Jump to content


Photo

Hiv


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#41 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:22 PM

AIDS requires either S@xual intercourse of an exchange of blood (fluid),

There is the association, but no proof of causation. Virtually 100% of AIDS cases are associated with illicit drug use. Thus, you cannot prove that it is the contact rather than the drugs that is causing AIDS.

therefore since it was first and prominently a male h*mosexual transmitted disease it precludes the s*xually inactive or non needle sharing drug habits.  This is well documented.

Yes, the association is documented. However, association does not necessarily prove cause.

But few disease remain contained forever, they breakout, they can and do get transmitted to females (prostitutes or not) and visa versa.


But AIDS is not "breaking out" into the non drug-using population. Don't confuse HIV seroconversion with AIDS. Yes, HIV is contagious. But HIV does not cause AIDS.

If AIDS is not a disease then how come you can be infected with AIDS if you have a blood transfusion from an infected person if you practice a healthy lifestyle???   By your reasoning if AIDS is a lifestyle affliction there is nothing to transmit!


You're confusing HIV seroconversion with AIDS. I don't know of one case of a full blown AIDS resulting from a blood transfusion to a healthy, previously non-immune suppressed individual.


Springer>  AIDS has been around for at least 25 years. In the early 1980’s, the CDC was predicting the explosion of AIDS into teenagers and into the heterosexual population in general. What happened? Their predictions were false.

Forewarned is forearmed, the medical authorities have not been sitting on their hands, massive public education programs on the problem has worked in the west, contrast that with Africa where the predictions have largely come true.


Are you suggesting that man's efforts are the reason AIDS has been
contained?" Realistically, do you think that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes can be attributed to condoms?

African AIDS is a totally different disease and should not be discussed with American/European AIDS. The vast majority of cases in AFrica aren't even tested for HIV.

Why should AIDS only have been around for 25years if it is a lifestyle affliction?


It's been recognized for 25 years. It's been around as long as the lifestyle has existed. Cocaine addicts have been known for decades to succumb to immune deficiency.

There is more than one strain of AIDS, and some individuals can cope with the affliction better than others (good evolutionary analogy there), Small pox, Bubonic plague, all have their survivors, what you are stating is to be expected.
Please expand upon this and why you think it relevant, because the Wiki’s explination seems most convincing


IF Kaposi's Sarcoma is due to an infectious agent, it should exist in female AIDS patients, non-G*y hemophiliacs with AIDS, and non-G*y IV drug users with AIDS. It is not. Therefore, there must be something in the G*y lifestyle that causes its emergence. That is simple logic. THis sort of deductive reasoning is used in medicine all the time to conclude causation of disease.

Assuming this is true, this is possibly just how AIDS manifests itself, how many viral particals would you expect?

Other full blown infectious diseases, e.g., hepatitis, are manifest by numerous viral particles in late stages of diesease.

Sorry but your way out of date here, the actual progenitor AIDS strain has been identified and isolated to a particular area of Congo Chimps.


You are again confusing AIDS with HIV. The chimps did in fact develop antibodies to HIV, but none developed any symptoms of AIDS.


Can’t see how you can claim that when the experts have somewhat modified the postulate to fit the facts, eh!
re syphilis from the wiki


The comparison of AIDS to tertiary syphilis is invalid. In the first place, tertiary syphilis develops only after years of clinically apparent syphilis. The current thought is that tertiary syphilis is actually a hypersensitive/immune reaciton.

#42 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 January 2007 - 02:49 PM

chance>
AIDS requires either S@xual intercourse of an exchange of blood (fluid),

There is the association, but no proof of causation. Virtually 100% of AIDS cases are associated with illicit drug use. Thus, you cannot prove that it is the contact rather than the drugs that is causing AIDS.


This is getting a bit ridiculous illicit drugs are the misuse of legal drugs, if drugs were the cause, people who are proscribed high doses of morphine or whatever would also contract AIDS.


chance>
therefore since it was first and prominently a male h*mosexual transmitted disease it precludes the s*xually inactive or non needle sharing drug habits.  This is well documented.

Springer>
Yes, the association is documented. However, association does not necessarily prove cause.


Do you really believe that the only proof of AIDS is this association!


chance>
But few disease remain contained forever, they breakout, they can and do get transmitted to females (prostitutes or not) and visa versa.

Springer>
But AIDS is not "breaking out" into the non drug-using population. Don't confuse HIV seroconversion with AIDS. Yes, HIV is contagious. But HIV does not cause AIDS.


AIDS has broken out, and that breakout is commensurate with the local governments action (or inaction)

Show me some proof to back up your claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, because frankly what you state seems to come straight from an AIDS conspiracy website. I would like to see some reputable mainstream science.


chance>
If AIDS is not a disease then how come you can be infected with AIDS if you have a blood transfusion from an infected person if you practice a healthy lifestyle??? By your reasoning if AIDS is a lifestyle affliction there is nothing to transmit!

Springer>
You're confusing HIV seroconversion with AIDS. I don't know of one case of a full blown AIDS resulting from a blood transfusion to a healthy, previously non-immune suppressed individual.


