted for the human race due to HIV. Nothing of the sort happened. People simply need an explanation on why HIV is so irrelevant nowadays, outside africa that is. if you had asked me two years ago on why HIV isn't a bigger problem in the western world, I wouldn't have known what to answer myself because I never researched it. I might even have suspected that they may have found a cure or something.

But it IS a problem. Simple microbiology will explain how HIV damages the immune system.

This is a very complex topic. Let me only give you a few of my thoughts.

Someone diagnosed with "AIDS" is, by definition, HIV positive and sick. Someone sick may have a depressed immune system, although there obviously does not have to be a causal connection to the HIV infection. If you find someone who is just abusing his body a lot with drugs, and he gets those opportunistic diseases that are also attributed to HIV/AIDS, and he tests positive on HIV, the diseases he is suffering from will be attributed - medically - to the HIV infection, and not the abusive lifestyle.

Furthermore, someone diagnosed with "AIDS" has been given a virtual death sentence. There is no way to be un-diagnosed with "AIDS" once you have it. Even if your tuberculosis or herpes goes away and you feel better than ever, you still, technically, suffer from AIDS. If you die now - for any reason - chances are it will be attributed to your "AIDS" diagnosis.

Do you have any evidence for this? Such as, evidence which supports HIV positive patients with drug use?

In addition: AIDS medication is extremely toxic. Duesberg describes it as "Chemo therapy" that was found to be too ineffective for cancer therapy. For example AZT was developed in the 60ies as a chemo therapy for cancer, which was not allowed by the FDA because it proved to be too toxic and ineffective. And as an AIDS drug, it is dosed higher than as a cancer drug. Chemo therapy on cancer is already very ineffective: You try to kill the cancer cells before the rest of the body dies. But what are you trying to accomplish with chemo therapy on AIDS patients? You can't kill the HIV with antiretroviral drugs, that is not even how the manufacturers claim they work. So what you end up with is purely killing the patient.

Why can't you kill HIV with anti-retrovirals? Is it magically immune to them?

[skeptigirl]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. 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.
The only reason you are not satisfied with the proof HIV causes AIDS and that the mechanism by which HIV destroys the immune system isn't because the evidence isn't there. It's because either by choice or some other failure you have simply failed to educate yourself in this field.

We have listed resources. Were they over your head? Should we take it slower with you?

Here is the basic science you seem to be ignoring:

AIDS Pathology tutorial (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS.html)The CD4+ T-lymphocytes have surface receptors to which HIV can attach to promote entry into the cell. The infection extends to lymphoid tissues which contain follicular dendritic cells that can become infected and provide a reservoir for continuing infection of CD4+ T-lymphocytes. HIV can also be spread via blood or blood products, most commonly with shared contaminated needles used by persons engaging in intravenous drug use. Mothers who are HIV infected can pass the virus on to their fetuses in utero or to infants via breast milk.

When HIV infects a cell, it must use its reverse transcriptase enzyme to transcribe its RNA to host cell proviral DNA. It is this proviral DNA that directs the cell to produce additional HIV virions which are released.

The genome of HIV contains only three major genes: env, gag, and pol. These genes direct the formation of the basic components of HIV. The env gene directs production of an envelope precursor protein gp160 which undergoes proteolytic cleavage to the outer envelope glycoprotein gp120, which is responsible for tropism to CD4+ receptors, and transmembrane glycoprotein gp41, which catalyzes fusion of HIV to the target cell's membrane. The gag gene directs formation of the proteins of the matrix p17, the "core" capsid p24, and the nucleocapsid p7. The pol gene directs synthesis of important enzymes including reverse transcriptase p51 and p66, integrase p32, and protease p11.

