HIV/AIDS, Facts, Myths, what is true? [Archive]

robinson

21st July 2007, 01:48 PM

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

That sounds crazy, doesn't it?

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

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

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

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

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

Language is going to be a factor obviously.

Capsid

21st July 2007, 01:58 PM

These are wrong.

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

joshbuckley

21st July 2007, 02:58 PM

I guess one needs to be an M.D. and be in HIV/AIDS field to know all these things.

calebprime

21st July 2007, 03:08 PM

:popcorn1

Father Dagon

21st July 2007, 03:33 PM

HIV has been fought about since it was "discovered". Uh, hard to fight something before it's discovered, right?
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class. Watch out for the black helicopters.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6128/27065831gv1.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=27065831gv1.jpg)

robinson

21st July 2007, 06:27 PM

This conversation was going on, somebody suggested a split, I started a thread. I imagine some are tired of it, or don't consider it worth talking about. In which case, don't post. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably not, but who knows?

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

robinson

21st July 2007, 11:45 PM

robinson

21st July 2007, 11:51 PM

HIV is found in chimps and monkeys. You mean SIV. Although HIV can infect chimps.

WASHINGTON (AP)-Twenty-five years after the first AIDS cases emerged, scientists have confirmed that the HIV virus plaguing humans really did originate in wild chimpanzees, in a corner of Cameroon.
http://www.livescience.com/health/ap_060525_hiv_trace.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm

(AP) The ancestry of the virus that caused the AIDS epidemic has been traced to two strains of virus found in monkeys in Africa.

The viruses probably passed into chimpanzees when the apes ate infected monkey meat, researchers say.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/health/main558432.shtml

robinson

21st July 2007, 11:54 PM

HIV isn't just one retrovirus. HIV mutates all the time, and there are multiple types.

HIV is a highly variable virus which mutates very readily. This means there are many different strains of HIV, even within the body of a single infected person.

Based on genetic similarities, the numerous virus strains may be classified into types, groups and subtypes.
http://www.avert.org/hivtypes.htm

JoeTheJuggler

21st July 2007, 11:59 PM

Can scientist "create", or make a retrovirus? One that can infect and reproduce in human beings?

Yes.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1781480
Reconstitution of an Infectious Human Endogenous Retrovirus

And is this supposed to be evidence that HIV was "created" by a scientist?

Seems like it's either completely irrelevant or there's a gigantic leap in logic.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:03 AM

HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.

Altman, Lawrence K. 1982 Clue Found on Homosexuals' Precancer Syndrome. In New York Times, Vol. NYT820610. New York, NY.

1981 History

Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) was a rare form of relatively benign cancer that tended to occur in older people. But by March 1981 at least eight cases of a more aggressive form of KS had occurred amongst young gay men in New York.2

At about the same time there was an increase, in both California and New York, in the number of cases of a rare lung infection Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP)3.
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

In July 1981, the New York Times reported an outbreak of a rare form of cancer among gay men in New York and California. This "gay cancer" as it was called at the time was later identified as Kaposi's Sarcoma, the face of AIDS. About the same time, emergency rooms in New York City began to see a rash of seemingly healthy young men presenting with fevers, flu-like symptoms, and a rare pneumonia called Pneumocystis. This was the beginning of what has become the biggest health care concern in modern history.
http://aids.about.com/od/newlydiagnosed/a/hivtimeline.htm

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:05 AM

JoeTheJuggler

22nd July 2007, 12:10 AM

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

Are you sure of this last statement? Do you mean that of the people infected with HIV, needle-users and homosexuals have higher rates of AIDS? Or do you simply mean that these populations are more at risk to get the virus to begin with?

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:10 AM

HIV was spread by medical procedures, (blood and needles)

At the beginning of the year, it was reported that a large number of children in Romanian hospitals and orphanages had become infected with HIV as a result of multiple blood transfusions and the reuse of needles. Jonathan Mann, the head of the WHO's Global programme on AIDS, noted that 'Eastern Europe is the new frontier for the AIDS epidemic'.69
http://www.avert.org/his87_92.htm

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:15 AM

Are you sure of this last statement? Do you mean that of the people infected with HIV, needle-users and homosexuals have higher rates of AIDS? Or do you simply mean that these populations are more at risk to get the virus to begin with?

Here we run into the crux of the matter. It is both. Unless you are African. Africa does not match Western Countries.

So in almost every country, except Africa, most HIV, most HIV that develops into AIDS, and HIV that results in AIDS that results in death, has been homobisexual men or I.V. drug users. This is what statistics show.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:18 AM

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:22 AM

And is this supposed to be evidence that HIV was "created" by a scientist?

No, that would be dumb. It s evidence of what it said.

Seems like it's either completely irrelevant or there's a gigantic leap in logic.

You were the one who made the leap. From the OP

"HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures."

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:28 AM

These are wrong.

HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.

Half of all dog blood samples obtained by the Veterinary Hospital of the University, California, and tested with the Western Blot reacted with one or more HIV recombinant proteins [gp120--21.5%, gp41--23%, p31--22%.p24--43%]
Strandstrom HV, Higgins JR, Mossie K, et al. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins.

For the record, there is no evidence that dogs can get HIV or AIIDS.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:34 AM

These are wrong.

HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.

May 11, 1987, The London Times
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1105346a2fa6e417b4.jpg

I would link to the article, but I can't find it online. It had an interview with Gallo himself, as well as WHO information, and some really interesting statistics to back up the story.

"The link between the WHO program and the epidemic in Africa is an interesting and important hypothesis.. ... if the hypothesis is correct it is a tragic situation and a warning that we cannot ignore."
- Dr. Robert Gallo

The AIDS epidemic may have been triggered by the mass vaccination campaign which eradicated smallpox, ...

The World Health Organization, which inspired a 13-year campaign, is studying new scientific evidence suggesting that immunization with the smallpox vaccine Vaccinia awakened the unsuspected, dormant human immuno defence virus infection (HIV),...
...I thought it was just a coincidence until we studied the latest findings about the reactions which can be caused by Vaccinia. Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation to the explosion of AIDS.... The greatest spread of HIV infection coincides with the most intense immunization program.. about 14,000 Haitians who were involved in the vaccination program then brought the disease home to the Caribbean.

Obviously, this story, and the resulting reaction to it, is going to be difficult to verify. As in, what is the truth?

robinson

22nd July 2007, 12:41 AM

These are wrong.

HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/

Wait a minute. Are you saying HIV CAN be contracted from lab primates? By a needlestick? Bites? How?

Are you aware that over 10,000 Chimps have been used in research labs? And they have been used for a very long time? For all kinds of experiments, including cancer and vaccine trials? As well as used to culture vaccines? Do you have any idea how many needlesticks, bites and culture accidents occurred?

If you believe HIV came from Chimps, and the lab chimps came from Africa .... and you can get HIV from chimps ... well... do you want to open that door? Think about it.

FreakBoy

22nd July 2007, 01:14 AM

So in almost every country, except those in Africa, most HIV, most HIV that develops into AIDS, and HIV that results in AIDS that results in death, has been homobisexual men or I.V. drug users.

I think this is what you meant.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 01:27 AM

robinson

22nd July 2007, 01:36 AM

I think this is what you meant.

I appreciate that. I'm trying to gather sources and put it together in a coherent manner. Remember, I believe HIV/AIDS to be a real and deadly problem. I'm also trying to avoid the most blatant sources that would either have extreme bias, or sound like conspiracy theory.

I've never come across such an amazing amount of crap and conflicting data in my entire life. And I don't understand a lot of the advanced microbiology stuff, and a lot of leads end up in dead ends. And a lot of the data is classified or hidden.

This started because somebody started the thread AIDS(hah), claiming HIV wasn't dangerous, and that AIDS was made up or something. It got complicated, and I would love to just know the facts man. I lost friends to AIDS, and I spent a lot of time in the 80s on the issue, in a professional way. Sorry, I can't tell you more, it would violate the personal information rule. But it was to prevent HIV from spreading, and I saw people with late stage AIDS up close and personal, and some died before the project was finished.

I'm trying to put things in individual post to make it easy to debunk or add to each data point.

I have no doubt some of them are in error, or incomplete. I don't claim to be an expert, or know more than everybody. In fact, everything is from other sources, I have no direct experimentation or original research at all.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 01:42 AM

HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.

That one is obviously not true for us, because so far nobody has censored or tried to stop a debate here. But are we the ruling class? :)

I'm pretty sure nobody is debating it on TV right now. Or in mainstream Journals. It really might be just a minor factoid, it didn't need to be included in the list really.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 01:56 AM

OK that is enough out of me. I apologize if it seems like too many post in a row. I'm sure there will be debunking, other sources, conflicting information and commentary to come.