I am confusing nothing, the fact that I transpose AIDS and HIV is nothing more that assuming you know what is meant (AIDS=HIV), yes we can go through a long laundry list of which is the symptom which is the disease. I’m sure you know exactly what is what so lets get to the facts, i.e. if you are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) retrovirus do you deny that you will (very likely) contract AIDS. If so:

a. what is causing AIDS, post evidence greater than some demographic correlations (I would like to se some actual medical science.
b. What does HIV do of not cause AIDS?



chance>
Forewarned is forearmed, the medical authorities have not been sitting on their hands, massive public education programs on the problem has worked in the west, contrast that with Africa where the predictions have largely come true.

Springer>
Are you suggesting that man's efforts are the reason AIDS has been
contained?" Realistically, do you think that the absence of AIDS in teenagers and female prostitutes can be attributed to condoms?


Yes, partly due to practicing safe s@x and partly due to who associates with who.

African AIDS is a totally different disease and should not be discussed with American/European AIDS. The vast majority of cases in AFrica aren't even tested for HIV.


Please provide a citation for this claim, I am assuming of corse that you mean it something greater than variation in the HIV, see the wiki

Three groups of HIV-1 have been identified on the basis of differences in env: M, N, and O.[67] Group M is the most prevalent and is subdivided into eight subtypes (or clades), based on the whole genome, which are geographically distinct.[68] The most prevalent are subtypes B (found mainly in North America and Europe), A and D (found mainly in Africa), and C (found mainly in Africa and Asia); these subtypes form branches in the phylogenetic tree representing the lineage of the M group of HIV-1. Coinfection with distinct subtypes gives rise to circulating recombinant forms (CRFs). In 2000, the last year in which an analysis of global subtype prevalence was made, 47.2% of infections worldwide were of subtype C, 26.7% were of subtype A/CRF02_AG, 12.3% were of subtype B, 5.3% were of subtype D, 3.2% were of CRF_AE, and the remaining 5.3% were composed of other subtypes and CRFs.[69] Most HIV-1 research is focused on subtype B; few laboratories focus on the other subtypes.[70]

The genetic sequence of HIV-2 is only partially homologous to HIV-1 and more closely resembles that of SIV than HIV-1.



chance>
Why should AIDS only have been around for 25years if it is a lifestyle affliction?

Springer>
It's been recognized for 25 years. It's been around as long as the lifestyle has existed. Cocaine addicts have been known for decades to succumb to immune deficiency.


Can you back this claim up with some medical confirmation or is this speculation?


chance>
There is more than one strain of AIDS, and some individuals can cope with the affliction better than others (good evolutionary analogy there), Small pox, Bubonic plague, all have their survivors, what you are stating is to be expected.
Please expand upon this and why you think it relevant, because the Wiki’s explination seems most convincing

Springer>
IF Kaposi's Sarcoma is due to an infectious agent, it should exist in female AIDS patients, non-G*y hemophiliacs with AIDS, and non-G*y IV drug users with AIDS. It is not. Therefore, there must be something in the G*y lifestyle that causes its emergence. That is simple logic. THis sort of deductive reasoning is used in medicine all the time to conclude causation of disease.


First, Kaposi's Sarcoma is rare it was that increasing manifestation in weakened immune systems that lead to investigations on the cause of AIDS. See this link http://hivinsite.ucs...doc=kb-06-02-01
From the site
In 1981, the emergence of Kaposi sarcoma (KS) among young G*y men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco heralded the beginning of the AIDS pandemic.(1,2) Previously recognized as an uncommon malignancy of elderly Mediterranean men, African children, and Ashkenazi Jews, KS became the most common neoplasm of AIDS patients. Nearly 40% of persons infected with HIV in the mid-1980s developed KS,(3) and the condition rapidly became associated with the "face of AIDS," portrayed in popular film, theater, and print media. By the end of that decade, the number of new KS cases began to decline, perhaps due to the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART). The widespread use of effective ART in the United States and Western Europe has resulted in a 3-fold decrease in the incidence of KS as compared with the early years of the HIV epidemic.(4,5) However, other AIDS-associated malignancies have declined, leaving KS the most common AIDS-associated malignancy.(6) Furthermore, KS continues to be a common affliction among persons with HIV worldwide. In 1994, Chang and Moore established that a novel human herpesvirus, human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), also known as KS-associated herpesvirus, was responsible for the development of KS.(7) This chapter includes a review of the virology and epidemiology of HHV-8 and its relationship to the development of KS and other AIDS-related neoplasms.


You are again confusing AIDS with HIV. The chimps did in fact develop antibodies to HIV, but none developed any symptoms of AIDS.

<moved> The comparison of AIDS to tertiary syphilis is invalid. In the first place, tertiary syphilis develops only after years of clinically apparent syphilis. The current thought is that tertiary syphilis is actually a hypersensitive/immune reaction.


