Hello,

this is your friendly Biology & Genetics Moderator speaking. Apparently there is within the cohorts of sciforums a need to discuss AIDS/HIV. And you are welcome to do this in the biology & genetics subforum.

However, I must warn you in advance. This is not the pseudoscience subforum. You will have to support your opinion, preferrably with specific examples, cases, logical arguments, reliable sources etc.

Non-compliance with this request may lead to moderator interference since it is the general aim to base this subforum broadly on scientific principles.

I'm terribly sorry if this sounds oppressive to you but maybe the biology & genetics forum isn't the best subforum for you if this is the case.

As always instructions from your friendly Biology & Genetics moderator are to be taken seriously.

Presently the definition of Aids is this:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

re Metakron's debate re HIV and Aids, hardly pseudoscience when phd researchers in the field (ie: not blokes who refer to wikipedia as a source) are debating it as recently as 2006.

Metakron said this:

“
"An infectious disease of the immune system caused by an human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)"

The beginning of the idea of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is of course the definition of same. I do not believe that a good definition of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome would include a single cause of that syndrome. The words behind the acronym "AIDS" are pretty much self-explanatory. "Acquired" means that the patient gets it from somewhere. Radiation was one of the big known causes of immune deficiency before 1981. So was syphilis. There are also simple physical exhaustion, starvation, dehydration, chemical exposures like immune suppressing drugs and various chemicals found in industrial settings, and diseases like malaria.

A scientific definition of AIDS is not valid if the definition says that it has to be caused by one particular thing. It's too obvious. It is not valid to claim that the virus can be infered by the symptoms when the symptoms can be caused by other causes of immune suppression, and when the symptoms can be caused by other known diseases.

If we are not working with a valid definition of AIDS, there is nowhere to go. ”

I responded with these two sources - legitimate sources, ie: not wikipedia

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

This was written 2006 by a PHD mathematical biologist

Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. [send her mail], is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.

"Why I Quit HIV
by Rebecca V. Culshaw

As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we are more than twenty years into the AIDS era. Like many, a large part of my life has been irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire adolescence and adult life – as well as the lives of many of my peers – has been overshadowed by the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and lack of trust that belief engenders.

To add to this impact, my chosen career has developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work constructing mathematical models of HIV infection, a field of study I entered in 1996. Just ten years later, it might seem early for me to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering my chosen field, yet here I am.

My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct that few people understand and even fewer question. The issue of causation, in particular, has become beyond question – even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.

..............

As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations given by people known to be experts. Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune deficiency has many manifestations, and a syndrome with many manifestations is likely multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions – of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on – that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.




and there's more

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbdef.htm


"The existence of the full range of AIDS symptoms and opportunistic infections in both HIV*free and HIV*infected transplant and cancer patients warns us that this logical caveat is one that must be acknowledged in AIDS. HIV infection may be an epiphenomenon of immune suppression rather than a necessary cause. Immune suppression may predispose people to HIV infection (just as it predisposes them to other opportunistic infections) rather than resulting from such an infection. I argue in my book Rethinking AIDS, in fact, that HIV may be just such an epiphenomenon. Every AIDS patient has multiple causes of immune suppression other than HIV, many of which precede HIV infection and some of which occur in the total absence of HIV. The existence of these largely unrecognized immunosuppressive agents in AIDS not only requires a rethinking of the definition of the syndrome as occurring mainly in people without previously identified causes of immune suppression but also necessitates a critical look at the role of HIV as a causative agent in AIDS."

Perhaps you'd better inform these chaps it's pseudoscience Spurious.

I don't have a view on this topic but I present these sources as evidence it's a genuine matter of debate and NOT pseudoscience.

How about (other than wikipedia) you present yours?

The biochemistry of the body is mysterious. Oh we can measure concentrations of this and that but really we have no idea what the real normal value is.

People in PNG had half the value of serum uric acid than white people (direct experience)

We know people today are full of a toxic mix (more so than primitive people) and with the heavy metals and artificial chemicals, who knows how the physical biochemical expression is altered, all affect the brain, some the liver, some the immune system...... some everything,,, thinking Polonium 210 here

When you have a spectrum of syndromes as in AIDS, with opportunistic infections of low grade pathogens I think you must appreciate that a long exposure time to specific toxins is the incubator, much as tar in smoking is the incubator of lung cancer.

To pin point the actual cause of such a syndrome is very hard because toxins usually potentate in detrimental genetic or biochemical changes, usually through excitation or inhibition. The graphic equaliser just switches to overload and the bugs waiting on the side lines jump in and have a go.

HIV test flawed:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cfposflaw.htm

"They made four major points: 1) The tests are not standardized, meaning different labs have different criteria for determining what is negative and what is positive, and 2) not reproducible, meaning the test fails when tested against itself, and repeated tests can alternate between positive and negative; 3) proteins that are thought to be exclusive to HIV might instead be cellular contaminants or debris; and 4) there is no ''gold standard'' for the HIV test, meaning there is no purified isolation of HIV to test against.

They reported on Amazonian Indians who have no contact with anybody outside their tribes and have no AIDS. Somehow, 13 percent of the Indians were HIV-positive, according to the Western Blot test. "The above data,'' the Perth team wrote, ''means either that HIV is not causing AIDS… or the HIV antibody tests are not specific.''

There are at least 70 underlying conditions -- including pregnancy, auto-immune disorders, fever, flu, flu shots and malaria -- that can trigger a false-positive test result. That could account for many of the so-called AIDS cases in Africa, where only the ELISA test -- the more problematic of the two tests -- is used. What if all these Africans are really testing positive for malaria?"

If you look at the symptoms, modes of transmission etc you see

(a) infection is via mucus membranes, so I expect the mucus is gone and the membrane's cells are thin and in poor shape

(b) Aids can be passed onto a suckling child, implying the child's immune system was doomed from conception.