As long as it is educational, I have no problem with any of that. And, you never know, somebody might change their mind. If nothing else, I've already learned a lot of new stuff, based on links provided.

Fascinating stuff. I had no idea how much DNA we seem to be using that came from a retrovirus "invading" our Genetic code.

And then there is stuff like this:
Researchers Discover That Sheep Need Retroviruses For Reproduction

Science Daily — A team of scientists from Texas A&M University and The University of Glasgow Veterinary School in Scotland has discovered that naturally occurring endogenous retroviruses are required for pregnancy in sheep.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911233630.htm

Whoa. That is wild, just wild stuff.

Deetee

22nd July 2007, 01:57 AM

Robinson,
I can only spare the time to post now and again, so I am a bit dismayed at the speed at which these threads move - as you say, some posts/threads require some relishing and research before responding, by which time there have been 3 more pages added, and no-one is paying attention any more.

Can I ask what made you compile your OP list?
Are these "facts" you wish to have confirmed/rebutted, or are they some of your own ideas on the subject?

HIV is complex, and "AIDS" more so. But I could compile a long list of misconceptions about almost anything - TB for example, or diabetes. I could extend your list over several pages if you wished, by including facts, theories and lies about the virus which have been presented in some way somewhere.

What does it achieve to produce such a list? Each point on your list could be tackled but at the risk of ballooning this thread enormously as people juggle back and forth between points. It will become very hard to follow.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 02:05 AM

Can I ask what made you compile your OP list?
Are these "facts" you wish to have confirmed/rebutted, or are they some of your own ideas on the subject?

If you follow the link, you can read how it came about. As I said, I want to know the truth. They are "facts" as reported on web pages and publications. Is it true or not? The group of diverse people here is much better than just my feeble mind at determining this.

And yes, the sheer volume is daunting. I'm not sure what the solution is. But I figure about two years and we could get a good idea of some of them.:D

HIV is complex, and "AIDS" more so. But I could compile a long list of misconceptions about almost anything - TB for example, or diabetes. I could extend your list over several pages if you wished, by including facts, theories and lies about the virus which have been presented in some way somewhere.

Please don't. I try to avoid the wilder claims and publications on this. I'm a skeptic after all. A thread on them could go in the Conspiracy section, or something.

What does it achieve to produce such a list? Each point on your list could be tackled but at the risk of ballooning this thread enormously as people juggle back and forth between points. It will become very hard to follow.

Yes, but that is the nature of the issue. At least one person has praised the distillation into a single post. As to what it achieves, that is up to each person to decide. My hope would be to help dismiss the most glaring errors in what is believed, based on either bad press, or propaganda, from both sides of the deabte.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 02:10 AM

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

Here is the crux of this thread. Do you get your information from someone you consider a good source? Is the information being presented by someone you have no clue about?

Science doesn't rely on any one person. Neither is it majority rule, though consensus does tend to indicate the evidence is being correctly interpreted. The essence of science is the evidence, not the people interpreting it. The evidence can be misinterpreted. Studies can be flawed. But the evidence is reality and it can eventually be determined in spite of false conclusions and poor study design and even random variation.

The bottom line is there is a reality out there. Since that is the case, when there is a controversy, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. It just means more research is needed to resolve the questions. Or it may mean that you simply need to sort out the evidence that is already available.

I'm not bothered by the fact people have, "gotten it wrong". That's a no brainer. What concerns me about the way robinson is presenting his view here is why does anyone rely on other people to get it right. I rely on me to know the principles of good science. I try to recognize the misleading persuasion techniques so I'm immunized against them. I always consider the bias of the person whose conclusions I am listening to when I evaluate their conclusions. And I can evaluate the reliability and expertise of someone I am listening to beyond their educational degree.

Robinson is pointing out all the scandals, all the woo headlines, all the conspiracy theories as if that means we cannot determine the truth. Or as if it means we need to argue about these less than credible versions of reality for which there will always be (in our lifetime anyway) human beings falsely claiming are the facts. Nonsense. Good science is all you need to look at. Who cares that people are making this claim or that claim. Since I can look at the evidence they based their conclusions on, at their biases which usually aren't hard to find, at how the other experts in the field view the conclusions, I'm not concerned about these supposed controversies.

If you can't tell the wheat from the chafe when you read all the clutter of information that is out there, if you can't tell who is right when you read about HIV conspiracy theories, then I guess you'd be in robinson's position. Relying on everyone else's interpretations of the evidence rather than on your evaluation of it.

Teach yourself to fish and you will not be relying on everyone else to tell you what reality is. It doesn't require expertise in every field. It merely requires a little expertise in recognizing BS when you see it.

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 02:50 AM

Strandstrom HV, Higgins JR, Mossie K, et al. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins.

For the record, there is no evidence that dogs can get HIV or AIIDS.
Well, this is typical of how things are misinterpreted by the layperson. You said that HIV could be detected in the blood of dogs. That is wrong because it is not HIV that is detected but antibodies that can cross-react witn HIV proteins. A common problem with western blot tests. Yet somehow the interpretation is that dog's are infected with HIV.

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 02:52 AM

May 11, 1987, The London Times
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1105346a2fa6e417b4.jpg

I would link to the article, but I can't find it online. It had an interview with Gallo himself, as well as WHO information, and some really interesting statistics to back up the story.

Obviously, this story, and the resulting reaction to it, is going to be difficult to verify. As in, what is the truth?
It is entirely supposition not supported by facts.

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 03:00 AM

Wait a minute. Are you saying HIV CAN be contracted from lab primates? By a needlestick? Bites? How?

Are you aware that over 10,000 Chimps have been used in research labs? And they have been used for a very long time? For all kinds of experiments, including cancer and vaccine trials? As well as used to culture vaccines? Do you have any idea how many needlesticks, bites and culture accidents occurred?

If you believe HIV came from Chimps, and the lab chimps came from Africa .... and you can get HIV from chimps ... well... do you want to open that door? Think about it.
Yes I am saying someone may be infected (not contracted) by an HIV+ lab chimps, through biting or when taking blood for example. But this is only restricted to those chimps that have been experimentally infected with HIV in the lab. So it is a very special scenario but a theoretical one none the less.

Where did you get the 10,000 figure from? Are you lumping chimps and monkeys together?

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 03:08 AM

Remember how this topic starts off. HIV is different depending on where you are. There are multiple strains, types, and it spreads differently in different regions, populations and countries.

It helps to remember HIV is not just a retrovirus. It is multiple things. Once we get to AIDS it gets much more complex.
No it is just a retrovirus. HTLV-I and HTLV-II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTLV) preceded its discovery, HIV-I (formerly HTLV-III) was just another T-lymphotropic retrovirus along with HIV-2.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 03:11 AM

May 11, 1987, The London Times
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1105346a2fa6e417b4.jpg
...Obviously, this story, and the resulting reaction to it, is going to be difficult to verify. As in, what is the truth?You are correct in that this is one harder for the layperson to sort out. A Google search for "aids smallpox vaccine the London times interview Dr Gallo" gets pages and pages of websites discussing and mostly promoting the false hypothesis that HIV is a man-made virus.

What I would recommend to someone trying to sift the truth out of this particular mass conspiracy bonanza is to recognize that genetic science maps the origin of species. So I would go to the genetic research data base to resolve this controversy. Every single genetic researcher is not going to be in on the government conspiracy or coverup. If HIV were truly the spawn of smallpox or bioweapons research, then the genetic fingerprints would be all over it.

Instead, the genetic research connects HIV to its natural origin.

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 03:14 AM

HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.

Altman, Lawrence K. 1982 Clue Found on Homosexuals' Precancer Syndrome. In New York Times, Vol. NYT820610. New York, NY.

http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

http://aids.about.com/od/newlydiagnosed/a/hivtimeline.htm
HIV infections didn't begin in USA, HIV started in Africa where it was called slim disease (http://http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2006/Spring/africa/temporary_miracle/slim_disease.cfm?subsection_id=17).

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 03:23 AM

HIV has made some people very very wealthy.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DEED61439F935A2575AC0A96F948260
http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/199803/msg00031.php
Again, I have a problem with how this statement is misleading. The articles you linked to are about drug companies making profits from the anti-retrovirals. Your statement "HIV has made some people very very wealthy." implies that individual people have personally made a lot of money.

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 03:26 AM

HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.

http://www.livescience.com/health/ap_060525_hiv_trace.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/health/main558432.shtml
It's not HIV in wild chimps. It's SIVcpz that is the source.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 03:34 AM

...

If you believe HIV came from Chimps, and the lab chimps came from Africa .... and you can get HIV from chimps ... well... do you want to open that door? Think about it.This is faulty logic.

The genetic evidence indicates HIV crossed the species barrier at some point in the past. It could have been as recently as 50 years ago. But that doesn't mean an animal host has been identified and it certainly doesn't mean chimpanzees are that animal host. I believe the African Green monkey is suspected, not chimpanzees but anyone interested can find out on the Net I'm sure.