So if one has an immunity or partial immunity to a disease, it that reason to claim the disease does not exist? Really Springer this is getting just a little too ‘twilight zone’ for my tastes, I would like to see you post some scientific evidence from established medical authorities to all these claims you have been posting over the last few days. I feel this is a little too close to the claims portrayed by AIDS or anti-vaccination conspiracies websites I’ve looked at in the past. If this is your agenda then I’ll ask you to honestly let me know now.

#43 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 17 January 2007 - 08:20 PM

... if drugs were the cause, people who are proscribed high doses of morphine or whatever would also contract AIDS.

No, they wouldn't. You don't get lung cancer by smoking a few cigarettes, but by smoking 2 packs per day x 20 years. You don't get AIDS by occasional drug use. This is why teenagers aren't getting AIDS... they haven't been using long enough.



Show me some proof to back up your claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, because frankly what you state seems to come straight from an AIDS conspiracy website.  I would like to see some reputable mainstream science.

Are you telling me that you won't believe anything that "mainstream science" doesn't agree with?

I am confusing nothing, the fact that I transpose AIDS and HIV is nothing more that assuming you know what is meant (AIDS=HIV), yes we can go through a long laundry list of which is the symptom which is the disease.  I’m sure you know exactly what is what so lets get to the facts, i.e. if you are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) retrovirus do you deny that you will (very likely) contract AIDS.

Yes, HIV is appears to be harmless.

If so:

a. what is causing AIDS, post evidence greater than some demographic correlations (I would like to se some actual medical science.

Demographic correlations doconstitute science and form the basis for the determination of causataion of many diseases. What sort of "science" are you looking for. Can you show me one article or study that proves HIV causes AIDS?

b. What does HIV do of not cause AIDS?

It has not been demonstrated to be pathogenic.

Yes, partly due to practicing safe s@x and partly due to who associates with who.

If you think that teenagers and prostitutes are not getting AIDS because of practicing safe s@x, you're grossly mistaken. Syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydiae are on the rise.


Can you back this claim up with some medical confirmation or is this speculation?
First, Kaposi's Sarcoma is rare it was that increasing manifestation in weakened immune systems that lead to investigations on the cause of AIDS. See this link http://hivinsite.ucs...doc=kb-06-02-01
From the site
[i] In 1981, the emergence of Kaposi sarcoma (KS) among young G*y men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco heralded the beginning of the AIDS pandemic.(1,2) Previously recognized as an uncommon malignancy of elderly Mediterranean men, African children, and Ashkenazi Jews, KS became the most common neoplasm of AIDS patients. Nearly 40% of persons infected with HIV in the mid-1980s developed KS,(3) and the condition rapidly became associated with the "face of AIDS," portrayed in popular film, theater, and print media. By the end of that decade, the number of new KS cases began to decline, perhaps due to the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Kaposi's sarcoma, as I've before stated, is, in the context of AIDS, restricted almost exclusively to male h*m*sexuals.
Here is but one article I found for your perusal...
http://www.virusmyth...ta/epkaposi.htm
The fact that this disease is essentially restricted to only one lifestyle group should call into serious question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

So if one has an immunity or partial immunity to a disease, it that reason to claim the disease does not exist?  

Of course not. What is your point?

Really Springer this is getting just a little too ‘twilight zone’ for my tastes, I would like to see you post some scientific evidence from established medical authorities to all these claims you have been posting over the last few days.  I feel this is a little too close to the claims portrayed by AIDS or anti-vaccination conspiracies websites I’ve looked at in the past.  If this is your agenda then I’ll ask you to honestly let me know now.

I don't have an "agenda". I don't particularly care what the cause of AIDS is. I am interested in learning the truth. It seems to me that you're going to stick with whatever the majority of scientists believe. I'm only suggesting that you look at the facts and let them speak for themselves.

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 January 2007 - 01:59 PM

No, they wouldn't. You don't get lung cancer by smoking a few cigarettes, but by smoking 2 packs per day x 20 years. You don't get AIDS by occasional drug use. This is why teenagers aren't getting AIDS... they haven't been using long enough.


Oversimplification – you can and do (high probability), get AIDS from a single shared needle, even if you have only just begun a drug habit. That’s why authorities have instigated a needle exchange program!


Are you telling me that you won't believe anything that "mainstream science" doesn't agree with?


I want to see if there is any substance to the claims you have been posting, because this is going further than just personal opinion.

The link you provided does not qualify as medical science, just take a look at the opening paragraph

Is HIV - the AIDS virus - harmless?   Is AIDS not contagious?
Are the HIV/AIDS tests worthless?   Are AIDS medications killing patients?
Find out what the AIDS establishment and media do not want you to know...





This is why - The idea’s you have been posting if taken to hart by someone afflicted or at risk, could possibly cause them to ignore medical advise and contract AIDS when it could have been avoided with simple precautions.



So Springer, I must respectfully withdraw from this debate and will not participate further unless I see a link to a reputable medical website. PM me if you like, but I cannot bring myself to comment further on this topic in public, I’m having a moral dilemma.