In addition to the CD4 receptor, a coreceptor known as a chemokine is needed for HIV infection. Chemokines are cell surface fusion-mediating molecules. Such coreceptors include CXCR4 and CCR5. Their presence on cells can aid binding of the HIV envelope glycoprotein gp120, promoting infection. Initial binding of HIV to the CD4 receptor is mediated by conformational changes in the gp120 subunit, but such conformational changes are not sufficient of fusion. The chemokine receptors produce a conformational change in the gp41 subunit which allows fusion of HIV. The differences in chemokine coreceptors that are present on a cell also explains how different strains of HIV may infect cells selectively. There are strains of HIV known as T-tropic strains which selectively interact with the CXCR4 chemokine coreceptor to infect lymphocytes. The M-tropic strains of HIV interact with the CCR5 chemokine coreceptor to infect macrophages. Dual tropic HIV stains have been identified. The presence of a CCR5 mutation may explain the phenomenon of resistance to HIV infection in some cases. Over time, mutations in HIV may increase the ability of the virus to infect cells via these routes. Infection with cytomegalovirus may serve to enhance HIV infection via this mechanism, because CMV encodes a chemokine receptor similar to human chemokine receptors.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

When the CD4 lymphocyte count drops below 200/microliter, then the stage of clinical AIDS has been reached. This is the point at which the characteristic opportunistic infections and neoplasms of AIDS appear. Listed below are some of the more common complications seen with AIDS with images that illustrate gross and microscopic pathologic findings.

The organ involvement of infections with AIDS represents the typical appearance of opportunistic infections in the immunocompromised host--that of an overwhelming infection--that makes treatment more difficult. The strategies employed in AIDS patients to meet this challenge consist of (1) preserving immune function as long as possible with antiretroviral therapies, (2) using prophylactic pharmacologic therapies to prevent infections (such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia), and (3) diagnosing and treating acute infections as soon as possible.

It continues: Mechanism of Infection (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/HIV.html)

HIV primarily infects cells with CD4 cell-surface receptor molecules, using them to gain entry. Many cell types share common epitopes with this protein, though CD4 lymphocytes play a crucial role. In macrophages and in some other cells lacking CD4 receptors, such as fibroblasts, an Fc receptor site or complement receptor site may be used instead for entry of HIV. Cells of the mononuclear phagocyte system, principally blood monocytes and tissue macrophages, T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) lymphocytes, dendritic cells (Langerhans cells of epithelia and follicular dendritic cells in lymph nodes), hematopoietic stem cells, endothelial cells, microglial cells in brain, and gastrointestinal epithelial cells are the primary targets of HIV infection.
HIV Structure and Function

The mature virus consists of a bar-shaped electron dense core containing the viral genome--two short strands of ribonucleic acid (RNA) about 9200 nucleotide bases long--along with the enzymes reverse transcriptase, protease, ribonuclease, and integrase, all encased in an outer lipid envelope with 72 surface projections containing an antigen, gp120, that aids in the binding of the virus to the target cells with CD4 receptors. By electron microscopy, the plasma membrane of an infected CD4+ lymphocyte exhibits budding virus particles approximately 90 to 100 n in diameter. The genome of HIV, similar to retroviruses in general, contains three major genes--gag, pol, and env.

The major structural components coded by env include the envelope glycoproteins, including the outer envelope glycoprotein gp120 and transmembrane glycoprotein gp41 derived from glycoprotein precursor gp160. Major components coded by the gag gene include core nucleocapsid proteins p55, p40, p24 (capsid, or "core" antigen), p17 (matrix), and p7 (nucleocapsid); the important proteins coded by pol are the enzyme proteins p66 and p51 (reverse transcriptase), p11 (protease), and p32 (integrase). Although most of the major HIV viral proteins, which include p24 (core antigen) and gp41 (envelope antigen), are highly immunogenic, the antibody responses vary according to the virus load and the immune competence of the host. The antigenicity of these various components provides a means for detection of antibody, the basis for most HIV testing.