(c) people dying of AIDS were usually being attacked and killed by low grade pathogens such as "non pathogenic" intestinal parasites... see Chron's disease/spastic colon. This can apply to both male and female.

So maybe with more links, a clue here and there, a better picture can be presented. That's what forum are for.

[COLOR="Red"]
Perhaps you'd better inform these chaps it's pseudoscience Spurious.


This is not a debate with me.

I do can tell you that your post No.2 doesn't actually contain an argument other than that we have to believe someone with a PhD. I can now tell you to believe me. I have a PhD too.

. I can now tell you to believe me. I have a PhD too.

yeh so do I


I too studied long and hard so I could claim everyone was a crackpot and use wikipedia as evidence of this

I emphasise the PhD thing cos you do so bloody often. You rarely contribute any actual knowledge (wikipedia sources not included) other than "I have PhD so I know all there is to know about all things Biology." Which is of course bollocks. If it's not bollocks prove it, post a reply that is relevant and helpful. Comment on the sources opinions.

meanwhile:
You waving your Phd about is kind of like you saying you can perform a heart transplant oepration because you are a 'Doctor' ie irrelevant

Aids is not your field, that's obvious.

Moderator comment

Please people: first state your position: what are you trying to say/ your question. Be specific.


And then write down your argument, be it logical, proof etc.


You cannot expect other people to know what you are thinking.

Position: Koch's postulate fulfilled?

Cohen claimed already in 1994 that Koch's postulate was fulfilled.
But recently some leading AIDS researchers have stopped conceding that HIV doesn’t satisfy Koch’s postulates, as powerful new evidence emerged from tragic accidents: the infection of three laboratory workers with a pure, molecularly cloned strain of HIV. As reported at the 1993 international AIDS conference in Berlin by the National Cancer Institute’s William Blattner and his colleagues, one of the three lab workers developed Pneumocystis pneumonia, an AIDSdefining disease, 68 months after showing evidence of infection. This lab worker had not received AZT (which Duesberg contends can cause AIDS), or any other anti- HIV drug, until 83 months after infection, when the patient had fewer than 50 CD4 cells, the key immune system cells destroyed by HIV. (A healthy person typically has a
count of 600 to 1200 CD4s.) Blattner reported that a second lab worker,
who also received no anti-viral drugs, had 250 to 400 CD4s at 83 months. The third lab worker had CD4 counts of 200 to 500 at 25 months and had been given anti-virals. “These people have no other risk factors” for AIDS, such as illicit drug injection or homosexual
sex, Blattner says.

Source SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994 p1647

Moderator comment

Please people: first state your position: what are you trying to say/ your question. Be specific.


And then write down your argument, be it logical, proof etc.


You cannot expect other people to know what you are thinking.

Reminds me of the toad who tried to sell wart cream.

how about using your own methods as an example of how it should be done Spurious? Guide us to a thread you started to show us how you'd like us all to behave under your mighty rule.

Perhaps you'd like me to guide you to the numerous threads you derailed with nothing more than adhoms and wikipedia as your supporting argument?

This 'sticky' says 'the mighty Aids and HIV thread' suggesting we can post all things Aids and HIV here. You haven't responded to the comments posted, just whining you don't like our style? What are you a PhD in forum posting?

Position: Koch's postulate fulfilled?

Cohen claimed already in 1994 that Koch's postulate was fulfilled.



1994? 12 years ago!

I am pretty sure things have moved along a tad since then. All things science generally do. Any more recent links?

Position: Could drugs be the cause of AIDS?

Duesberg claimed Drugs causes AIDS.

For example, Duesberg cites a study of drug users, both HIV-negative and HIVpositive, in which a Dutch group examined the ability of the drug users’ T lymphocytes to kick into action when stimulated. T lymphocytes
are an important set of immunesystem cells that circulate in the blood; CD4
cells, the group whose progressive decline is the hallmark of AIDS, are a subset of T lymphocytes. The Dutch group found that, among both HIV-positive and HIV-negative drugs users, T cell reactivity decreased as the
frequency of injection increased; Duesberg cites this among his evidence that drug use can cause AIDS.

Well, can't that really be? Was Duesberg right?

But critics of Duesberg’s work say the study actually undermines his case. First, they say, he does not mention that among the drug users in the study who were HIVnegative, the chief indicator of the immune deficiency seen in AIDS—CD4 count—was well within the normal range.

Moreover, researchers subsequently tested Duesbergs theory:
To test Duesberg’s hypothesis, one of the co-authors of the Dutch study, Roel Coutinho of Amsterdam’s Municipal Health
Service, has compared HIV-positive and HIV-negative drug users while controlling for the length of time the two groups injected
drugs. Coutinho compared 86 HIV-negative and 70 HIV-positive drug users who had been injecting for a mean of 7.6 and 9.1 years, respectively. When the duration of drug use was controlled, there was a clear difference between the two groups in CD4 status. Among those not infected with
HIV, the base line CD4 count was 914, within the normal range. Among those infected with HIV, however, the base line was only 395, well outside the normal range. Between 1989 and 1994, CD4s remained stable
in the HIV-negative group but declined steadily among those infected with the virus. And death from AIDS was associated with
HIV status but not with drug use alone. Among HIV-positives, there were 25 deaths, 10 attributable to AIDS; among HIV-negatives there were eight deaths, none due to AIDS-defining diseases.

there is evidence that heroin can cause immune abnormalities—but not
the type seen in AIDS. According to Rockefeller University’s Mary Jeanne Kreek, who studies immune responses in heroin addicts,
heroin users do not experience a decline in CD4 counts unless they are infected with HIV.