#45 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 18 January 2007 - 03:39 PM

Oversimplification – you can and do (high probability), get AIDS from a single shared needle, even if you have only just begun a drug habit.  That’s why authorities have instigated a needle exchange program!


If you have an example of such a patient I would be most interested to see it.
The kind of people getting AIDS (not HIV infection, but manifestations of AIDS), have been using drugs heavily for years. You never see AIDS in someone who had s@x one time with a prostitute, with someone who first tried using IV drugs, or with a blood transfusion.




This is why - The idea’s you have been posting if taken to hart by someone afflicted or at risk, could possibly cause them to ignore medical advise and contract AIDS when it could have been avoided with simple precautions.

What about all the harm that is being done to unsuspecting drug users who think that if they use clean needles they won't get AIDS... or g*ys who think that safe s@x will prevent AIDS when what they really need to do is stop using nitrite inhalants that are the real cause of Kaposi's sarcoma and other AIDS manifestations! If AIDS is a lifestyle disease, then it is entirely preventable.

So Springer, I must respectfully withdraw from this debate and will not participate further unless I see a link to a reputable medical website.  PM me if you like, but I cannot bring myself to comment further on this topic in public, I’m having a moral dilemma.


I can understand how you feel in that you must trust much of what you hear. None of us can be an expert in all fields... so we must rely on experts. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that "mainstream science" can be dead wrong. I would further add that there are numerous reputable physicians (thousands) who agree with me. A nobel prize winner in chemistry (his name evades me at the moment) who invented the polymerase chain reaction, was asked to develop the test for HIV. Before doing so, he asked to see the research documenting that HIV causes AIDS. When none could be provided, he did further research into the matter and was unable on his own to convince himself that HIV in fact caused AIDS. He now has risked his career because of his stance on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. I'll try to get more information on this if you're interested.

A final note... when I was a resident in pathology in the early 1980's, I recall the announcement that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Before that announcement, there was much speculation. I think it was appauling that the announcement came before a single article appeared in any scientific journal evaluating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It was announced at a press conference... nothing was submitted for peer review.

#46 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 19 January 2007 - 03:47 AM

A nobel prize winner in chemistry (his name evades me at the moment)


I think you're talking about Kary Mullis.

A final note... when I was a resident in pathology in the early 1980's, I recall the announcement that HIV was the cause of AIDS.  Before that announcement, there was much speculation.  I think it was appauling that the announcement came before a single article appeared in any scientific journal evaluating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.  It was announced at a press conference... nothing was submitted for peer review.

View Post


There has been a lot of peer reviewed material on the subject since however. There's even been a lot from your side of the argument.

Just to clarify though, are you saying that HIV doesn't destroy CD4+ T Lymphocytes?

#47 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 19 January 2007 - 04:10 AM

Springer, do you know any case of AIDS which the patient shows the symptoms but he has not the HIV?

#48 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 19 January 2007 - 06:24 AM

I think you're talking about Kary Mullis.


Yes, thanks

There has been a lot of peer reviewed material on the subject since however.  There's even been a lot from your side of the argument.


Yes, but my point is that the announcement of HIV as the culprit before peer review resulted in a widespread belief that the cause-effect had been proven, which greatly subsequent skewed interpretation of data.

Just to clarify though, are you saying that HIV doesn't destroy CD4+ T Lymphocytes?

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

#49 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 19 January 2007 - 06:29 AM

Springer, do you know any case of AIDS which the patient shows the symptoms but he has not the HIV?

View Post


There are lots of examples in the literature.

Here is one link showing a small series of male h*m*sexuals with Kaposi's sarcoma who are HIV-negative.

http://www.aegis.org...0/AD901784.html

Kaposi's sarcoma in h*m*sexuals is the most specific AIDS-indicator disease. The other manifestations such as pneumocystis pneumonia, candidiasis, herpes, lymphoma, dementia, TB, etc., are less specific. All of these diseases exist in HIV-negative patients. They're not labeled "AIDS" because they are HIV-negative.

#50 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 19 January 2007 - 08:56 AM

Yes, but my point is that the announcement of HIV as the culprit before peer review resulted in a widespread belief that the cause-effect had been proven, which greatly subsequent skewed interpretation of data.


It certainly does seem a bit odd. Although I'm not sure how true it is: HIV/AIDS

"In early 1983, French researchers isolated a previously unknown retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a person with early symptoms of AIDS, although they did not yet have enough data to prove the virus was the cause of AIDS. In the spring of 1984, Gallo and his team of U.S. researchers submitted a comprehensive series of four scientific papers to the journal Science, papers that were fully peer reviewed (and later subject to one the most intensive review processes ever given to scientific articles).2,3,4,5 The four papers described how the virus was routinely found in people with various symptoms associated with AIDS and was absent in those who lacked either symptoms or AIDS-associated risk factors. The papers concluded to the satisfaction of most scientists that HIV was the cause of AIDS and went on to describe new methods for growing the virus in large quantities and for creating a blood test to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus."

That was pre the 1987 announcement (which itself was prompted by a journo threatening to blow the story according to that link).


Yes, that is what I'm saying.