In addition, people are not sharing injection needles with lab chimps nor are they having sex with chimps. HIV is transmitted from person to person and an animal reservoir is not implicated as playing a major role in the current epidemiology of HIV. So all the infected lab animals in the world are not the source of HIV, nor do lab animals pose a significant risk of spread to humans as a whole. An individual lab worker may be at risk, but that's it. And, you'd have to see how much viral replication went on in chimpanzees since they do not exhibit symptoms of AIDS when infected with HIV to know if individual lab workers are at risk. Lab workers are at risk of herpes B virus from chimpanzees and it hasn't crossed the species barrier and become a human to human infection.

Capsid

22nd July 2007, 03:38 AM

This is faulty logic.

The genetic evidence indicates HIV crossed the species barrier at some point in the past. It could have been as recently as 50 years ago. But that doesn't mean an animal host has been identified and it certainly doesn't mean chimpanzees are that animal host. I believe the African Green monkey is suspected, not chimpanzees but anyone interested can find out on the Net I'm sure.

In addition, people are not sharing injection needles with lab chimps nor are they having sex with chimps. HIV is transmitted from person to person and an animal reservoir is not implicated as playing a major role in the current epidemiology of HIV. So all the infected lab animals in the world are not the source of HIV, nor do lab animals pose a significant risk of spread to humans as a whole. An individual lab worker may be at risk, but that's it. And, you'd have to see how much viral replication went on in chimpanzees since they do not exhibit symptoms of AIDS when infected with HIV to know if individual lab workers are at risk. Lab workers are at risk of herpes B virus from chimpanzees and it hasn't crossed the species barrier and become a human to human infection.
Please see my posts #31 and #36.

geni

22nd July 2007, 04:14 AM

HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.

False:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9468138

geni

22nd July 2007, 04:17 AM

HIV has made some people very very wealthy.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DEED61439F935A2575AC0A96F948260
http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/199803/msg00031.php

No drugs that fight HIV have made money. If AZT had been good against cancer (what it was originaly meant to be able to do) I'm sure it would have made money like that.

geni

22nd July 2007, 04:23 AM

geni

22nd July 2007, 04:47 AM

HIV is a new retrovirus.
HIV resembles very old retroviruses.

Yes so?

HIV damages the immune system in some people.

Ebola kills some people

HIV is harmless in some people.

No just in some cases something else kills them first.

HIV mutates all the time, and there are multiple types.

Same true for Influenza.

HIV is spread by, sex, blood, and organ transplants.

Pretty much.

HIV has shown up in isolated Indian Tribes that have had no contact ever with the outside world.

No such tribes exist.

HIV has been fought about since it was "discovered".

Um same true for ebola

HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.

Thabo Mbeki would appear to be a member of any reasonable defintion of ruleing class.

HIV is a political, economic, social issue, as well as medical.

No it is a virus.

HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.

Evidences?

HIV is different in Africa than it is in America and Europe.

HIV-1 vs HIV-2 yes?

HIV statistics for many countries are estimates, and they have been shown to be wrong.

Not really.

HIV is known to damage CD4 receptor cells, and invade other tissue. How this happens is still not known.

Fairly well known. Mostly due to the gp160 spike interacting with various surface structures on the cell.

HIV is a Pandemic.
HIV, by causing AIDS, is a minor cause of death.

Life expactancy in a number of african countires has crashed.

HIV is the source of a lot of death.

Yes

HIV is a harmless passenger virus.

No

HIV is spread by heterosexual sex.

Yes

HIV is mostly spread by homobisexual sex and drug use.

Not for the last few years in britian.

HIV was spread through the blood supply before it was known about.

See the rates in hemophiliacs

HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.

Doesn't appear to have happened.

HIV has been found in tissue samples from a long time ago.
HIV was unknown before 1979.

50000 Quaoar was discovered in 2002. Prediscovery images go back to 1954

HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.

No it isn't

HIV is not spread by eating it.

Finding a way to eat viable virus would be tricky

HIV is spread by mothers milk.

Spread by brestfeeding. may be due to blood contact.

HIV is spread by needlestick accidents.

Killed a few researchers.

HIV was around for years before it was detected.
HIV has almost never infected a Surgeon or Doctor, except by sex or I.V. drug use.

Yes so? they take precations against any form of infection.

HIV can survive in blood stored for use, for a long time.
HIV can't survive outside the body for long.

Neither can RBCs normaly.

HIV is found in sperm and seminal fluid.
HIV is very hard to detect in sperm or seminal fluid.

Lots of things are hard to detect (extrasolar platents say) what of it?

HIV is spread through oral sex.

Again risk of blood contact.

HIV is in saliva.

At insanely low levels

HIV can't reproduce without human DNA.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys.

HIV related stuff appears in chimps.

HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.

First documented infection was 1959 in what is now DRC.

HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.

Simular to SIV.

HIV couldn't be created by science.

Doubtful it's too darn big for current tech.

Pipirr

22nd July 2007, 06:29 AM

I guess one needs to be an M.D. and be in HIV/AIDS field to know all these things.

Teach a man/woman to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.

You can teach people/learn for yourself how to evaluate the information they are confronted with/exposed to/seek out for its validity. You can teach people/learn for yourself how to spot a con job and how to spot woo. Then you do not need to be anything other than a skeptic.

--

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

Here is the crux of this thread. Do you get your information from someone you consider a good source? Is the information being presented by someone you have no clue about?

Science doesn't rely on any one person. Neither is it majority rule, though consensus does tend to indicate the evidence is being correctly interpreted. The essence of science is the evidence, not the people interpreting it. The evidence can be misinterpreted. Studies can be flawed. But the evidence is reality and it can eventually be determined in spite of false conclusions and poor study design and even random variation.

The bottom line is there is a reality out there. Since that is the case, when there is a controversy, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. It just means more research is needed to resolve the questions. Or it may mean that you simply need to sort out the evidence that is already available.

I'm not bothered by the fact people have, "gotten it wrong". That's a no brainer. What concerns me about the way robinson is presenting his view here is why does anyone rely on other people to get it right. I rely on me to know the principles of good science. I try to recognize the misleading persuasion techniques so I'm immunized against them. I always consider the bias of the person whose conclusions I am listening to when I evaluate their conclusions. And I can evaluate the reliability and expertise of someone I am listening to beyond their educational degree.

Robinson is pointing out all the scandals, all the woo headlines, all the conspiracy theories as if that means we cannot determine the truth. Or as if it means we need to argue about these less than credible versions of reality for which there will always be (in our lifetime anyway) human beings falsely claiming are the facts. Nonsense. Good science is all you need to look at. Who cares that people are making this claim or that claim. Since I can look at the evidence they based their conclusions on, at their biases which usually aren't hard to find, at how the other experts in the field view the conclusions, I'm not concerned about these supposed controversies.

If you can't tell the wheat from the chafe when you read all the clutter of information that is out there, if you can't tell who is right when you read about HIV conspiracy theories, then I guess you'd be in robinson's position. Relying on everyone else's interpretations of the evidence rather than on your evaluation of it.

Teach yourself to fish and you will not be relying on everyone else to tell you what reality is. It doesn't require expertise in every field. It merely requires a little expertise in recognizing BS when you see it.

Thanks, skeptigirl. Very well put.

Deetee

22nd July 2007, 06:31 AM

Re types of HIV:
There are 2 types- HIV-1 and HIV-2
There are 3 subtypes of HIV-1 (M, N and O)
There are at least 9 subgroups of M, plus all recombinants.
Here is a useful guide (http://www.avert.org/hivtypes.htm).

ETA
Here (http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk/papers/Rambaut%20et%20al%20(2001)%20Nature.pdf) is an article on the phylogeny of HIV
Here (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/african_green_monkeys_and_the_evolution_of_hiv) is some new data on Green monkeys and SIV

robinson

22nd July 2007, 03:50 PM

HIV comes from monkeys and chimps. Myth? Fact? Theory?

Wertheim and Worobey suggest various SIVs arose because SIVs were transmitted horizontally, between primate species, and evolved into a new host-specific form only after transmission.

HIV arose from chimpanzee SIV that was transmitted to humans, probably when people had contact with chimpanzee blood from hunting and butchering the animals, Worobey said.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/african_green_monkeys_and_the_evolution_of_hiv

robinson

22nd July 2007, 04:13 PM

"You can teach people/learn for yourself how to evaluate the information they are confronted with/exposed to/seek out for its validity. You can teach people/learn for yourself how to spot a con job and how to spot woo. Then you do not need to be anything other than a skeptic."