Drug use has no causal correlation to AIDS.

Source:
SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994

Can AZT cause AIDS?
Concorde’s principal investigators disagree sharply with Duesberg’s hypothesis that AZT, rather than HIV, causes AIDS. The Concorde data in “no way argue in favor of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by AZT,”

Concorde was at this point the largest running study of AZT of that time.

AIDS were spread to humans through monkeys...someone down in Africa did something totally unethical.

1994? 12 years ago!

I am pretty sure things have moved along a tad since then. All things science generally do. Any more recent links?

The scientific debate on the AIDS controversy ended pretty much in 1995. Because the scientific community was satisfied there was none after all parties had had their say in top ranking journals.

Are you argueing that 'science', one of the top journals is not good enough for you?

Wikipedia is not good enough for you?

But a random website is?

AIDS were spread to humans through monkeys...someone down in Africa did something totally unethical.

Like being bit?

HIV causes AIDS

haemophilia patients are probably the best group to study the last principle of Koch's postulate on an epidemiological scale. Needles to say there have been many documented individual cases of health workers being infected by HIV and developing AIDS.



This article pretty much confirmed the notion that HIV causes AIDS
Nature 377, 79 - 82 1995


Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs

DURING 1977-91, 6,278 males diagnosed with haemophilia were living in the UK. During 1979-86, 1,227 were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) as a result of transfusion therapy (median estimated seroconversion date, October 1982). Among 2,448 with severe haemophilia, the annual death rate was stable at 8 per 1,000 during 1977-84; during 1985-92 death rates remained at 8 per 1,000 among HIV-seronegative patients but rose steeply in seropositive patients, reaching 81 per 1,000 in 1991-92. Among 3,830 with mild or moderate haemophilia, the pattern was similar, with an initial death rate of 4 per 1,000 in 1977-84, rising to 85 per 1,000 in 1991-92 in seropositive patients. During 1985-92, there were 403 deaths in HIV seropositive patients, whereas 60 would have been predicted from rates in seronegatives, suggesting that 85% of the deaths in seropositive patients were due to HIV infection. Most of the excess deaths were certified as due to AIDS or to conditions recognized as being associated with AIDS.

This set of patients are not part of the risk group of drug users, homosexuals etc. It is a test of neutrality. These patients represent a normal cross section of the population (with of course the one difference that they suffer from this particular disease and are dependent of blood transfusions).

Note:

yes, the article is old, but the controversy in the scientific world was pretty much settled by then as has been said before.

The scientific debate on the AIDS controversy ended pretty much in 1995. ?

No it did not as my links show, 2006 being the latest!

PhD's in the field spurious, you are 11 years out of date and that is the problem. Read the links

HIV causes AIDS



Note:

yes, the article is old, but the controversy in the scientific world was pretty much settled by then as has been said before.

no it is NOt settled as these links demonstrate

Details re what is debated on the Aids/HIV argument are here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbdef.htm

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

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

your insistance this is settled is hindering debate, you are using your view to close the debate and that is unreasonable, the debate is on for those in the field.


Note:
As this debate is now on, my little rant in free thoughts has been deleted.

This set of patients are not part of the risk group of drug users, homosexuals etc. It is a test of neutrality. These patients represent a normal cross section of the population (with of course the one difference that they suffer from this particular disease and are dependent of blood transfusions).

The recepients of blood may or may not represent a neutral cross section, but the blood donors from which the HIV infections are supposed to have originated were hopefully not neutral, but rather a cross section heavily weighted toward healthy individuals deemed fit to donate blood, with no obvious sign of poor health.

It seems to me then that what we have here is proof positive that the symptoms of AIDS do not necessarily occur because of HIV infection.

I have been looking around for estimates of the UK population infected with HIV but not yet aware of it.

Any offers?

I have been looking around for estimates of the UK population infected with HIV but not yet aware of it.

Any offers?


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

see bottom of table


United Kingdom
Adult HIV prevalence 2005 0.2%

Note this from link in previous post: accuracy of HIV testing:

"How accurate are HIV tests?
Standard HIV antibody (ELISA) tests are at least 99.5% accurate when it comes to detecting the presence of HIV antibodies. This high level of sensitivity however means that their specificity (ability to distinguish HIV antibodies from other antibodies) is slightly lowered. Once an individual is out of the window period, it is more likely that they will receive a false positive result than a false negative.

Any HIV positive result given by an ELISA test must therefore be confirmed using a second test. Secondary tests include:

Western Blot Assays – One of the oldest but most accurate confirmatory antibody tests. It is complex to administer and may produce indeterminate results if a person has a transitory infection. Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay – Like the Western blot, but uses a microscope to detect HIV antibodies.
Line Immunoassay - Commonly used in Europe. Reduces chance of sample contamination and is as accurate as the Western Blot.
A second ELISA – In resource-poor settings with relatively high prevalence, a second ELISA test may be used to confirm a diagnosis. The second test will usually be a different commercial brand and will use a different method of detection to the first.
When two tests are combined, the chance of getting an inaccurate result is well below 0.1%."

Hmmmmmm how much do you trust statistics


Note the article I posted earlier re people in Africa with malaria being incorrectly diagnosed with Aids!

"How accurate are HIV tests?

Note that Aids diagnosis errors do not disprove the existence of a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.
But ironically you state yourself:
When two tests are combined, the chance of getting an inaccurate result is well below 0.1%."

This means HIV testing is one of the most reliable testing around! Or don't you understand the figure 'well below 0.1%'?

The recepients of blood may or may not represent a neutral cross section, but the blood donors from which the HIV infections are supposed to have originated were hopefully not neutral, but rather a cross section heavily weighted toward healthy individuals deemed fit to donate blood, with no obvious sign of poor health.