View Post


Difficult to assess this kind of thing with AIDS isn't it? AIDS is pretty much a symptom of a poorly operating immune system is it not? It's difficult to say whether HIV causes the drop in T cells or if the drop in T cells is allowed by the depressed nervous system. I think the above link states a pretty good case. As does the defection back to the mainstream science view by the likes of Sonnabend and Gilbert...

#51 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 19 January 2007 - 01:26 PM

It certainly does seem a bit odd.  Although I'm not sure how true it is: HIV/AIDS

"In early 1983, French researchers isolated a previously unknown retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a person with early symptoms of AIDS, although they did not yet have enough data to prove the virus was the cause of AIDS. In the spring of 1984, Gallo and his team of U.S. researchers submitted a comprehensive series of four scientific papers to the journal Science, papers that were fully peer reviewed (and later subject to one the most intensive review processes ever given to scientific articles).2,3,4,5 The four papers described how the virus was routinely found in people with various symptoms associated with AIDS and was absent in those who lacked either symptoms or AIDS-associated risk factors. The papers concluded to the satisfaction of most scientists that HIV was the cause of AIDS and went on to describe new methods for growing the virus in large quantities and for creating a blood test to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus."

That was pre the 1987 announcement (which itself was prompted by a journo threatening to blow the story according to that link).


Not sure where that information comes from. The press release was made in 1984. If there was any peer review before the announcement, it wasn't very public.

Difficult to assess this kind of thing with AIDS isn't it?  AIDS is pretty much a symptom of a poorly operating immune system is it not? 

Yes.

It's difficult to say whether HIV causes the drop in T cells or if the drop in T cells is allowed by the depressed nervous system.  I think the above link states a pretty good case.  As does the defection back to the mainstream science view by the likes of Sonnabend and Gilbert...


The argument is guilt by association. There is a definite correlation between HIV and AIDS. Most AIDS patients are HIV positive. However, association does not always indicate causation. Almost all AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma cases are male H*m*sexuals. Does that mean that being a h*mosexual causes AIDS? When you see clustering of a disease in a specific population, you have to consider that perhaps there is something unique to that population that is causing the disease. It so happens that H*m*sexuals use nitritie inhalants heavily, which many believe to be the cause of KS.
If you look at the epidemiology, the association of HIV with AIDS is there, but it still doesn't fit a pattern of infectious disease.
Another thing is that back in 1984 a number of predictions were made regarding future observations which proved to not pan out. One is that AIDS would explode into teenagers and heterosexuals. This has not happened. Thus, we need to re-think the entire theory. Failure to predict future observations is a hallmark of a flawed hypothesis.

#52 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 22 January 2007 - 03:40 AM

Not sure where that information comes from.  The press release was made in 1984.  If there was any peer review before the announcement, it wasn't very public.


It would've been under the names LAV or HTLV-3 though wouldn't it? HIV wasn't named until 1986/7

When you see clustering of a disease in a specific population, you have to consider that perhaps there is something unique to that population that is causing the disease.


When a disease is largely being transimitted s*xually, that's your unique factor.

It so happens that h*m*sexuals use nitritie inhalants heavily, which many believe to be the cause of KS.


Presumably you mean sharing bottles and contracting the associated herpes virus that way? The trouble with that hypothesis is that KS is very prevalant in African AIDS sufferers too (as is KSHV amongst the normal population relatively).

Another thing is that back in 1984 a number of predictions were made regarding future observations which proved to not pan out.  One is that AIDS would explode into teenagers and heterosexuals.  This has not happened.  Thus, we need to re-think the entire theory.  Failure to predict future observations is a hallmark of a flawed hypothesis.

View Post


AIDS *has* (relatively speaking) exploded into the heterosexual demographic: A little out of date

A prediction that AIDS would explode in teenagers seems a little silly because of the slow development of the illness. Unless the majority of teenagers became s*xually active (or IV drug users) at age 12, or so, the disease wouldn't be noticeable in their teens. Add to that the fact that teens are normally s*xually active with other teens and you have a fairly closed loop as far as AIDS is concerned (not to mention all of the scaremongering ads that used to be everywhere when I was a teen!)

#53 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 22 January 2007 - 11:52 AM

It would've been under the names LAV or HTLV-3 though wouldn't it?  HIV wasn't named until 1986/7


It was announced that AIDS was caused by a virus in 1984, if my memory serves me.

When a disease is largely being transimitted s*xually, that's your unique factor.


You're missing the point. Kaposi's sarcoma is essentially limited to G*ys in the context of AIDS. If AIDS is infectious, why aren't IV drug users and hemophiliacs getting KS?

Presumably you mean sharing bottles and contracting the associated herpes virus that way?  The trouble with that hypothesis is that KS is very prevalant in African AIDS sufferers too (as is KSHV amongst the normal population relatively). 


That is incorrect. Kaposi's sarcoma is very rare in Africa.

AIDS *has* (relatively speaking) exploded into the heterosexual demographic: A little out of date


Don't confuse AIDS with HIV transmission. Patients dying of AIDS are still predominantly male, and those female AIDS patients are heavy drug users.