I'm not sure who said that, because it is nested in two quotes, but it illustrates a good point. An anonymous person on the Internet is telling me I can teach people -" how to evaluate the information they are confronted with", and "how to spot a con job and how to spot woo".

Where is the information on how to do that? In this case? Considering the topic, and the OP, what is this anonymous person telling me, you, to do? And how do you verify a source is correct?

How do you determine data is valid, and how do you interpret it? The thing that is obvious to me, is that some people do nothing but counter statements, try and debunk what they already believe is wrong, or something, but they never add anything to the list.

If you know the facts about HIV, post your list. It would be interesting to see what you think are the facts about HIV.

Well, this is typical of how things are misinterpreted by the layperson. You said that HIV could be detected in the blood of dogs. That is wrong because it is not HIV that is detected but antibodies that can cross-react witn HIV proteins. A common problem with western blot tests. Yet somehow the interpretation is that dog's are infected with HIV.

Nope. The data was clear. HIV test don't detect HIV, they detect anti-bodies, and they are not to be trusted. If you hear somebody claim you have HIV based on a Western blot, they are full of it.

No test detects HIV. Even the most advanced testing doesn't detect HIV. The manufacturers own literature tells you this.

It's not HIV in wild chimps. It's SIVcpz that is the source.

It certainly makes for livelier stories than the scientific consensus: that the AIDS virus crossed from African chimpanzees into local tribesmen who ate their meat.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n759/a05.html?116

This is one of the most persistent and annoying bit in the muddled data stream. Some sources say HIV came from monkeys to chimps to tribesmen to America. Some sources say it can't be transmitted from wild or captive Chimps used in research labs to lab workers, or from tame chimps used in movies and Circus acts and zoos. Remember, we are talking about in the 100 years before HIV was discovered.

No live Chimp (that all came from Africa), ever had HIV or could have transmitted it to Western workers, only in Africa could dead chimps transmit it to hunters. Now, rather than spew some nonsense about ... well .. whatever, why not try and address the obvious point here.

Can both those "facts" be true? In 1998 it was reported that when a new experiment was being started to test a HIV vaccine on Chimps, the lab tested all the Chimps first, for HIV, to make sure they didn't have it.

The experiment was canceled when it was found they test animals all had HIV already, even though they were all lab raised, sterile chimps, bred and raised for a lab test. The story caused a bit of a stir, then quietly vanished.

Do you remember that story? Can you find that story online?

robinson

22nd July 2007, 04:19 PM

kellyb

22nd July 2007, 05:05 PM

No test detects HIV. Even the most advanced testing doesn't detect HIV.

PCR does.

geni

22nd July 2007, 05:14 PM

Can both those "facts" be true? In 1998 it was reported that when a new experiment was being started to test a HIV vaccine on Chimps, the lab tested all the Chimps first, for HIV, to make sure they didn't have it.

The experiment was canceled when it was found they test animals all had HIV already, even though they were all lab raised, sterile chimps, bred and raised for a lab test. The story caused a bit of a stir, then quietly vanished.

Do you remember that story? Can you find that story online?

You are the one makeing the claim you find it.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 06:03 PM

Please see my posts #31 and #36.I knew I should have checked my facts. It was even in a link I posted in the other thread on this topic.

The origin of AIDS and HIV. (http://www.avert.org/origins.htm)...Until 1999, the closest counterpart that had been identified was SIVcpz, the SIV found in chimpanzees. However, this virus still had certain significant differences from HIV.
What happened in 1999?

In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of Alabama1 announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa.

The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans.

Their final findings were published two years later in Nature magazine2. In this article, they concluded that wild chimps had been infected simultaneously with two different simian immunodeficiency viruses which had "viral sex" to form a third virus that could be passed on to other chimps and, more significantly, was capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS.

These two different viruses were traced back to a SIV that infected red-capped mangabeys and one found in greater spot-nosed monkeys. They believe that the hybridisation took place inside chimps that had become infected with both strains of SIV after they hunted and killed the two smaller species of monkey.

They also concluded that all three 'groups' of HIV-1 - namely Group M, N and O (see our strains and subtypes page for more information on these) - came from the SIV found in P. t. troglodytes, and that each group represented a separate crossover 'event' from chimps to humans....

...WHEN?

During the last few years it has become possible not only to determine whether HIV is present in a blood or plasma sample, but also to determine the particular subtype of the virus. Studying the subtype of virus of some of the earliest known instances of HIV infection can help to provide clues about the time it first appeared in humans and its subsequent evolution.

Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 has suggested8 that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s; much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period - perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.

In January 2000 however, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa . The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution. If accurate, it means that HIV was in existence before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

What about HIV-2? When did that get passed to humans?

Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers led by Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme, published a report9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vannedamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly frequented local prostitutes.The genome and genetic sequences of all life on Earth contain information which reveals a map you can trace backward to the origin of any organism. We may not have all the data on every organism, but it is available once we get around to looking.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 06:48 PM

"You can teach people/learn for yourself how to evaluate the information they are confronted with/exposed to/seek out for its validity. You can teach people/learn for yourself how to spot a con job and how to spot woo. Then you do not need to be anything other than a skeptic."

I'm not sure who said that, because it is nested in two quotes, but it illustrates a good point. An anonymous person on the Internet is telling me I can teach people -" how to evaluate the information they are confronted with", and "how to spot a con job and how to spot woo".

Where is the information on how to do that? In this case? Considering the topic, and the OP, what is this anonymous person telling me, you, to do? And how do you verify a source is correct?

How do you determine data is valid, and how do you interpret it? The thing that is obvious to me, is that some people do nothing but counter statements, try and debunk what they already believe is wrong, or something, but they never add anything to the list. I'll address this in a bit, it will be a long post. In fact, I think I'll just start a new thread. It's a very important topic.

If you know the facts about HIV, post your list. It would be interesting to see what you think are the facts about HIV.In 25 words or less??????? I'll just continue along with the other thread posters debunking your false claims of facts. If you have a specific question, I'd be happy to answer it, including supporting evidence.

Nope. The data was clear. HIV test don't detect HIV, they detect anti-bodies, and they are not to be trusted. If you hear somebody claim you have HIV based on a Western blot, they are full of it.

No test detects HIV. Even the most advanced testing doesn't detect HIV. The manufacturers own literature tells you this.You make the false assumption that tests are not subject to means of verifying that they do indeed reveal what they claim to reveal. Not to mention there are direct tests for the HIVirus along with antibody tests.

If you want to claim that the vast amount of research into the antibody antigen function of immune systems or the development of thousands of pathogen specific antibody tests are useless, worthless, unreliable or whatever other nonsense you are claiming here, I suggest you never bother seeing a doctor or health practitioner again. Since we all just practice junk medicine using bogus tests why waste your time?

I think the majority of people recognize the successes of modern medicine even if you don't.

...This is one of the most persistent and annoying bit in the muddled data stream. Some sources say HIV came from monkeys to chimps to tribesmen to America. Some sources say it can't be transmitted from wild or captive Chimps used in research labs to lab workers, or from tame chimps used in movies and Circus acts and zoos. Remember, we are talking about in the 100 years before HIV was discovered.

No live Chimp (that all came from Africa), ever had HIV or could have transmitted it to Western workers, only in Africa could dead chimps transmit it to hunters. Now, rather than spew some nonsense about ... well .. whatever, why not try and address the obvious point here.

Can both those "facts" be true? In 1998 it was reported that when a new experiment was being started to test a HIV vaccine on Chimps, the lab tested all the Chimps first, for HIV, to make sure they didn't have it.

The experiment was canceled when it was found they test animals all had HIV already, even though they were all lab raised, sterile chimps, bred and raised for a lab test. The story caused a bit of a stir, then quietly vanished.

Do you remember that story? Can you find that story online?See my above post. Like I said, genes are a record of evolution and as such can be used to look backward to find the origin or approximate origin of any living organisms. We are only limited by the fact all the genomes are not yet recorded.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 07:01 PM

I think the majority of people recognize the successes of modern medicine even if you don't.

That's what it all boils down to for me: basic common sense. The HIV/AIDS pseudoskeptics make claims that seem to come down to an assertion that the entire scientific and medical community uses a set of standards and procedures for 99.99999% of what they do, that has resulted in enormous advances in knowledge about disease and treatment...

... and then they threw out all of it and just made stuff up when it comes to HIV, defrauded the entire world, and they are all in on the conspiracy. It is, of course, possible... but with the pathetic "evidence" provided by the woo side of this, it can be safely filed away alongside all the other conspiracy theory stuff.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 07:04 PM

While it may seem dumb to harp on one single factoid, a minor thing, like the source of HIV, the Pandemic virus killing millions worldwide, but call me silly then. I get like that.

Somebody claims HIV came from chimps to hunters then spread worldwide through sex. You might think something that huge, a statement like that, would require extraordinary proof. Would you accept a whopper like that without vast amounts of evidence? Well, if the Media tells you so, I guess it is so.