It seems to me then that what we have here is proof positive that the symptoms of AIDS do not necessarily occur because of HIV infection.

I have been looking around for estimates of the UK population infected with HIV but not yet aware of it.

Any offers?

Needless to say you missed the point that these patients didn't contract AIDS because of a lifestyle relating to drugs.

Perhaps you can actually first state what you believe in, since at this moment you merely assume to opposite of whatever I say for a reason that is very obvious to me. Blindly criticizing anything someone says doesn't constitute an opinion.

Without a detailed working knowledge of the biology it is all but impossible to make sense of.

The presence of antibodies would intuitively suggest that the immune system is working, not out of order, so is this a test of health or of disease?

What happens with HIV were the body to fail to react to the infection?

Would that not be the greater danger, a lack of antibody?

Without a detailed working knowledge of the biology it is all but impossible to make sense of.

Indeed, it appears you are lacking such knowledge.


The presence of antibodies would intuitively suggest that the immune system is working, not out of order, so is this a test of health or of disease?

Your intuition shouldn't really be trusted. The immune system is not just making antibodies. Of course I cannot suggest to read wikipedia because some of the members are so beyond wikipedia that they only can get their information from websites with a specific agenda.

Hence I recommend a text book on the immunesystem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.TOC&depth=2



What happens with HIV were the body to fail to react to the infection?

Would that not be the greater danger, a lack of antibody?
Death or death? What is indeed the greater danger?
You seem to think the existence of an antibody in the blood prevents disease. Maybe you should read up on how HIV works. Specifically which cells it targets.

no it is NOt settled as these links demonstrate


The debate is settled in the scientific world. I know you have trouble distinguishing between the scientific world and the WWW, but I assure you most scientists have not.

Here is a good site with detailed information on HIV/AIDS

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/default.htm

I would like some people to regards the following paragraph from an article from this site.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/macs_and_wihs.htm

Disputing the overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS is not only unscientific, but also inexcusably derails the only known approaches that can stop the terrible pandemic of AIDS. While the best approaches to improving health in settings with limited funded and substantial epidemics can be debated, the results of the studies conducted in the last sixteen years are indisputable: HIV causes AIDS.

The site provides a nice set of links and data to back up this claim.

I'm sure only you can understand your own question as usual.

however,

modern risks of HIV contamination (for haemophilia patients in the USA).
It is important to emphasize that, overall, strict blood donor screening procedures in conjunction with development of new assay systems for donated blood have reduced the risk of HIV transmission to 1:500,000 units transfused. The risk for HCV is now 1:103,000 units transfused, while that of HBV is 1:63,000 units.

What the old risks were? High.

You can see this from the fact that children are at a lesser risk because of the better screening as stated above.
Although acquisition of blood-borne infectious agents is not a complication of hemophilia per se, it constitutes a significant complication in hemophilia patients who received blood products in the past. Today, approximately 20 percent of adult hemophilia patients in the United States are HIV-infected; about 56 percent and 89 percent, respectively, are infected with HBV and HCV. The percentages are substantially lower for children. HIV remains the most common cause of death among hemophilia patients; of the 400 who die each year, roughly 75 percent die as a result of HIV infection.

Still HIV is responsible for 75% of the patients deaths.

I'm sure only you can understand your own question as usual.

however,

modern risks of HIV contamination (for haemophilia patients in the USA).


What the old risks were? High.

You can see this from the fact that children are at a lesser risk because of the better screening as stated above.


Still HIV is responsible for 75% of the patients deaths.

is it? Or is the medication responsible?

I read something recently in science mag, it's really annoying me as I can't recall exact details. Was something to do with that test re count that determines HIV virus present. Said something like people with low HIV? die within 10yrs if treated just as people with High HIv do, kind of suggesting that it was medication that gave them this 10yr window not how advanced the HIV/Aids was before treatment. Does this ring any bells?

The scientific debate on the AIDS controversy ended pretty much in 1995. Because the scientific community was satisfied there was none after all parties had had their say in top ranking journals.

Are you argueing that 'science', one of the top journals is not good enough for you?

Wikipedia is not good enough for you?

But a random website is?

The "debate", such as it was, took place in Science's letters to the editor section. Since I actually tracked down that debate around the year 2000 and photocopied it, I still have some familiarity with it. It was not peer-reviewed, and the "gatekeeper" was, as you might expect, the editor of the "letters to the editor" page. This little affair seems to have been given a lot more effect than it really should have, score one for the "orthodox" side, which was pretty predictable no matter what evidence was shown. By that time Peter Duesberg's book had been out for quite a while, and as far as I know Science never went over that point by point. I don't feel that the dissident side really had its say in any "top" journal.

What worries me here is the kind of cards that you play, Spuriousmonkey, and I still don't completely agree with the way that you are dealing them. You've dismissed one of TOR's posts as not containing an argument, when it quoted Rebecca Culshaw's stated reasons for leaving the HIV industry. Even without an "argument" it is part of the history of this thing and it points to a source of information. Participants here are not going to accept a strict format of any kind that we aren't already used to, especially if they don't see how it is being administered fairly. I really think that you should ask people what they think constitutes fair administration and moderation of the discussion. Loose but not too loose is the way that I would say it.

What I wanted to do in the first place was to pin down a scientific type of definition of what we were talking about in the first place. The first thing that you said that I had a problem with was that AIDS was HIV disease by definition. We can get to talking past each other really easy that way, but I have to argue that this is not a good way to define it. What should be a type of AIDS should not be used as part of the definition of AIDS. It messes with the hierarchy that should be imposed on such definitions. For example, we don't define a fever as being that condition of higher body temperature that is caused by having a cold because we know that the flu, mumps, and many other diseases cause a fever. An "AIDS" is a way to say that the patient is immune-suppressed, and the "AIDS caused by HIV" or "AIDS caused by radiation" should be smaller categories under the broader category of "AIDS." Calling it a syndrome makes it bigger than it should be, too, because even if AIDS is a symptom of HIV infection, it is a symptom, like chronic fatigue syndrome or Reyes syndrome.