A prediction that AIDS would explode in teenagers seems a little silly because of the slow development of the illness.

If it's "silly", why were all of the infectious disease "experts" predicting it in the 1980's?

Unless the majority of teenagers became s*xually active (or IV drug users) at age 12, or so, the disease wouldn't be noticeable in their teens.


THe theory that HIV has a long incubation period is a post hoc hypothesis to account for the lack of AIDS in countless thousands of HIV positive individuals.

  Add to that the fact that teens are normally s*xually active with other teens and you have a fairly closed loop as far as AIDS is concerned (not to mention all of the scaremongering ads that used to be everywhere when I was a teen!)


If what you're saying is true, teenagers would be immune from all other STD's... think about it.

#54 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 23 January 2007 - 03:13 AM

It was announced that AIDS was caused by a virus in 1984, if my memory serves me.


By two different labs...

You're missing the point.  Kaposi's sarcoma is essentially limited to G*ys in the context of AIDS.  If AIDS is infectious, why aren't IV drug users and hemophiliacs getting KS?


If I had to suggest another possibility...because it's spread by a herpes-like virus? I know they found one but I don't know if the studies have come back on that yet.

That is incorrect.  Kaposi's sarcoma is very rare in Africa.


Actually it's the most commonly reported cancer in Zimbabwe and the surrounding area (even ignoring AIDS cases). It also isn't so gender discriminatory over there: Zimbabwe

Don't confuse AIDS with HIV transmission.  Patients dying of AIDS are still predominantly male, and those female AIDS patients are heavy drug users.


I'd be interested to see the latest data.

If it's "silly", why were all of the infectious disease "experts" predicting it in the 1980's?


I'd also like to see that data because it isn't what I'd heard.

THe theory that HIV has a long incubation period is a post hoc hypothesis to account for the lack of AIDS in countless thousands of HIV positive individuals.


Not a long incubation period, but that the body may fight back for a considerable time and also that it may take time for any symptoms to present.

If what you're saying is true, teenagers would be immune from all other STD's... think about it.

View Post


I'm not saying they *can't* get AIDS, I'm saying it is rarer and therefore less likely they will be exposed to it. I also stand by the claim that AIDS takes longer to manifest (though 0-19 year olds account for 30% of South African AIDS cases).

#55 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 23 January 2007 - 07:43 AM

If I had to suggest another possibility...because it's spread by a herpes-like virus?  I know they found one but I don't know if the studies have come back on that yet.


Now you're suggesting another virus that may cause Kaposi's... we're still left with the same problem... an infectious disease discriminating on gender.

Actually it's the most commonly reported cancer in Zimbabwe and the surrounding area (even ignoring AIDS cases).  It also isn't so gender discriminatory over there:


Kaposi's in the context of AIDS is rare in Africa. One study showed several cases of HIV-negative Kaposi's sarcoma... evidence that it's not caused by a virus. Another problem is that most AIDS cases in Africa don't even test for HIV because of cost issues. The KS sited in the article showed different manifestations... fulminant systemic Kaposi's... much different than US AIDS cases. I think introducing data from Africa muddies the water because much of the epidemiology is unreliable and also the manifestations of immune deficiency are so different, suggesting different disease processes.

Not a long incubation period, but that the body may fight back for a considerable time and also that it may take time for any symptoms to present.


Yes, that would seem possible. However, all I'm suggesting is that delayed manifestations of disease as seen in AIDS is more consistent with a toxic disease.

[teenagers] I'm not saying they *can't* get AIDS, I'm saying it is rarer and therefore less likely they will be exposed to it.  I also stand by the claim that AIDS takes longer to manifest (though 0-19 year olds account for 30% of South African AIDS cases).


I think your argument of teenagers being a closed group is invalid. If there is a veneral disease out there, it will find its way into the teenage population. As far as taking years to manifest itself... as I stated before... it was widely predicted in the 1980's that numerous teenagers would be dying of AIDS. This is a failed prediction. All of the arguments you've presented are noted. However, I don't find compelling reasons to blame HIV as the cause of AIDS. Yes, there is a strong correlation between AIDS and HIV positivity. However, there are many cases of HIV-negative "AIDS". HIV positivity is a requirement for the diagnosis of AIDS, so of course there's going to be a strong correlation. Also, AIDS is equally positively correlated with heavy drug use. With this evidence, why are you so convinced that it's caused by a virus, other than the fact that so many say it is? No one can prove it. No one can produce AIDS in laboratory animals. If it is an infectious disease, its epidemiology is unique. It's pattern is, however, perfectly consistent with a toxic etiology, i.e., long history of usage required to develop manifestations, specific manifestations involving specific lifestyle groups, etc.

#56 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 23 January 2007 - 09:07 AM

Now you're suggesting another virus that may cause Kaposi's... we're still left with the same problem... an infectious disease discriminating on gender.


Not me, the medical establishment. HHV-8 is the proposed culprit it seems: HHV-8

...and not just affecting men it would seem.

Kaposi's in the context of AIDS is rare in Africa.