What do scientist working in the HIV fields say about it? What do top researchers, top Doctors who know stuff say? Does everybody buy that story?The article I linked to above discussing the origin of HIV does a thorough job of addressing the theories from the conspiracy theorists to some of the most recent research.

The way science works is answers to questions such as where did HIV originate start out with a lot of hypotheses. And when it involves human tragedy, politics, big events, and such you also get wild conspiracy theories.

As research continues, theories begin to get ruled out. Scientists don't automatically dismiss conspiracy theories but if there is no evidence supporting them they tend to get rejected early on. Some of them warrant investigation and scientists will usually pursue viable hypotheses regardless of how crazy. But the key is 'viability'.

Eventually the evidence gets more and more focused and refined as only the studies pursuing the actual correct hypothesis remains. That can be a short time as with SARS, or it can take years as with HIV. The difference is the tools to investigate HIV were just coming on the scene in the late 70s. Tracing the genetic roots of HIV wasn't possible until more refined laboratory procedures were developed. When SARS emerged, the tools to investigate existed.

In the investigation of HIV, enough evidence has now accumulated to rule out most of the junk you bring up in this thread. You are taking decades old hypotheses and presenting them as if nothing further has been discovered which rules those ideas out. And if you read the origin of HIV information in my previous post, you can look into the genetic trail and confirm that it is much closer to if not arrived at a definitive answer.

That's what science does, robinson. Research accumulates until definitive answers are arrived at.

JoeEllison

22nd July 2007, 07:39 PM

I'll address this in a bit, it will be a long post. In fact, I think I'll just start a new thread. It's a very important topic.

Please do. It is bound to be a great thread.

robinson

22nd July 2007, 09:32 PM

From the OP-
HIV is a new retrovirus.
HIV resembles very old retroviruses.
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.
HIV has been found in tissue samples from a long time ago.
HIV was around for years before it was detected.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys.
HIV is theorized to have started in Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps.
HIV is believed to have started from monkeys and chimps infecting Africans.
HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures.

All of those could have come from the article linked to

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of Alabama1 announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa.

So, if we accept this article as Gospel, we can state a number of facts based on it.

To add to the original list,
HIV can be tested for in frozen tissue, or stored tissue samples, and the Genetic code can be determined.

The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans.

HIV came from Chimps
HIV crossed species.
SIV mutated into HIV.

Their final findings were published two years later in Nature magazine2. In this article, they concluded that wild chimps had been infected simultaneously with two different simian immunodeficiency viruses which had "viral sex" to form a third virus that could be passed on to other chimps and, more significantly, was capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS.

Retroviruses can be combined to form new retroviruses, without any help from science.
Does this mean it can be done in the lab as well?

These two different viruses were traced back to a SIV that infected red-capped mangabeys and one found in greater spot-nosed monkeys. They believe that the hybridisation took place inside chimps that had become infected with both strains of SIV after they hunted and killed the two smaller species of monkey.

HIV came from monkeys and chimps. Retroviruses can from new retroviruses, all on their own.

They also concluded that all three 'groups' of HIV-1 - namely Group M, N and O (see our strains and subtypes page for more information on these) - came from the SIV found in P. t. troglodytes, and that each group represented a separate crossover 'event' from chimps to humans....

HIV isn't just one retrovirus. It is a combination of retroviruses.
HIV has spontaneously been created multiple times'
HIV isn't just one retrovirus.

During the last few years it has become possible not only to determine whether HIV is present in a blood or plasma sample, but also to determine the particular subtype of the virus. Studying the subtype of virus of some of the earliest known instances of HIV infection can help to provide clues about the time it first appeared in humans and its subsequent evolution.

All tissue and blood samples can be tested for HIV now.
The subtype allows theorizing about where it came from.

Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

Any tissue sample can be tested for HIV.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 has suggested8 that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s; much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period - perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.

HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
It was present many years ago, but never spread like an STD, much less the current Pandemic HIV.

In January 2000 however, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa . The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution. If accurate, it means that HIV was in existence before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

A computer model replaced actually testing old tissue samples.
HIV is theorized to have started longer ago.

What about HIV-2? When did that get passed to humans?

Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

HIV came from monkeys.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus.

In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers led by Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme, published a report9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vannedamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so).

HIV came from monkeys.
HIV doesn't make monkeys sick.
SIV isn't HIV, except that it becomes HIV, somehow.
HIV doesn't make monkeys sick.

Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly frequented local prostitutes.

HIV came from monkeys. Except for the kind that came from Chimps.
HIV is spread by medical procedures, (Blood and shared needles)
HIV is transmitted by sex, sometimes.

So based on this paper, SIV becomes HIV, but only in Africa, from monkeys and Chimps, never in Labs or research centers, that use monkeys and Chimps from Africa.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) group N from Cameroon is phylogenetically close, in env, to the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) cpz-gab from Gabon and SIVcpz-US of unknown geographic origin. We screened 29 wild-born Cameroonian chimpanzees and found that three (Cam3, Cam4, and Cam5) were positive for HIV-1 by Western blotting.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/1/529

"were positive for HIV-1 by Western blotting"
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.

No no! It isn't HIV, it is SIV! It somehow becomes HIV!

The most plausible origin of HIV-1 group M is an SIV lineage currently represented by SIVcpz isolated from the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/12/1986

HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.

Now wait a minute. Nobody challenged that fact in the OP. HIV is almost the same as SIV? And with rapid mutation (by using our DNA), it turned into HIV?

To better study HIV/AIDS in animal models, researchers have created various HIV-SIV chimeras, viruses whose genome partly comes from HIV and partly from SIV. These are often referred to as SHIV.

HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV have been created for research.
HIV is easy to modify in a lab.
HIV strains are created by scientist to study it.

In case anyone feels their head might explode at this point, I understand.

Language is important.

Precedent for this has been set in our laboratory in the past by creation of neutralization-sensitive strains of SIV239 with elimination of carbohydrates in the first and second variable loops of the env spike. My focus has been to remove glycosylation sites that are located in the better-conserved core of the spike proximal to the receptor binding sites. The mutant strains we have created, missing glycans in the env core either singly or in combination, demonstrate the remarkable tolerance that SIV has to removal of conserved glycans within its core.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfapps/research/data_admin/Site366/mainpageS366P0.html

HIV is easy to modify in a lab.
HIV strains are created by scientist to study it

Dabljuh

22nd July 2007, 09:51 PM

kellyb

22nd July 2007, 10:21 PM

PCR detects DNA. Not infectious HI-Virions.
You can't have the DNA without the virons, though.

So, there's no test that detects infectious HI-Virions.
Isolation and electron microscopy are pretty close.

No infectious HI-Virions have been extracted from human tissue/blood (But some could be procured after growing the blood in the laboratory) which is of course a complaint of some denialists.

Well, the denialists should whine about the "junk science" behind all viral and bacterial cultures, then, coz that's just the way it goes.

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 10:43 PM

Regarding the tests
ELISA detects antibodies to HI-Proteins. Not infectious HI-Virions
Western Blot detects proteins. Not infectious HI-Virions.
PCR detects DNA. Not infectious HI-Virions.

So, there's no test that detects infectious HI-Virions. No infectious HI-Virions have been extracted from human tissue/blood (But some could be procured after growing the blood in the laboratory) which is of course a complaint of some denialists.Regarding your lack of knowledge regarding HIV detection tests, first, there are both HIV RNA and HIV DNA tests. One looks at the virus genetic material and the other looks at viral presence by finding the DNA which the HIV makes. Second, there are 2 ways in which RNA is detected so PCR is not the only way. And third, are you going to argue in ignorance that a fingerprint or someone's DNA is not evidence either?

...DNA and RNA PCR as being complimentary. (http://thebody.org/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Archive/TestingHIV/Q6270.html) After acute infection, one sees a massive amount of replication within the lymph glands. This produces lots of infected cells, which in turn are producing lots of viral particles that are put out into the plasma. Within a few days to a couple of weeks, one can detect infected cells (HIV DNA PCR) and cell free plasma virus (HIV RNA PCR) in the blood. The levels are usually so high, that it is relatively easy to find infection by either test. Once antibodies are produced, the amount of infected cells (DNA) and plasma viral load (RNA) goes down by some amount (different in every person).

HIV1 RNA & DNA PCR TEST(Viral Load) (http://stdweb.com/HIVAMP.htm) Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor
In PCR-based assays, HIV RNA is converted into DNA by reverse transcription followed by PCR amplification of the DNA. The PCR product is detected by hybridization with an enzyme-conjugated probe specific for HIV-1, and quantified by reacting bound probe with a substrate that undergoes a color change, as in an ELISA.
At present the Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor (RT-PCR) assay is the only one approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and is the most widely used in clinical practice.