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.
no one is suggesting it is a hoax!

read the links I have provided, it centers around the test for HIV and

the 'count' they do

low count = HIV BUT that is NOT world wide accepted!! and it has been found to be LOW in people subsequently tested (different method) for HIV who have tested negative.

Also sometimes people who test positive can later test negative!

Raed the links I provided, this is a greyer area than we realise

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

Just a quick note: You can't rule out a possibility by resorting to the "reasonable man" hypothesis. Governments, organizations, and individuals often do odd things even when those things are against their best interests, or against what seem to be their best interests.

I had a problem with the AIDS paradigm very early. They were predicting a 100 percent mortality rate when they had very little information to go on.

A couple of things that I want to throw in here: Robert Laarhoven worked very hard to make the Virusmyth site factual and he kept it updated for over six years. Unlike a certain other site owner I could mention, he does not get any aid from anyone to pay for the site. It is not "propaganda", it is still one of the largest repositories of information on the dissident side of the AIDS controversy.

Another is that it takes time to properly present a scientific case, and this is complex enough that it takes time to go over any one point presented.

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

It's a long story. Before, someone didn't want to give me enough time to explain a lot of this, and it takes a lot of time to even start to tell the story. That's why I refer people to the site so they can get some idea what the story is. A lot of it is there.

TOR,
read the links I have provided, it centers around the test for HIV and

the 'count' they do
What does 'centers around' mean? It looks to me that you simply did a google search and pasted links without reading them yourself. Do you think all of them are contesting the HIV/AIDS connection? They don't. I have wasted enough of my time reading your links that do not support your arguement. State exactly what you disagree with, and why you disagree. Then give specific quotes to back up your arguement and links to the quotes. Your shotgun approach only reveals your lack of principle and intelligence in supporting your arguement.

Does Medication cause AIDS?
ToR asks this question.
is it? Or is the medication responsible?

I read something recently in science mag, it's really annoying me as I can't recall exact details. Was something to do with that test re count that determines HIV virus present. Said something like people with low HIV? die within 10yrs if treated just as people with High HIv do, kind of suggesting that it was medication that gave them this 10yr window not how advanced the HIV/Aids was before treatment. Does this ring any bells?

Feel free to read the link I gave you earlier.

MYTH: AZT and other antiretroviral drugs, not HIV, cause AIDS.

FACT: The vast majority of people with AIDS never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications (UNAIDS, 2000).

As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals.

In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo. Among HIV-infected patients who had not yet developed AIDS, placebo-controlled trials found that AZT given as single-drug therapy delayed, for a year or two, the onset of AIDS-related illnesses. Significantly, long-term follow-up of these trials did not show a prolonged benefit of AZT, but also never indicated that the drug increased disease progression or mortality. The lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these placebo-controlled trials effectively counters the argument that AZT causes AIDS (NIAID, 1995).

Subsequent clinical trials found that patients receiving two-drug combinations had up to 50 percent increases in time to progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to people receiving single-drug therapy. In more recent years, three-drug combination therapies have produced another 50 percent to 80 percent improvements in progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to two-drug regimens in clinical trials. Use of potent anti-HIV combination therapies has contributed to dramatic reductions in the incidence of AIDS and AIDS-related deaths in populations where these drugs are widely available, an effect which clearly would not be seen if antiretroviral drugs caused AIDS (Figure 1; CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; Palella et al. NEJM 1998;338:853; Mocroft et al. Lancet 1998;352:1725; Mocroft et al. Lancet 2000;356:291; Vittinghoff et al. J Infect Dis 1999;179:717; Detels et al. JAMA 1998;280:1497; de Martino et al. JAMA 2000;284:190; CASCADE Collaboration. Lancet 2000;355:1158; Hogg et al. CMAJ 1999;160:659; Schwarcz et al. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:178; Kaplan et al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:S5; McNaghten et al. AIDS 1999;13:1687).

As you can see this conclusion is backed up by many sources. Not just idle speculation.

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

A hoax?

Reliability of AIDS test:

no one is suggesting it is a hoax!

read the links I have provided, it centers around the test for HIV and

the 'count' they do

low count = HIV BUT that is NOT world wide accepted!! and it has been found to be LOW in people subsequently tested (different method) for HIV who have tested negative.

Also sometimes people who test positive can later test negative!

Raed the links I provided, this is a greyer area than we realise

Read your own posts please.

The first test is 99,5% accurate according to yourself. An obligatory second test reduces the inaccuracy to well under 0.1%.. According to your own post.

It's one of the most reliable diagnoses around.

Moreover, these extremely rare cases of mis-diagnosis do not disprove the causality between HIV and AIDS. And if it does I would very much like to hear how. And I think so would the rest of the world.

Reliability of AIDS test:



Read your own posts please.

The first test is 99,5% accurate according to yourself. An obligatory second test reduces the inaccuracy to well under 0.1%.. According to your own post.

It's one of the most reliable diagnoses around.

Moreover, these extremely rare cases of mis-diagnosis do not disprove the causality between HIV and AIDS. And if it does I would very much like to hear how. And I think so would the rest of the world.

Spurious,

1) I posted the original links NOT because I have an opinion on this matter but to demonstrate that Metakron who was unfairly ridiculed HAD a legitimate question, one that IS being discussed NOW (presently, not 11 years ago) by leading scientists who work in this field.

IE: NOT pseudoscience, not cesspool material, but a genuine question worthy of discussion. Your adverse opinion does not make this unworthy of discussion only that you can in fact contribute to it. There are no discussions if everyone agrees (not here anyway).