Hmm...okay, we'll have problems with this one. Before AIDS came along, Kaposi's sarcoma wasn't that uncommon in Africa (see: Until the early 1980's, Kaposi's sarcoma was a very rare disease that was found mainly in older men, patients who had organ transplants, or African men. With the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) epidemic in the early 1980's, doctors began to notice more cases of Kaposi's sarcoma in Africa and in G*y men with AIDS. Kaposi's sarcoma usually spreads more quickly in these patients. from here:

Link

One study showed several cases of HIV-negative Kaposi's sarcoma... evidence that it's not caused by a virus.


But we know that Kaposi's sarcoma can be contracted seperately. This just means that HIV isn't the culprit.

However, I do note what you say about the problems of discussing Africa here. It's probably beyond the scope of the forum format.

... as I stated before... it was widely predicted in the 1980's that numerous teenagers would be dying of AIDS.  This is a failed prediction.


And I would still like to see the studies that predicted this. It seems nonsensical by the very nature of the disease.

Also, AIDS is equally positively correlated with heavy drug use.


With IV use certainly. If I could see a study that showed some correlation across other methods of drug use it be more compelling.

If it is an infectious disease...

View Post


I can't see how there can be any doubt that it *is* an infectious disease. So many people have been infected with it by others (we have a current case in the news of a man deliberately infecting his wife).

#57 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:21 PM

And I would still like to see the studies that predicted this.  It seems nonsensical by the very nature of the disease. 

I don't know of any "studies". I know from memory that in the early to mid 80's it was widely predicted that AIDS would be taking a huge toll on teenagers. THis is not the least bit nonsensical if you suppose AIDS to be infectious. This is what was predicted.

With IV use certainly.  If I could see a study that showed some correlation across other methods of drug use it be more compelling. 


Here's one study that demonstrates that nitrite inhalants cause immune deficiency and cancer in laboratory mice:

http://www.rethinkai...ug-nitrite.html

Given the fact that it has been shown that the drugs h*m*sexuals are using cause immune deficiency and cancer in mice, and HIV does not cause immune deficiency or cancer in laboratory animals, why are you so certain that HIV is the culprit?

Here's a quote referencing the prevalent use of drugs among AIDS patients:

The CDC and independent investigators report that nearly all male h*m*sexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS are long-term users of oral drugs such as nitrite inhalants, ethylchloride inhalants, amphetamines, cocaine, and others to facilitate S@xual contacts, particularly anal intercourse #(Lifson et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992; Ascher et al., 1993; Duesberg, 1993d; Schechter et al., 1993a; Schechter et al., 1993c)#. The drug use of male h*m*sexuals with AIDS or at risk for AIDS reported by the CDC #(Jaffe et al., 1983; Darrow et al., 1987; Lifson et al., 1990)# and others #(Ascher et al., 1993; Duesberg, 1993d; Schechter et al., 1993c; Ellison, Downey and Duesberg, 1995)# as of 1983 is listed in Table 2. Ostrow reported that nitrite inhalant use in a cohort of over 5000 male h*m*sexuals from Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh showed a "consistent and strong cross-sectional association with ... anal s@x" #(Ostrow, 1994)#. In addition, many HIV-positive h*m*sexuals are prescribed AZT as an antiviral drug #(Duesberg, 1992; Duesberg, 1993d; Ellison, Downey and Duesberg, 1995)#.

If you want the full article, I'll refer you to this...

http://www.duesberg....apers/ch13.html

I can't see how there can be any doubt that it *is* an infectious disease.  So many people have been infected with it by others (we have a current case in the news of a man deliberately infecting his wife).


You have no doubt that AIDS is infectious, despite the fact that not a single case has ever been proven to have been tranmitted by a needlestick injury? YOu''re not bothered by the fact that AIDS cannot be produced in laboratory animals by injection of HIV? You're not bothered by the fact that the CDC has reported that 87% of US AIDS cases are male?

The one anecdotal case you refer to of the man deliberately infecting his wife.. do you have any specific followup? Did she contract AIDS?

#58 Adam Lewis

Adam Lewis

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 23 January 2007 - 09:49 PM

Okay, drugs cause AIDS. Let's run with this for a while.

Drugs cause AIDS? What drugs? All drugs? What separates the drugs that cause AIDS from the ones that don't and, indeed, other molecules? Does Aspirin cause AIDS? What about caffeine? Water? The suite of 'drugs' that the body naturally generates? It's not like molecules know that the state has made them illegal to consume and adjust themselves to cause diseases accordingly.

If the medical establishment wanted to choose a scapegoat virus to pin AIDS on (for whatever reason), why on earth would they pick HIV? Surely there was some other virus they could have used, one that could have been 'isolated from semen'.

Maybe it was just convenient for their story that HIV happened to possess all the molecular machinery needed to infect and kill human white blood cells.

#59 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 24 January 2007 - 03:53 AM

I don't know of any "studies".  I know from memory that in the early to mid 80's it was widely predicted that AIDS would be taking a huge toll on teenagers.  THis is not the least bit nonsensical if you suppose AIDS to be infectious.  This is what was predicted.