Quantiplex
HIV-1 RNA The branched DNA assay uses non-enzymatic means to amplify the signal from HIV RNA. In this assay, viral RNA is "captured" by hybridization to complementary oligonucleotides that are bound to the wells of a microtiter plate. The captured viral RNA target is then hybridized to branched oligonucleotides (hence the name "branched" DNA assay), which in turn are hybridized to enzyme-conjugated oligonucleotides that can be quantified as above.

HIV-1 RNA QT
The NASBA assay is similar in concept to the RT-PCR assay except that reactions occur at one temperature.
------
Results of the three commercially available quantitative HIV-1 RNA assays are highly correlated but not interchangeable so it is important that the same method be used each time.

You are making stupid arguments and they only serve reinforce your own beliefs. They are not convincing to anyone else. So if you want to tell us which mistakes in logic you are using to fabricate your fantasy, then post away. If on the other hand, you were actually interested in why people with HIV actually have a chance now with modern medical science, research and care, then stop with the nonsensical distortions and get a clue.

The lab tests are not made in someone's garage and then marketed. Manufacturers must present evidence the labs test what they say they test. If they didn't work there are thousands of people all over the world from physicians to competing lab test manufacturers who are going to notice and say something.

You never answered how many people were in on this conspiracy fantasy you have?

skeptigirl

22nd July 2007, 10:51 PM

I'm not sure what your point is robinson? Are you trying to resolve which of your beliefs are valid and which aren't?

robinson

22nd July 2007, 11:21 PM

HIV infections didn't begin in USA, HIV started in Africa where it was called slim disease (http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2006/Spring/africa/temporary_miracle/slim_disease.cfm?subsection_id=17).

Bad link. I fixed it for you in the quote above.

http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2006/Spring/africa/temporary_miracle/slim_disease.cfm?subsection_id=17

Fascinating stuff. I hope we haven't forgot who started this discussion. You know, the person who claimed HIV wasn't causing AIDS and that stuff. One could hope that an educational experience may have occurred by now, if one could actually slog through this ever growing pile of, well, evidence of sorts.

HIV is pretty well understood, even if we don't know yet exactly how it damages the immune system. There is little doubt among Medical experts that it is a dangerous thing to contract, and that it can make you sick, by decreasing your ability to fight off diseases, and that for some, it is going to lead to death.

I think it would be folly, and perhaps dangerous to try and convince anyone otherwise, based on what we know.

And yet, at the same time, it isn't a death sentence anymore, and with good medical care and nutrition and other important factors, you may not even get sick. At least in the next twenty years. Time will tell.

Each year HIV+ people make it with no symptoms, the knowledge grows. Some people appear to be immune, (HIV IS A HARMLESS PASSENGER VIRUS), some people die, (HIV LEADS TO AIDS WHICH LEADS TO DEATH), some people don't even become infected, (HIV is almost never spread by female to female sex.), and I'm sure there is more to come.

I'm not sure what your point is robinson? Are you trying to resolve which of your beliefs are valid and which aren't?

I'm actually making a lot of points, and with the help of a few people I've learned a bunch of new stuff.

I never said I believed everything, in fact I said in the OP,

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

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

Of course some of them can't be true, because they seem to directly contradict each other.

Yet, the facts show one thing clearly.

There are multiple problems under the heading HIV/AIDS. Obviously there are two main HIV strains, or types, with sub groups. And there is, and has been, different symptoms associated with different populations, especially when it comes to transmission and suffering.

If you compare Cuba with Botswana, you find HIV/AIDS to be a different problem.

And note that we haven't even started on the AIDS part of the thread yet.
What spawned this dubious topic was the thought that maybe two people can be right, even when it seems impossible.

To a patient with twenty years of HIV infection, no symptoms, no medications being used, who enjoys good health, HIV is different, than to a malnourished, malaria infested, starving child, with HIV and AIDS, who is going to die in a few years, from an immune system that can't keep up.

One could see HIV as harmless, another it is a Pandemic incurable disease. Even if it is a related retrovirus that is detected in both people.

This is what I meant by HIV isn't just one thing, it is many. Language is important, especially when attempting to gently coax somebody to think about things. Insults, derision, spewing forth emotional or psychological evaluations, while it might make you feel good, does little to advance science or education.

We have also learned that some of the old claims and beliefs about HIV may just be myths, kept alive by confusion or other factors. Some of the new beliefs about HIV may also be myths. As somebody said, theories change to fit new information. The more valid, verifiable data you can look at, the better chance an intelligent person can be free of faulty logic, bad reasoning, or just emotional responses.

The problems with HIV test and the criminal use of infected blood supplies should have been dealt with right from the start, but that is rarely the case when it comes to huge amounts of money, and a political hot potato.

The vaccine issue should have been investigated in an open fashion, and the information from research labs that is classified would have laid to rest many of the fears people had, and some still have.

But it would also have incriminated the guilty, and cost some people profits.

The fears generated by bad science and religious nutjobs created doubt and distrust when current announcements are made. Especially to those with HIV.

And I wanted to focus on Cuba, the best source of hard science and real success in dealing with HIV on the entire planet.

Is it long and complicated? Of course. Can you explain it all in a post or two? Of course not. Is it easy to understand? No way. But every real input from a smart person here, every explanation and link adds just a little bit. Remember this, the people who post are the minority. The reader, the lurker, the curious and the ignorant, they gain more from one reasonable post, with real data and a good explanation of how to understand it, than they do from a thousand insipid insults.

I'm about ready to post a new HIV list, myths VS facts, but knowing how many people won't log in until Monday, and how much there is to wade trough, it might be best to wait a few days. Let some other people input and debunk or support the questionable points.

What do ya say to that?

autumn1971

23rd July 2007, 01:34 AM

Robinson, if you replace the word HIV (I know, it's actually an acronym, and now I've spent more time explaining that I am aware of the difference than I would have spent just typing "acronym") in your post #60 with the word "flu", you would be correct as well. A malnourished child with the Flu is a different patient than a wealthy, first-world child with the flu. HIV, however, while responding to intense medical intervention, is very different because it never goes away. HIV is not a passing infection that may be warded off for a while, ever after defeated. HIV has not been shown to ever be defeated (that boxer dude is an interesting case, but parsimony suggests that he is simply using fraudulent samples), and if not kept in check, HIV will always eventually cause AIDS. Yes, radical drug regimens have restored a life of sorts to many HIV+ people, but like metastatic cancer, every time a person decides that a temporary return to normalcy implies their overall welness and suspends medical care, that person soon dies.
One more point, as you are not one of the truly insane "HIV treatment causes AIDS" crowd, the greatly increased life-expectancy of HIV+ people is due exclusively to the assumption that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

Capsid

23rd July 2007, 01:44 AM

Nope. The data was clear. HIV test don't detect HIV, they detect anti-bodies, and they are not to be trusted. If you hear somebody claim you have HIV based on a Western blot, they are full of it.

No test detects HIV. Even the most advanced testing doesn't detect HIV. The manufacturers own literature tells you this.

I think the problem here is a lack of understanding of the terminology. It is very precise. Robinson, you said in your OP "HIV can be detected in the blood of dogs" HIV refers to the virion itself specifically. So that statement is wrong. What is correct is that "anti-HIV antibodies can be detected in dog's blood"

And as skeptigirl has pointed out, there are two PCR tests which detect HIV. One detects the RNA inside virions and other detects the integrated DNA (the provirus) inside the host cells.

Deetee

23rd July 2007, 03:10 AM

Robinson, your conclusions seem to sum up the situation pretty well. I think it is wrong to get too hung up on which subtype of retrovirus is similar to another - if one thing, the research done in the last 10 years shows that this is a complex and evolving field. Assumptions made 10 years ago may not hold true when looked at with today's technology for looking at molecular viral epidemiology. The retroviruses are certainly a bit schitzoid, if nothing else.
And we haven't even got onto the topic of other mammalian retroviruses (FIV, BIV etc) or the thorny issue of endogenous retroviruses and what they mean, what they do and how they arose. (no - please don't go there...)

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/1/529

"were positive for HIV-1 by Western blotting"
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.

No no! It isn't HIV, it is SIV! It somehow becomes HIV!

An interesting paper. I need not remind you that "were positive for HIV-1 by Western blotting" is not the same as saying "were HIV-1 infected"
The closer related the viruses are, the more cross reactivity on tests for antibody. The exact relatedness depends on studying the molecular genetics, which is what they have tried to do in this paper.

This paper also shows how analysing the genotypic information in just 4 chimps can yield lots of new info (and generate publications!). What on earth might they find if they could sequence 100 chimps? Something that would make their conclusions here seem invalid? Possibly. Someone will eventually sort things out I guess.