HIV has the additional ability to mutate easily, in large part due to the error rate of the reverse transcriptase enzyme, which introduces a mutation approximately once per 2000 incorporated nucleotides. This high mutation rate leads to the emergence of HIV variants within the infected person's cells that can resist immune attack, are more cytotoxic, can generate syncytia more readily, or can resist drug therapy. Over time, different tissues of the body may harbor differing HIV variants.
HIV-2

A second HIV designated HIV-2 has been isolated. Most cases have appeared in West Africa and have appeared only sporadically in other parts of the world. The genetic sequences of HIV-1 and HIV-2 are only partially homologous. HIV-2, or other as yet uncharacterized members of the HIV-group of viruses, will not necessarily be detected by using the various laboratory tests for HIV-1 antibody. HIV-2 is genetically more closely related to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) than HIV-1.

The transmission of HIV-2 is similar to that for HIV-1, though perinatal transmission is much less frequent. HIV-2 infection has a longer latent period before the appearance of AIDS, a less aggressive course of AIDS, and a lower viral load with higher CD4 lymphocyte counts than HIV-1 infection until late in the course of the disease when clinical AIDS is apparent. This may explain the limited spread of HIV-2, both in West African countries and elsewhere, due to less efficient transmission, particularly via heterosexual and perinatal modes. The mortality rate from HIV-2 infection is only two-thirds that for HIV-1.
Establishment of HIV Infection

After entering the body, the viral particle is attracted to a cell with the appropriate CD4 receptor molecules where it attaches by fusion to a susceptible cell membrane or by endocytosis and then enters the cell. The probability of infection is a function of both the number of infective HIV virions in the body fluid which contacts the host as well as the number of cells available at the site of contact that have appropriate CD4 receptors.

Within the cell, the viral particle uncoats from the envelope to releases its RNA. The enzyme product of the pol gene, reverse transcriptase that is bound to the HIV RNA, provides for reverse transcription of RNA to proviral DNA. It is this HIV proviral DNA which is then inserted into host cell genomic DNA by the integrase enzyme. Once the HIV proviral DNA is within the infected cell's genome, it cannot be eliminated or destroyed except by destroying the cell itself. The HIV provirus is then replicated by the host cell. The infected cell can then release virions by surface budding, or infected cells can undergo lysis with release of new HIV virions which can then infect additional cells. Antibodies formed against HIV are not protective, and a viremic state can persist despite the presence of even high antibody titers.
Dynamics of HIV Infection

After initial entry of HIV and establishment of infection, replication may at first occur within inflammatory cells at the site of infection or within peripheral blood mononuclear cells, but then the major site of replication quickly shifts to lymphoid tissues of the body, including those in lymph nodes, spleen, liver, and bone marrow. Besides lymph nodes, the gut associated lymphoid tissue provides a substantial reservoir for HIV.

Macrophages and Langerhans cells in epithelia such as in the genital tract are important both as reservoirs and vectors for the spread of HIV in the body. Langerhans cells (a subset of blood dendritic cells) act as antigen presenting cells for CD4 lymphocytes. Both macrophages and Langerhans cells can be HIV-infected but are not destroyed themselves. HIV can then be carried elsewhere in the body. Within lymph nodes, HIV virions are trapped in the processes of follicular dendritic cells (FDC's), where they may infect CD4 lymphocytes that are percolating through the node. The FDC's themselves become infected, but are not destroyed.

Viral replication is stimulated by a variety of cytokines such as interleukins and tumor necrosis factor which activate CD4 lymphocytes and make them more susceptible to HIV infection. Primary HIV infection is followed by a burst of viremia in which virus is easily detected in peripheral blood in mononuclear cells and plasma. In the period of clinical latency of HIV infection, there is little detectable virus in peripheral blood, but viral replication actively continues in lymphoid tissues.

Subsets of the CD4+ lymphocyte population are important in determining the host response to infection. The subset known as TH1 (T helper 1) is responsible for directing a cytotoxic CD8 lymphocyte (CTL) response, but the TH2 (T helper 2) subset of CD4 and CD8 T-lymphocytes diminishes the CTL response while increasing antibody production. HIV-infectons accompanied by a dominant TH1 response tend to proceed longer. The switch from a TH1 to a TH2 response has been suggested as a factor in the development of AIDS, but not all cytokines in HIV-infected persons at different stages of disease corroborate this hypothesis. Production of interleukin-5 and interferon-gamma by CD4 and CD8 lymphocytes expressing CD30, however, is associated with promotion of B-lymphocyte immunoglobulin production.
Immunodeficiency

