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.