Given the long period generally required to exhibit symptoms children would need to be s*xually active and promiscuous from the age of about 9!

Here's one study that demonstrates that nitrite inhalants cause immune deficiency and cancer in laboratory mice:

http://www.rethinkai...ug-nitrite.html

Given the fact that it has been shown that the drugs H*m*sexuals are using cause immune deficiency and cancer in mice,  and HIV does not cause immune deficiency or cancer in laboratory animals, why are you so certain that HIV is the culprit?


Well there's no denying your link there but how many other studies can we produce that show the same thing in mice? Alcohol for just one. And why would you expect Human Immuno-deficiency Virus to affect mice?

Here's a quote referencing the prevalent use of drugs among AIDS patients:

...

If you want the full article, I'll refer you to this...

http://www.duesberg....apers/ch13.html


All well and good (if a little confusing) but why no apparent correlation with nitrate users who aren't h*mosexual?


You have no doubt that AIDS is infectious, despite the fact that not a single case has ever been proven to have been tranmitted by a needlestick injury? YOu''re not bothered by the fact that AIDS cannot be produced in laboratory animals by injection of HIV?  You're not bothered by the fact that the CDC has reported that 87% of US AIDS cases are male?


Stoker R. Sharps Safety in the Laboratory. Advance/Laboratory 2005; 14(11):77.
ABSTRACT: Barbara was a lab tech who worked the graveyard shift. Her job included drawing blood and testing blood and urine samples in the hospital laboratory. On one occasion she was called tao the emergency room in the morning to draw blood on an HIV-positive drug abuser. As Barbara was attempting to draw the addict's blood, the individual became violent, jerking her arm around after the needle was already in her vein. The needle pulled out and stabbed deep into Barbara's left thumb.
Unfortunately, this story is true. Barbara soon seroconverted to HIV and later gave birth to a beautiful daughter who was HIV positive as well. This type of needlestick injury could have been prevented with the right safety equipment. Working in a labratory can be dangerous, with some hospitals reporting that one-third of nursing and laboratory staff suffer needlestick and other sharps injuries each year.


Just the first case I came across. I'll look up our own DOH figures when I get the chance. I'm not bothered by the fact that a mutation of SIV which transferred specifically to humans can't be introduced to mice, no. I'm not surprised that a s*xually transmitted disease which flourishes in promiscuous societies has largely remained in the male demographic (though other reasons are perfectly plausible). I wouldn't say I was *certain* that HIV causes AIDS (ie if better contrary evidence presents then I will abandon that position) but it seems to be backed by the majority of evidence.


The one anecdotal case you refer to of the man deliberately infecting his wife.. do you have any specific followup?  Did she contract AIDS?

View Post


Anecdotal evidence

Too early to tell I'd guess.

#60 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:51 AM

All well and good (if a little confusing) but why no apparent correlation with nitrate users who aren't h*mosexual?

My understanding is that h*m*sexuals are by far the heaviest users of nitrite inhalants. Do you have any information that these drugs are being used by the non-h*mosexual community?

Stoker R. Sharps Safety in the Laboratory. Advance/Laboratory 2005; 14(11):77.
ABSTRACT:      Barbara was a lab tech who worked the graveyard shift.  Her job included drawing blood and testing blood and urine samples in the hospital laboratory. On one occasion she was called tao the emergency room in the morning to draw blood on an HIV-positive drug abuser.  As Barbara was attempting to draw the addict's blood, the individual became violent, jerking her arm around after the needle was already in her vein.  The needle pulled out and stabbed deep into Barbara's left thumb. 
  Unfortunately, this story is true.  Barbara soon seroconverted to HIV and later gave birth to a beautiful daughter who was HIV positive as well.  This type of needlestick injury could have been prevented with the right safety equipment. Working in a labratory can be dangerous, with some hospitals reporting that one-third of nursing and laboratory staff suffer needlestick and other sharps injuries each year.


Just the first case I came across.  I'll look up our own DOH figures when I get the chance. 


There are a lot of cases of seroconversion to HIV through needlestick injuries, as in the case you referenced. Barbara did not get AIDS... she contracted HIV.


I'm not bothered by the fact that a mutation of SIV which transferred specifically to humans can't be introduced to mice, no.

HIV is not transferred specifically to humans... it can be transferred to chimps... it just can't cause disease in animals. You should be bothered by that. It doesn't prove that HIV can't causes disease in humans, but it should cause one to reconsider.

I'm not surprised that a s*xually transmitted disease which flourishes in promiscuous societies has largely remained in the male demographic (though other reasons are perfectly plausible).

No other venereal disease has a male predominance. What is it about HIV that causes it to preferentially causes disease in males.

I wouldn't say I was *certain* that HIV causes AIDS (ie if better contrary evidence presents then I will abandon that position) but it seems to be backed by the majority of evidence.


I think you're relying more on the fact that the HIV/AIDS theory is mainstream. If you look at the evidence, there is a lot of explaining to do.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users