2) One of those links, a recent article disputed recent claims that HIV is not the sole cause of Aids; I did this deliberately to demonstrate no bias

BUT upon reading it I noted that one of the reasons given to PROVE that HIV is the sole cause relates to the CD4 count test that is undertaken. This test which defines Aids as its definition exists today (different definition to that of 12yrs ago) states that the definition has NOT gained worldwide acceptance.

Presently the definition of Aids is this:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

This suggests that worldwide this test for HIV is NOT accepted as reliable.

Dispute this?


Also I read that article recently (recent article) which raised query re this CD4 count test and the effect of treatment, so I am now interested in this topic. BUT still jury is out; I have no opinion only questions. Is that wrong? I am not a sheep; I do not blindly accept anything. You saying 'it isn't so' is not enough. Neither is providing ancient links to ancient information.

ToR, spurious moved the threads not because the ideas presented were to be considered pseudoscience, but that the proponents of such ideas refused to post support and logical arguments accompanying their ideas.

Also, it appears as though you are misreading your own quote. It appears to say that the number (200 x 10^6/L) is what is not fully accepted worldwide, not the actual counting of the the cells.

Spurious,

1) I posted the original links NOT because I have an opinion on this matter but to demonstrate that Metakron who was unfairly ridiculed HAD a legitimate question, one that IS being discussed NOW (presently, not 11 years ago) by leading scientists who work in this field.

IE: NOT pseudoscience, not cesspool material, but a genuine question worthy of discussion. Your adverse opinion does not make this unworthy of discussion only that you can in fact contribute to it. There are no discussions if everyone agrees (not here anyway).



Mod commit
i warned you about turning this thread into a moderator critique. This is the last warning. It's none of your business why a thread was send to the cesspool. And if you think it is your business there are two threads in the Open Government subforum where you can discuss the matter and you have your own blog



2) One of those links, a recent article disputed recent claims that HIV is not the sole cause of Aids; I did this deliberately to demonstrate no bias
Obviously you did demonstrate bias, since you didn't post any link showing HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.



BUT upon reading it I noted that one of the reasons given to PROVE that HIV is the sole cause relates to the CD4 count test that is undertaken. This test which defines Aids as its definition exists today (different definition to that of 12yrs ago) states that the definition has NOT gained worldwide acceptance.

Presently the definition of Aids is this:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

This suggests that worldwide this test for HIV is NOT accepted as reliable.

Dispute this?

Show that this in any way disproves that HIV causes AIDS.


Also I read that article recently (recent article) which raised query re this CD4 count test and the effect of treatment, so I am now interested in this topic. BUT still jury is out; I have no opinion only questions. Is that wrong? I am not a sheep; I do not blindly accept anything. You saying 'it isn't so' is not enough. Neither is providing ancient links to ancient information.

The jury is not out in the scientific community. It is rather in agreement. Please show that there is a controversy. A website does not constitute a scientific controversy. You are merely showing a figment of your imagination. Search the literature and you will find out the debate pretty much ended in 1995 in the scientific community with some spasms till 1998.

If you had bothered to actually look at the scientific debate you would see it started off soon after the first HIV/AIDS papers and died after 1995. That's because the consensus is nowadays that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS because the debate turned out to be unfruitful for the doubters.

But feel free to show there is a controversy in the scientific community.

May I remind you that you basically in the position of a creationist who claims the entire scientific community is wrong because there are 2 or 3 scientists who believe in the AIDS conspiracy.


I have a simple question for you though. Would you let yourself be injected with HIV? After all, it is innocent according to you.

Mod commit
i warned you about turning this thread into a moderator critique. This is the last warning. It's none of your business why a thread was send to the cesspool. And if you think it is there are two threads in the Open Government subforum and you have your own blog



Obviously you did demonstrate bias, since you didn't post any link showing HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.




Show that this in any way disproves that HIV causes AIDS.



The jury is not out in the scientific community. Please show that it is. A website does not constitute a scientific controversyYOu are merely showing a figment of your imagination. Search the literature and you will find out the debate pretty much ended in 1995 in the scientific community with some spasms till 1998.

If you had bothered to actually look at the scientific debate you would see it started off soon after the first HIV/AIDS papers and died after 1995. That's because the consensus is nowadays that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS because the debate turned out to be unfruitful for the doubters.

But feel free to show there is a controversy in the scientific community.

May I remind you that you basically in the position of a creationist who claims the entire scientific community is wrong because there are 2 or 3 scientists who believe in the AIDS conspiracy.


I have a simple question for you though. Would you let yourself be injected with HIV? After all, it is innocent according to you.

actually I did add a link which discusses the issues debated here and refutes them all, this is the link:

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

it says this:

"Introduction
"AIDS is caused by infection with a virus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This virus is passed from one person to another through blood-to-blood and sexual contact."1

That's the standard explanation of what causes AIDS. But what evidence do scientists have to support this theory? And why do some websites say that the world has got it terribly wrong – that HIV does not cause AIDS at all?

As an independent AIDS organisation founded in 1986, AVERT has taken a keen interest in the ongoing debate about what causes the condition. As well as investigating the consensus position, we have followed and carefully considered the arguments of the dissident minority who claim that HIV is harmless or even that it might not exist. This topic is vitally relevant to how our organisation works to prevent people developing AIDS and to help those who are suffering.

It is AVERT's considered opinion that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is abundant and conclusive. This page outlines some of that evidence, while also mentioning how some dissidents have interpreted things differently. In particular, we'll look for proofs of the following:"



proves you don't read the links doesn't it

meanwhile stop with the bloody warnings, ban me if you want, I'll continue to reply to your posts as I see fit. If you don't think the comment is in the right place, then move it...like the other mods do.