The primary target of HIV is the immune system itself, which is gradually destroyed. Viral replication actively continues following initial HIV infection, and the rate of CD4 lymphocyte destruction is progressive. Clinically, HIV infection may appear "latent" for years during this period of ongoing immune system destruction. During this time, enough of the immune system remains intact to provide immune surveillance and prevent most infections. Eventually, when a significant number of CD4 lymphocytes have been destroyed and when production of new CD4 cells cannot match destruction, then failure of the immune system leads to the appearance of clinical AIDS.

Infection with HIV is sustained through continuous viral replication with reinfection of additional host cells. Both HIV in host plasma and HIV-infected host cells appear to have a short lifespan; and late in the course of AIDS the half-life of plasma HIV is only about 2 days. Thus, the persistent viremia requires continuous reinfection of new CD4 lymphocytes followed by viral replication and infected host cell turnover. This rapid turnover of HIV and CD4 lymphocytes promotes origin of new strains of HIV within the host from mutation of HIV.
Genetic Variability of HIV

Presence or emergence of different HIV subtypes may also account for the appearance of antiretroviral drug resistance as well as the variability in pathologic lesions as different cell types are targeted or different cytopathic effects are elicited during the course of infection. Phylogenetic studies can identify genetic clusters of HIV-1 env genes which are known as subtypes, or clades, that have arisen with progression of the AIDS epidemic worldwide. The V3 loop amino acid sequences of these genetic variants influence HIV phenotype and immune response. Thus, the biologic properties of HIV can vary, even within an individual HIV infected person, where variants of HIV may arise that are "neurotropic" or "lymphocytotropic" for example.
Transmission of HIV

HIV infects definable population subgroups ("risk groups"). The transmission of HIV is a function of where the virus appears in the body and how it is shed. HIV can be present in a variety of body fluids and secretions, but the presence of HIV in genital secretions and in blood, and to a lesser extent breast milk, is significant for spread of HIV. However, the appearance of HIV in saliva, urine, tears, and sweat is of no major clinical importance, as transmission of HIV through these fluids does not routinely occur, primarily because of the low concentration of HIV in these fluids.

HIV is primarily spread as a sexually transmissible disease. Transmission of HIV can occur from male to male, male to female, and female to male. Female to female transmission remains extremely rare, though women with same-sex contact are often bisexual and have additional risk factors for HIV infection. The rate of HIV transmission with sexual intercourse is much lower than with other sexually transmitted diseases-approximately 0.3% per sexual contact with an HIV-infected person. However, some persons have become HIV-infected after a single sexual contact, while other persons have remained uninfected after hundreds of contacts.

Sexual contact with persons whose HIV viral load is greater, either with early infection or in the late stage of clinical AIDS, increases the transmission risk. The presence of cervical ectopia, oral contraceptive use, or pregnancy in women, intact foreskin in men, and genital ulcer disease in either sex increases the risk for HIV infection. Genital ulcers provide a more direct route to lymphatics draining to lymph nodes containing many CD4 lymphocytes and follicular dendritic cells. Tissue trauma during intercourse does not appear to play a role in HIV transmission.

HIV can be transmitted by parenteral exposure, which is the most highly efficient method of HIV transmission--close to 90%. There are many more peripheral blood mononuclear cells capable of either harboring or becoming infected by HIV in blood than are present in other body fluids or secretions. The primary risk group for HIV transmission via blood is intravenous drug users sharing infected needles. Less common practices of blood comingling or use of instruments such as tattoo needles not properly disinfected also carries a potential risk. Health care workers with percutaneous exposures to HIV-containing blood, however, are infected fewer than 1 in 300 times. Screening of blood products for HIV has almost eliminated HIV transmission by this means.