I am afraid I do not know enough of the field of retroviruses to know if this paper's results are of low significance on the wow scale, highly significant or even if it has been confirmed or refuted since it was published (2000). That is one of the problems picking out individual papers that are thrown up form long ago on pubmed. One lacks the context.

This paper is only one of thousands. A search in just this one journal (Journal of Virology) for both SIV and HIV in the title or abstract within the last 10 years throws up over 200 papers (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/search?volume=&firstpage=&DOI=&author1=&author2=&titleabstract=HIV+AND+SIV&fulltext=&tocsectionid=all&fmonth=Feb&fyear=1997&tmonth=Aug&tyear=2007&hits=10&sendit=Search&fdatedef=1+February+1967&tdatedef=1+August+2007), all available in full text. Enjoy, (and I'll catch your next post in 2009!)

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) groups
M, N, and O are considered to result from at least three independent
introductions of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) cpz
from chimpanzees into the human population (23). Four subspecies
of chimpanzees are currently recognized: Pan troglodytes
verus and P. t. vellerosus in West Africa, P. t. troglodytes in
Central Africa, and P. t. schweinfurthii in East Africa (6, 17).
The three SIVcpz viruses so far fully characterized originate
either from P. t. troglodytes (SIVcpz-gab1 and SIVcpz-US) or
from P. t. schweinfurthii (SIVcpz-ant) (4). SIVcpz-ant was isolated
in former Zaire (19) and does not cluster within HIV-1
group M, N, or O (4). The closest relatives of HIV-1 have been
found in P. t. troglodytes, and it has been suggested that this
subspecies is the primary reservoir of HIV-1 (4). SIVcpz-gab1
was thus isolated from a wild P. t. troglodytes chimpanzee
caught in Gabon (20), and is particularly related to HIV-1 N in
env (23). The more recently characterized SIVcpz-US, from a
P. t. troglodytes born in 1959 in an unknown Central African
country, is even more closely related to HIV-1 N in env (4). It
has been suggested that HIV-1 N arose through ancient recombination
events between SIVcpz-US-related viruses and
other SIVcpz strains in P. t. troglodytes, and subsequent transmission
to humans (4). If this is so, SIVcpz viruses phylogenetically
strongly related to HIV-1 group N might circulate in
the same geographic area as group N viruses. All HIV-1 N
viruses so far isolated originate from Cameroon (23). However,
it is not known whether chimpanzees from Cameroon
harbor SIVcpz viruses or whether these viruses are related to
HIV-1. In addition, Cameroon is a major epidemiological center
of group O viruses, but SIV clustering with group O (or
group M) has not been identified yet. This prompted us to
screen wild-born chimpanzees from Cameroon in order to look
for HIV-1-related viruses in these apes.

Phylogenetic analysis of mtDNA from the three source
chimpanzees in our study showed that two animals (Cam3 and
Cam5) belonged to P. t. troglodytes (Fig. 3). The third seropositive
chimpanzee (Cam4) did not cluster with P. t. troglodytes
but with the P. t. vellerosus lineage (Fig. 3). This classification
of Cam4 based on the mtDNA sequence fits with the geographic
origin of the chimpanzee (Southwest Cameroon). This
is the first time that a West African chimpanzee has been
shown to be infected by SIVcpz. Serological and genetic analysis
suggest that Cam4 was infected by Cam3 in captivity,
although we cannot totally exclude that the virus crossed from
Cam4 to Cam3. It is the first documented case of cross-subspecies
transmission of SIVcpz in captivity. As both apes were
males, transmission might have occurred through biting, a
common route of lentivirus transmission in animals (18),
and not by sexual contact. (but then you never know...!)
These data also confirm
that P. t. troglodytes is a natural host of HIV-1-related viruses,
since Cam5, and maybe also Cam3, was infected in the wild.

Although HIV-1 group M- and O-related viruses have not
been identified yet in chimpanzees (or in any other nonhuman
primate species), these African apes are clearly the best candidates
for explaining the origin of HIV-1. HIV-2, as is generally
agreed, originates from SIVsm present in a West African
nonhuman primate, the sooty mangabey (5). The ancestors of
SIVcpz and SIVsm, in contrast, are still totally unknown. The
reservoir of SIVcpz and SIVsm (if it still exists) would be a
further key to understanding the origin of these primate lentiviruses.
In conclusion, we demonstrate that SIVcpz and closely related
HIV-1 viruses currently cocirculate in both wild chimpanzees
and humans from the same geographic area, providing
a further step towards the missing link between HIV-1 and
related viruses in nonhuman primates.

krazyKemist

23rd July 2007, 01:21 PM

HIV is spread by mothers milk.
Spread by brestfeeding. may be due to blood contact.

Maybe. But actually, it may be more because the baby's stomach is not that impervious to viruses during the first 12 hours or so after birth, which allows the mother to pass him/her antibodies through a special kind of milk called collostrum. This way the baby is protected for the first few months of life, during which its immune system is not fully operational. Antibodies for HIV may also be passed this way of course, which makes the Western Blot test unreliable for some time on infants born of HIV+ mothers.

the Kemist

robinson

23rd July 2007, 05:14 PM

These are wrong.

Your words in italics, my additional commentary in Bold.

HIV is found in chimps and monkeys. You mean SIV. Although HIV can infect chimps.
Nope. Both chimps and monkeys have been injected with many HIV strains.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick. You mean SIV, see above.
Nope. HIV injected into any primate has not caused them to develop AIDS. HIV is found after infection, it just doesn't cause AIDS.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus. Maybe you are confusing with HIV-2, HTLV-I and HTLV-II? For most purposes people mean HIV-1 when they say HIV.
Nope. Evidence shows there are multitudes of HIV retroviruses. Just the ones created for research alone number in the hundreds.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
Yep, because the test are fooled. Only very advanced test can detect that no HIV actually exist.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
Yep. Gallo for one, but there are many others.
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
Questionable.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
Unless you count SIV, which is very similar, and believed to be the source of HIV.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
In primates and people who are immune, it a harmless passenger virus
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
Yep. So can SV40 and Primate Foamy virus.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research. Which viruses specifically?
Good question. Ask Gallo, he knows all about it, having worked with retroviruses since 1960, including ones from primates, modified for research. Source:
HISTORICAL ESSAY: The Early Years of HIV/AIDS
Gallo
Science 29 November 2002: 1728
Retroviruses are found in every mammal species, and cats have their own FIV, which behaves almost exactly like HIV, except in cats only.
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.
Again, it is because the test show false positives. Except Mosquitoes, if they suck infected blood, HIV is found in their guts.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys. Chimps only.
Questionable.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
That one appears to be a myth.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
Technically, not true. AIDS was late in showing up, but HIV is claimed to have infected Africans long ago.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps.
False. HIV can be contracted from lab animals.
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures. It was spread by infected factor VIII clotting factors in haemophiliacs.
And blood transfusion, and shared needles, and organ transplants, and medicines made from infected organs or blood.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV strains are created by scientist to study it. Only parts of HIV can be genetically engineered with other viruses/bacteria.
That is what a Chimera is, part HIV, part SIV, or part E. coli. Pure HIV is however modified in the lab for research purposes.

Deetee

24th July 2007, 02:36 AM

Capsid- "These are wrong"
And my comments in blue.
Your words in italics, my additional commentary in Bold.

HIV is found in chimps and monkeys. You mean SIV. Although HIV can infect chimps.
Nope. Both chimps and monkeys have been injected with many HIV strains.
I think Capsid is referring to natural infections. I can inject HIV into a potato, that doesn't mean HIV "is found" in potatoes.

HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick. You mean SIV, see above.
Nope. HIV injected into any primate has not caused them to develop AIDS. HIV is found after infection, it just doesn't cause AIDS.
You seem to both be in agreement here really - HIV doesn't make chimps sick usually, although there have been reports of a couple of lab animals in one study getting "AIDS". SIV of course does not make African primates ill, but will cause SAIDS in Asian rhesus macaques to whom it is a quite "foreign" virus.

HIV isn't just one retrovirus. Maybe you are confusing with HIV-2, HTLV-I and HTLV-II? For most purposes people mean HIV-1 when they say HIV.
Nope. Evidence shows there are multitudes of HIV retroviruses. Just the ones created for research alone number in the hundreds.
HIV is one retrovirus with numerous subtypes and in phylogenetic terms it is very closely related to SIVs so as to make this a question of semantics.

HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
Yep, because the test are fooled. Only very advanced test can detect that no HIV actually exist.
What you mean is HIV antibody tests can be falsely positive in dogs - there is a difference. If a 1000 men had a pregnancy test, and in one of them it was positive because he had unusal hormone levels, and only a further "advanced" tets showed he was a true negative, would you say: "men can be pregnant using standard tests"?

HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
Yep. Gallo for one, but there are many others.
I agree there are a few people whose careers have flourished, and some whose patents on tests have meant large incomes. It is this way with everything.
I reckon Duesberg has benefitted greatly from HIV and taking the stance he did. He was a retrovirologist in a potentially great field of oncogenetics, but it was in decline when along came the HTLV/HIV story. He kinda missed the boat on this one, so turned to denial. He should have faded into the background, yet since then he has become infamous/famous, courted publicity, notoriety, is feted in many parts of the world for his stance (Wakefield-like).

HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
Questionable.
It does not make it onto the agendas of many. Blame folk like Reagan, who didn't even want to think about it. But it is pretty high profile now. I regard Bill Gates as one of the ruling class, and you couldn't be more involved than him really.

HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
Unless you count SIV, which is very similar, and believed to be the source of HIV.
And other mamalian retroviruses such as FIV mentioned below.

HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
In primates and people who are immune, it a harmless passenger virus
In those not naturally resistant to its effects, it's not such good news. All infections have natural variance in their impact. Some kids get exposed to chickenpox and it doesn't even cause spots, yet we know they have been infected. Other kids it might kill. That's life.

HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
Yep. So can SV40 and Primate Foamy virus.
Rabies can be spread by infected vaccines too, if someone puts it in the vials. But its rather unlikely this would happen. Some have suggested HIV spread through contaminated vaccines, but there is no credible evidence for this, and the theory that contaminated polio vaccine was responsible has been conclusively refuted.

HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research. Which viruses specifically?
Good question. Ask Gallo, he knows all about it, having worked with retroviruses since 1960, including ones from primates, modified for research. Source:

Retroviruses are found in every mammal species, and cats have their own FIV, which behaves almost exactly like HIV, except in cats only.

HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.
Again, it is because the test show false positives. Except Mosquitoes, if they suck infected blood, HIV is found in their guts.
It's true! :)

HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys. Chimps only.
Questionable.

HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
That one appears to be a myth.

HIV was late in infecting Africa.
Technically, not true. AIDS was late in showing up, but HIV is claimed to have infected Africans long ago.

HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps.
False. HIV can be contracted from lab animals.
Only if the lab workers were exceedingly sloppy. We know that occupational HIV is very unusual in health care workers generally.

HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures. It was spread by infected factor VIII clotting factors in haemophiliacs.
And blood transfusion, and shared needles, and organ transplants, and medicines made from infected organs or blood.

HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV strains are created by scientist to study it. Only parts of HIV can be genetically engineered with other viruses/bacteria.
That is what a Chimera is, part HIV, part SIV, or part E. coli. Pure HIV is however modified in the lab for research purposes.

robinson

24th July 2007, 09:56 AM

Yes…that's why we added the western blot to the ELISA. The ELISA is very sensitive, it gives too much false positives…we in our papers told the scientific world screen with the ELISA but confirm with the western blot…there would be too many false positives with ELISA alone. Very sensitive. So yes, you get some cellular debris and you make it from antibodies reacting and you think that person is positive when the person won't be positive.
Gallo RC. Testimony at appeal hearing of Andre Parenzee. Court of Criminal Appeal. 2007 Feb 12.

If a 1000 men had a pregnancy test, and in one of them it was positive because he had unusal[sic] hormone levels, and only a further "advanced" tets[sic] showed he was a true negative, would you say: "men can be pregnant using standard tests"?

Of course not. But if half of the men tested showed that they were pregnant, or worse, if half of the dogs tested showed human pregnancy, I would certainly consider the test invalid or flawed.

While the makers of the test do state that they are not to be used to diagnose, and that advanced testing is to be used if HIV shows positive, in many countries just one Western Blot test is used, with no validation from any accurate test. Pregnancy, of all things, can produce a false positive on both ELISA and Western Blot test.

“AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically. EIA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests that the antibodies to HIV are present.”

Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2: (E. coli, B. megaterium, recombinant antigen) HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA. Abbott Laboratories. 2004.

“Western Blot assay should not be used as a screening test. WB should be viewed as a supplemental test which can be used to confirm positive results obtained from EIA. However: Specificity is less than that of EIA. A significant number of indeterminate blots are seen in low risk populations.”

Babu VR. HIV Testing Technologies: ELISA/Western Blot. CDC. 2004 Jan 19-23

robinson

24th July 2007, 10:01 AM

Rabies can be spread by infected vaccines too, if someone puts it in the vials. But its rather unlikely this would happen. Some have suggested HIV spread through contaminated vaccines, but there is no credible evidence for this, and the theory that contaminated polio vaccine was responsible has been conclusively refuted.

You know, after I read the link that claimed all chances of contamination of vaccines has been ruled out, I did some checking. Because they didn't link to any published papers or studies that showed any evidence for that claim. (I was also under the impression that all vaccine linked theories had been abandoned)

What I found, and it wasn't easy, is astonishing. I'm not sure if I want to even open that can of worms.

skeptigirl

24th July 2007, 08:29 PM

For Pete's sake, "what [you] found"? Garbage, I'm sure. HIV is not linked to vaccines and it was thoroughly looked at. So what ever you found if it was in the way of legit research or discussion is probably a decade or more old. We all know about it, the kidney cells and all.

As far as the testing goes, no one reports an HIV positive result based on an ELISA test unless they are incompetent. The blood bank may toss the blood, I'm not sure. My lab won't even report and HIV ELISA. If the test is reactive, they do a mandatory Western Blot. I don't have a choice.

And believe it or not, health care providers actually know what sensitivity and specificity mean and you don't run lab tests without knowing how reliable they are and incorporating that into your decision making process. You post as if we are all stupid or something.

robinson

25th July 2007, 12:16 AM

For Pete's sake, "what [you] found"? Garbage, I'm sure.

Gee, should I read Medical Journals, Nature, Lancet, etc, or listen to some anonymous bonehead, who doesn't even know what is being talked about, but will declare everything garbage? Tough question ...

I think I will stick with science. You learn stuff that way.

Geissler E. SV40 and human brain tumors. Progress in Medical Virology, 1990;37:211–22.

Bergsagel DJ, et al. DNA sequences similar to those of simian virus 40 in ependymomas and choroid plexus tumors of childhood. New England Journal of Medicine, 1992;326:988–93.

Martini, M., et al. Human brain tumors and simian virus 40. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1995;87(17):1331.

Lednicky JA, et al. Natural Simian Virus 40 Strains are Present in Human Choroid Plexus and Ependymoma Tumors. Virology, 1995;212(2):710–7.

Tognon M, et al. Large T Antigen Coding Sequence of Two DNA Tumor Viruses, BK and SV-40, and Nonrandom Chromosome Changes in Two Gioblastoma Cell Lines. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenics, 1996;90(1): 17–23.

Vilchez RA, et al. Association between simian virus 40 and non-hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet, (March 9, 2002), 359: 817–23.

Carbone, M., et al. SV-40 Like Sequences in Human Bone Tumors. Onco-gene, 1996;13(3):527–35.

Pass, HI, Carbone, M., et al. Evidence For and Implications of SV-40 Like Sequences in Human Mesotheliomas. Important Advances in Oncology, 1996:89-108.

Ohta Y, et al. No evidence for the contamination of live oral poliomyelitis vaccines with simian immunodeficiency virus. AIDS, 1989; 3:183–5.

Huet T, et al. Genetic organization of a chimpanzee lentivirus related to HIV-1. Nature, 1990; 345:356–9.

Desrosiers RC. HIV-1 origins: A finger on the missing link. Nature, 1990;345:288–9.

Sabin AB. Properties and behavior of orally administered attenuated polio-virus vaccine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1957; 164:1216–23.

Plotkin SA, Koprowski H, et al. Clinical trials in infants of orally adminis-tered poliomyelitis viruses. Pediatrics 1959;23:1041–62.

Barin F, et al. Serological evidence for virus related to simian T-lymphotropic retrovirus III in residents of West Africa. Lancet 1985; ii:1387–9.

Hirsch VM, Zack PM, Vogel AP, Johnson PR. Simian immunodeficiency virus infection of macaques: End-stage disease is characterized by wide-spread distribution of proviral DNA in tissues. Journal of Infectious Dis-ease, 1991; 163(5):976–88.

Bohannon RC, et al. Isolation of a Type D retrovirus from B-cell lympho-mas of a patient with AIDS. Journal of Virology, 1991;65(11):5663–72.

Khabbaz RF, et al. Simian immunodeficiency virus needlestick accident in a laboratory worker. Lancet, 1992;340:271–3.

Gao F, et al. Human infection by genetically diverse SIVsm-related HIV-2 in West Africa. Nature, 1992;358:495–9.

Giunta S, et al. The primate trade and the origin of AIDS viruses. Nature, 1987;329:22.

Fascinating stuff.