Meanwhile do show me the post where I say HIV is innocent, I have said no such thing. Clearly HIV is not innocent it leads to AIDS all the links demonstrate is that HIV is possibley NOT the sole cause of Aids. There is a BIG difference in that and what you said! You sure you have a PhD, like to post evidence of that? you don't post like someone with a PhD.

I have no opinion on this matter, just questions, which you object to. Closed minds have no place in a debate. Stop trying to shut everyone up who disagree's with your view.

It is AVERT's considered opinion that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is abundant and conclusive. This page outlines some of that evidence, while also mentioning how some dissidents have interpreted things differently. In particular, we'll look for proofs of the following:"



proves you don't read the links doesn't it

I think it proves you don't read anything yourself.

AVERT is an AIDS charity organization and not a scientific organization.

AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity based in the UK, with the aim of AVERTing HIV and AIDS worldwide.

Nothing on their site says anyting that HIV is not responsible for AIDS. Feel free to point out on their site where it says HIV is not responsible for AIDS.

In fact let me quote you some stuff on their website:
As time goes by, a person who has been infected with HIV is likely to become ill more and more often until, usually several years after infection, they become ill with one of a number of particularly severe illnesses. It is at this point that they are said to have AIDS - when they first become seriously ill, or when the number of immune system cells left in their body drops below a particular point. Different countries have slightly different ways of defining the point at which a person is said to have AIDS rather than HIV.

How long does HIV take to become AIDS?

Without drug treatment, HIV infection usually progresses to AIDS in an average of ten years. This average, though, is based on a person having a reasonable diet. Someone in a resource-poor area who might not be adequately nourished may well progress to AIDS and death much more rapidly.

Antiretroviral medication can prolong the time between HIV infection and the onset of AIDS. Modern combination therapy is highly effective and, theoretically, someone with HIV can live for a long time before it becomes AIDS. These medicines, however, are not widely available in many poor countries around the world, and millions of people who cannot access medication continue to die.
How is HIV passed on?

HIV is found in the blood and the sexual fluids of an infected person, and in the breast milk of an infected woman. HIV transmission occurs when sufficient of these fluids get inside someone else's body. There are various ways a person can become infected with HIV.
http://www.avert.org/aids.htm
It seems to me they are taking a rather normal position in the view on HIV causing AIDS.

Maybe you should read your own links and sources.

Presently the definition of Aids is this:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

This suggests that worldwide this test for HIV is NOT accepted as reliable.

Dispute this?

still waiting

I think it proves you don't read anything yourself.

AVERT is an AIDS charity organization and not a scientific organization.

AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity based in the UK, with the aim of AVERTing HIV and AIDS worldwide.

Nothing on their site says anyting that HIV is not responsible for AIDS. Feel free to point out on their site where it says HIV is not responsible for AIDS.

In fact let me quote you some stuff on their website:



http://www.avert.org/aids.htm
It seems to me they are taking a rather normal position in the view on HIV causing AIDS.

Maybe you should read your own links and sources.


where did I say it was a scientific organization?

I said I posted a link which refutes the arguments regarding HIV NOT being sole cause of Aids.

I DID

I did this to demonstrate no bias

you have yet to demonstrate bias, and comprehension it seems

where did I say it was a scientific organization?

If I ask for proof of the scientific controversy one might expect it to come from a scientific organization.

Moreover you quoted from a website that is fully in line with the view that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.

Logic is your friend.

any chance you can answer the question that was posed in first paragraph of the post you merged?

Your post was already answered by someone else.


Also, it appears as though you are misreading your own quote. It appears to say that the number (200 x 10^6/L) is what is not fully accepted worldwide, not the actual counting of the the cells.

Your post was already answered by someone else.

this is not an answer

it does not answer why this not accepted worldwide? if it does do highlight the words :rolleyes:

this is not an answer

it does not answer why this not accepted worldwide? if it does do highlight the words :rolleyes:

That wouldn't be necessary if you failed to understand your own quote.

If I ask for proof of the scientific controversy one might expect it to come from a scientific organization.

Moreover you quoted from a website that is fully in line with the view that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.

Logic is your friend.

moving my replies now to remove evidence of the flaws in your argument Spurious? You made a claim HERE, I am entitled to respond HERE

I quoted from a website that supports your view knowingly, I did this as I have no bias, which I have repeated over and over. I already said why I posted the controversy supporting links and that they had nothing to do with an opinion of mine! Support for Metakrons argument was requested, I provided it. Nothing more than that. I demonstrated a controversy exists, I did NOT state at any time I supported it. I support free speech and have questions. Clearly you don't. This Post has been copied and saved on my pc. Feel free to delete. I'll make sure it's seen.


modedit-

your reply is not deleted, merely moved to the appropriate thead.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61472

see the following posts. Note that you failed to refute anything that was said here.

Position: Koch's postulate fulfilled?

Cohen claimed already in 1994 that Koch's postulate was fulfilled.


Source SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994 p1647

Position: Could drugs be the cause of AIDS?

Duesberg claimed Drugs causes AIDS.



Well, can't that really be? Was Duesberg right?



Moreover, researchers subsequently tested Duesbergs theory:




Drug use has no causal correlation to AIDS.

Source:
SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994

Can AZT cause AIDS?


Concorde was at this point the largest running study of AZT of that time.

HIV causes AIDS

haemophilia patients are probably the best group to study the last principle of Koch's postulate on an epidemiological scale. Needles to say there have been many documented individual cases of health workers being infected by HIV and developing AIDS.