HIV infection can also be acquired as a congenital infection perinatally or in infancy. Mothers with HIV infection can pass the virus transplacentally, at the time of delivery through the birth canal, or through breast milk. Congenital AIDS occurs, on average, in about one fourth of babies born to HIV-1 infected mothers, with actual rates of transmission varying from 7 to 71%, depending upon the presence of risk factors for transmission during the course of HIV infection and pregnancy.
Primary HIV Infection

Primary HIV infection may go unnoticed in at least half of cases or produce a mild disease which quickly subsides, followed by a long clinical "latent" period lasting years. Prospective studies of acute HIV infections show that fever, lymphadenopathy, pharyngitis, diffuse erythematous rash, arthralgia/myalgia, diarrhea, and headache are the commonest symptoms seen with acute HIV infection. These symptoms diminish over 1 to 2 months. The symptoms of acute HIV infection resemble an infectious mononucleosis-like syndrome. Symptomatic acute HIV infection is more likely to occur in persons who acquired HIV infection through sexual transmission.

Generally, within 3 weeks to 3 months the immune response is accompanied by a simultaneous decline in HIV viremia. Both humoral and cell mediated immune responses play a role. The CD4 lymphocytes rebound in number, but not to pre-infection levels. Seroconversion with detectable HIV antibody by laboratory testing accompanies this immune response, sometimes in as little as a week, but more often in two to four weeks. Prolonged HIV-1 infection without evidence for seroconversion, however, is an extremely rare event.
Onset of AIDS

Unlike most infections in past epidemics, AIDS is distinguished by a very long latent period before the development of any visible signs of infection. During this phase, there is little or no viral replication detectable in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and little or no culturable virus in peripheral blood. The CD4 lymphocyte count remains moderately decreased. However, the immune response to HIV is insufficient to prevent continued viral replication within lymphoid tissues. Tests for HIV antibody will remain positive during this time but p24 antigen tests are usually negative. There is no evidence to suggest that seroreversion, or loss of antibody, occurs in HIV infected persons.

The average HIV-infected person may have an initial acute self-limited illness, may take up to several weeks to become seropositive, and then may live up to 8 or 10 years, on average, before development of the clinical signs and symptoms of AIDS. Persons infected with HIV cannot be recognized by appearance alone, are not prompted to seek medical attention, and are often unaware that they may be spreading the infection. There has been no study to date that shows a failure of HIV-infected persons to evolve to clinical AIDS over time, though the speed at which this evolution occurs may vary.

At least 10% of persons infected with HIV-1 are "long survivors" who have not had significant progressive decline in immune function. Findings include: a stable CD4 lymphocyte count, negative plasma cultures for HIV-1, a strong HIV-1 neutralizing antibody response, and a strong virus-inhibitory CD8 lymphocyte response. In addition, the lymph node architecture is maintained without either the hyperplasia or lymphocyte depletion common to progression to AIDS. Though peripheral blood mononuclear cells contain detectable HIV-1 and viral replication continues in long survivors, though their viral burden is low.

The development of signs and symptoms of AIDS typically parallels laboratory testing for CD4 lymphocytes. A decrease in the total CD4 count below 500/microliter presages the development of clinical AIDS, and a drop below 200/microliter not only defines AIDS, but also indicates a high probability for the development of AIDS-related opportunistic infections and/or neoplasms. Plasma HIV-1 RNA increases as plasma viremia becomes more marked. The risk for death from HIV infection above the 200/microliter CD4 level is low.
Persistent Generalized Lymphadenopathy (PGL)

There is loss of normal lymph node architecture as the immune system fails with emergence from latency of HIV infection. It is marked by development of generalized lymphadenopathy. This condition, described by the term persistent generalized lymphadenopathy (PGL), is not life-threatening. Lymph nodes throughout the body are large but usually do not exceed 3 cm in size and they may vary in size over time.
AIDS-related Complex (ARC)

Another phase of HIV infection described clinically but no longer commonly diagnosed in practice, is the condition known as AIDS-related complex (ARC), which is not necessarily preceded by PGL. ARC lacks only the opportunistic infections and neoplasms which define AIDS. ARC patients usually show symptoms of fatigue, weight loss, and night sweats, along with superficial fungal infections of the mouth (oral thrush) and fingernails and toenails (onychomycosis). It is uncommon for HIV infected persons to die at the stage of ARC. The staging of HIV disease progression through the use of CD4 lymphocyte counts has made use of the terms PGL and ARC obsolete.
Clinical AIDS

The stage of clinical AIDS that is reached years after initial infection is marked by the appearance of one or more of the typical opportunistic infections or neoplasms diagnostic of AIDS by definitional criteria. The progression to clinical AIDS is also marked by the appearance of syncytia-forming (SI) variants of HIV in about half of HIV infected patients. These SI viral variants, derived from non-syncytia-forming (NSI) variants, have greater CD4 cell tropism and are associated with more rapid CD4+ cell decline. The SI variants typically arise in association with a peripheral blood CD4 lymphocyte count between 400 and 500/microliter, prior to the onset of clinical AIDS. However, appearance of the SI phenotype of HIV is a marker for progression to AIDS that is independent of CD4 cell counts.

Other laboratory findings which indicate progression to AIDS include HIV p24 antigen positivity, increased serum beta2-microglobulin, elevated serum IgA, or increased neopterin levels in serum, cerebrospinal fluid, or urine. The p24 antigen is a highly specific predictor of progression, but only about 60% of HIV-infected persons develop p24 antigenemia prior to onset of clinical AIDS. Beta2-microglobulin is increased with lymphocyte activation or destruction associated with HIV disease progression. Neopterin, as measured in serum or urine, is also a measure of immune system activation and can predict HIV disease progression. The information provided by these tests is similar, so no advantage accrues from performing all of them simultaneously.

For perinatally acquired HIV infection, the time to development of clinical AIDS may be shorter than in adults. Signs associated with HIV infection appear in over 80% of seropositive infants by the age of 5 months. Infants in whom such signs appear at 3 months tend to have decreased survival. About half of children with perinatally acquired HIV infection are alive at 9 years.After you have digested this, see the next post. Since you claim to be so well informed, I expect any rebuttal of this or the following material to be at least on a level suggesting you have some clue about the material. 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.

[skeptigirl]

Mechanism of HIV spread from lymphocytes to epithelia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1370128&dopt=Abstract)Phillips DM, Bourinbaiar AS.

Population Council, Center for Biomedical Research, New York, New York 10021.

Contact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected MOLT-4 lymphocytes with epithelial cells derived from small intestine (I407; Intestine 407) resulted in a rapid polar budding of viral particles into an enclosed space formed by interdigitating microvilli of the contacting cells. Electron microscopy showed that released HIV was taken up into the mucosal cell via three independent mechanisms: (1) phagocytosis, (2) coated pits, and (3) direct fusion. Morphological evidence suggests that internalized HIV may escape into the cytoplasm of the target cell by uncoating at the endosomal membrane. Based on CD4 antibody binding and CD4 antibody blocking experiments, HIV entry does not appear to be mediated by a viral CD4 receptor. Productivity of I407 infection was confirmed by virus isolation from cocultured MT-4 lymphocytic cells, reverse transcriptase assay, p24 antigen ELISA, in situ HIV mRNA hybridization, and Southern dot blot analysis. Contrary to infection with free virus, the cell-to-cell infection was not blocked by anti-gp120 or antiviral serum from HIV-positive individuals. It appears that HIV transmission within the confined space between contacting cells enables HIV to evade immune protection provided by neutralizing antibodies. Our results reveal a mechanism of HIV infection of epithelial cells which is triggered by cell-cell contact. Furthermore, these observations offer an insight into the cellular sequence of events which may take place during sexual transmission of HIV across an intaepithelial barrier.


Molecular pathway involved in HIV-1-induced CNS pathology: role of viral regulatory protein, Tat (http://www.jleukbio.org/cgi/reprint/65/4/458.pdf)Jay Rappaport, Jeymohan Joseph, Sidney Croul, Guillermo Alexander, Luis Del Valle, Shohreh Amini, and Kamel Khalili; Center for NeuroVirology and NeuroOncology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Department of Neurology, MCP Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Abstract: The broad range of histological lesions associated with HIV-1 are somewhat subtle relative to the clinical manifestations that occur as a result of HIV infection. Although it is clear that HIV has a causative role in CNS disease, dementia appears to be a consequence of the infiltration of inflammatory cells and cytokine dysregulation rather than the amount of virus in CNS. The HIV transregulatory protein Tat plays an important intracellular as well as extracellular role in the dysregulation of cytokines. The cytokines and possibly chemokines that are induced by Tat modify the action of astrocytes such that the survival of neurons is compromised. Pathogenetic alteration induced by Tat involves a series of interactions between circulating monocyte/macrophages, endothelial cells, and astrocytes. Cytokine dysregulation induced by viral infection and extracellular Tat leads to alterations in expression of adhesion molecules and promotes migration of non-infected inflammatory cells into the CNS compartment. We demonstrate here that recombinant HIV-1 Tat protein introduced by stereotaxic injection into mouse brain can induce pathologically relevant alterations including macrophage invasion as well as astrocytosis. The mechanism of destruction of the CNS by Tat appears to involve autocrine and paracrine pathways that depend not only on Tat, but cytokine and chemokine signaling pathways that are altered by viral infection. In this review, we discuss various pathogenic effects of Tat in brain cells and provide experimental evidence for an increased TNF-a level in CSF in mice injected intracerebrally with Tat protein. J. Leukoc. Biol. 65: 458–465; 1999.


CD4 lymphocytes in the blood of HIV+ individuals migrate rapidly to lymph nodes and bone marrow: support for homing theory of CD4 cell depletion (http://www.jleukbio.org/cgi/content/full/72/2/271)Jenny J-Y. Chen, Jason C. Huang, Mark Shirtliff, Elma Briscoe, Seham Ali, Fernando Cesani, David Paar and Miles W. Cloyd,

Departments of Microbiology & Immunology, Pathology, Nuclear Medicine, and § Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

Correspondence: Miles W. Cloyd, Ph.D., Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rt. 1070, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555-1070. E-mail: mcloyd@utmb.edu

ABSTRACT

The mechanism(s) by which human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes depletion of CD4 lymphocytes remains unknown. Evidence has been reported for a mechanism involving HIV binding to (and signaling) resting CD4 lymphocytes in lymphoid tissues, resulting in up-regulation of lymph node homing receptors and enhanced homing after these cells enter the blood, and induction of apoptosis in many of these cells during the homing process, caused by secondary signaling through homing receptors. Supportive evidence for this as a major pathogenic mechanism requires demonstration that CD4 lymphocytes in HIV+ individuals do migrate to lymph nodes at enhanced rates. Studies herein show that freshly isolated CD4 lymphocytes labeled with 111Indium and intravenously reinfused back into HIV+ human donors do home to peripheral lymph nodes at rates two times faster than normal. They also home at enhanced rates to iliac and vertebral bone marrow. In contrast, two hepatitis B virus-infected subjects displayed less than normal rates of blood CD4 lymphocyte migration to peripheral lymph nodes and bone marrow. Furthermore, the increased CD4 lymphocyte homing rates in HIV+ subjects returned to normal levels after effective, highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment, showing that the enhanced homing correlated with active HIV replication. This is the first direct demonstration of where and how fast CD4 lymphocytes in the blood traffic to tissues in normal and HIV-infected humans. The results support the theory that the disappearance of CD4 lymphocytes from the blood of HIV+ patients is a result of their enhanced migration out of the blood (homing) and dying in extravascular tissues.


MECHANISM OF HIV TRANSMISSION ACROSS FEMALE GENITAL EPITHELIUM IN AN EX-VIVO MODEL (http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/2006/ThPE0031.html)Int Conf AIDS. 2006 Aug 13-18;16 Abstract No. ThPE0031

S. Fernandez, A. Nazli, M. Bunce, C. Kaushic
McMaster University, Molecular Medicine & Pathology, Hamilton, Canada

BACKGROUND: Our lab is currently utilizing human primary endometrial and cervical epithelial cultures to investigate the mechanism of HIV transmission across the female genital mucosa.

METHODS: Primary genital epithelial cells (ECs) grown on matrigel- coated cell inserts were used for HIV infection studies. EC's were infected via the apical surface with cell- free or cell- associated R5 and X4 virus strains. Infections were performed in the presence or absence of the appropriate macrophage (U937) or T cell (Jurkat) target cell- line in basolateral compartments of cultures. Virus was quantified from supernatants using p24 ELISA. U373-CXCR4 and CCR5 magi cell lines were utilized to measure infectious virus and tropism. Sybrgreen real time PCR was used to detect viral RNA in ECs and target cells.

RESULTS: Infectious HIV particles were found only in basolateral supernatants of primary EC's infected with X4 strains of cell-free and cell-associated HIV in the presence of appropriate target cells. This indicated that EC's themselves may not be productively infected, but were only able to transmit HIV in the presence of target cells. These results were supported by the detection of higher levels of gag gene (CT-15) in X4 target cells compared to epithelial cells (CT-25) using real-time PCR. No infectious virus was present in primary EC's infected with cell-free R5 strain, although gag gene product was detected by real time PCR in both R5 target cells as well as EC's. P24 levels in supernatants were not indicative of infectious virus.

CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicates that R5 and X4 virus strains have differential abilities to cross the female genital mucosa to infect target cells. The presence of target cells appears to be critical for the production of infectious HIV particles under these culture conditions. These studies are providing important information regarding the ability of HIV-1 to cross the female genital mucosa.

Correlation of HIV-1 Detection and Histology in AIDS-Associated Emphysema. (http://www.molecularpathology.com/pt/re/dmp/abstract.00019606-200503000-00008.htm;jsessionid=GcJDB0QGvDdKMRTkwX5GV1pPhGGR2 4j2dP7nJdJX2kjG8RGDZBQ9!-1740698184!181195629!8091!-1)Diagnostic Molecular Pathology. 14(1):48-52, March 2005.
Yearsley, Martha M MD; Diaz, Philip T MD; Knoell, Daren PhD; Nuovo, Gerard J MD

Abstract:
HIV-seropositive individuals are at an increased risk for an accelerated form of emphysema. The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution of HIV-1 RNA in lung tissues and correlate this with the histologic findings and expression of matrix metalloproteases (MMPs). Reverse transcriptase (RT) in situ PCR analysis was performed on 11 AIDS lung autopsy specimens which showed varying degrees of emphysematous changes. In each lung, HIV-1 RNA was detected. In areas of histologically normal lung, very rare HIV-1-infected cells were evident. In contrast, many HIV-1-infected cells were noted in areas of emphysema. HIV-1 gag RNA was evident primarily in macrophages; infected pneumocytes were also seen. Similarly, MMP mRNA and protein, primarily MMP-9, localized to the areas of emphysema. Colabeling experiments documented that MMP expression was found primarily in cells that were HIV-1 negative and adjacent to HIV-1-infected macrophages. These results suggest that AIDS-related emphysema may be due, in part, to direct infection by HIV-1 of, primarily, alveolar macrophages, and concomitant up-regulation of MMP expression in the neighboring, noninfected cells.

Dabljuh, when you can intelligently discuss why these scientists are wrong, don't know what they are researching, or how it is you understand this subject well enough to know better, get back to us. Mullis and Douchebag couldn't convince the scientific community so they decided to sell their unsupported theories to an uneducated public. Easy prey, sells books, gets attention. The thing about science is when you go against the mainstream, time will eventually prove you correct if you are. Science is based on evidence and the evidence is there for all to see. It's been a decade since the main HIV deniers began dreaming of proving everyone who hurt their feelings wrong. Since that time the evidence, there for all to see, turned out that HIV did and does cause AIDS. All the ignorance in the world just can't change that fact.

[Taffer]

Skeptigirl, I want to have your babies.

[epepke]

Seriously, this is why people use the term "HIV disease." A couple of decades have passed since the OP has paid much attention.