This article pretty much confirmed the notion that HIV causes AIDS
Nature 377, 79 - 82 1995


Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs

DURING 1977-91, 6,278 males diagnosed with haemophilia were living in the UK. During 1979-86, 1,227 were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) as a result of transfusion therapy (median estimated seroconversion date, October 1982). Among 2,448 with severe haemophilia, the annual death rate was stable at 8 per 1,000 during 1977-84; during 1985-92 death rates remained at 8 per 1,000 among HIV-seronegative patients but rose steeply in seropositive patients, reaching 81 per 1,000 in 1991-92. Among 3,830 with mild or moderate haemophilia, the pattern was similar, with an initial death rate of 4 per 1,000 in 1977-84, rising to 85 per 1,000 in 1991-92 in seropositive patients. During 1985-92, there were 403 deaths in HIV seropositive patients, whereas 60 would have been predicted from rates in seronegatives, suggesting that 85% of the deaths in seropositive patients were due to HIV infection. Most of the excess deaths were certified as due to AIDS or to conditions recognized as being associated with AIDS.

This set of patients are not part of the risk group of drug users, homosexuals etc. It is a test of neutrality. These patients represent a normal cross section of the population (with of course the one difference that they suffer from this particular disease and are dependent of blood transfusions).

Note:

yes, the article is old, but the controversy in the scientific world was pretty much settled by then as has been said before.

Here is a good site with detailed information on HIV/AIDS

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/default.htm

I would like some people to regards the following paragraph from an article from this site.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/macs_and_wihs.htm



The site provides a nice set of links and data to back up this claim.

still deleteing valid replies to your invalid posts?

Mod comment

Please keep pointless posts out of this thread. Yes, they will be deleted. Unfortunately you choose to post my mod PMs publicly on this forum and hence you will receive no warnings. That is your own doing and responsibility. If you act like a child you will be treated as such.

AIDS test reliabilty.

Here you can find an evaluation of some recent tests on the market:
http://www.who.int/diagnostics_laboratory/publications/en/op_characteristics_HIV_rep11.pdf

If you are willing to scroll down to table 2 you will notice that these tests are extremely reliable.

Even the simple tests compared in later tables do quite well.

In conclusion HIV tests are rather reliable.

Presently the definition of Aids is this:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

This suggests that worldwide this test for HIV is NOT accepted as reliable.
what does this mean?
instead of 200 they accept 199?

That's the standard explanation of what causes AIDS. But what evidence do scientists have to support this theory? And why do some websites say that the world has got it terribly wrong – that HIV does not cause AIDS at all?

for the exact same reason there are website that says the driver of the limo shot JFK, the moon landing never happened, the holocaust is a hoax, etc, and so on.

for the exact same reason there are website that says the driver of the limo shot JFK, the moon landing never happened, the holocaust is a hoax, etc, and so on.

I never said this Leo, why are you 'editing' my posts , these words are not mine, this question was not raised by me. It is contained within a link which I said a million times, I have no opinion on and do not support either way. Pay attention

Like being bit?

Like having sex with the chimp that had the HIV virus...the virus catched on and got passed on to humans.

Like having sex with the chimp that had the HIV virus...the virus catched on and got passed on to humans.

But is that just hearsay or usual enough to your way of life to speak with authority?

Mod comment -

No flaming please.

How did HIV enter the human population?

The 'Hunter' Theory

The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.

An article published in The Lancet in 20043, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to hunters is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered to ten (1%) were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have lead to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans.

From Avert. A organization recommended by ToR.
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

This thread is closed till further notice.

This thread is reopened.

I started a thread on a science forum else where on this Aids controversy and some useful things came out of it. The item I quoted for the purposes of that thread was one relating to concerns regarding the effectiveness of the ELISA test in Africa. A quote is in this thread also. A man named Tony replied thus:


Tony wrote:
"The one thing that I find interesting from the OP is the assertion that the only HIV test done in Africa is the ELISA screening. This test is not that accurate - anywhere from .5% to 1% false positives in some situations. I myself came up false positive when I gave blood once. Does anyone know if only ELISA is done in Africa?"

A man named Fred (who seems well informed on this subject) replied thus:

"That's a good point. The ELISA test is very sensitive for HIV but not very specific. Sensitivity and specificity are important parameters in testing. Sensitivity describes how well a test identifies subjects who have a condition, while specificity describes how well a test excludes subjects who do not have it. The combination of ELISA and Western Blot is both sensitive and specific. If someone is HIV infected, the test will almost always be positive or become positive over a short interval. Similarly, if someone does not have HIV, the combination will almost always correctly classify that person as negative.

The Western Blotting test is itself both sensitive and specific, but it is probably too impractical for it to be used on everybody who is a candidate for screening. It is therefore reserved for those individuals who test positive with ELISA."

This is useful piece of dialogue which covers the concerns (which appear to be genuine) with a relevant and informative reply.

thoughts?

The quote I posted previously suggested that in Africa they rely heavily on the ELISA test only, is this correct? Fred says that if a person tests positive with the ELISA they go on to have the other more reliable test. In Africa is this ALWAYS the case? Anyone know?

Because nobody cares about africa.

There is where the real conspiracy is.

Because nobody cares about africa.

There is where the real conspiracy is.

wow, that's a tad controversial like to elaborate?

The quote I posted previously suggested that in Africa they rely heavily on the ELISA test only, is this correct? Fred says that if a person tests positive with the ELISA they go on to have the other more reliable test. In Africa is this ALWAYS the case? Anyone know?

Not too sure. ELISA requires some expensive equipment and basically a proper lab set up. In countries in Africa, where tests are having to be performed in some centres that are quite a distance from major towns or cities, this might be difficult to do. I think many of the tests used in Africa (or they were in 2004) are the Simple/Rapid Assays, becaues they are so much easier and faster.

In 57% of the countries more than half of the public sector laboratories use ELISA for serological diagnosis. ELISA tests require expensive equipment, a reliable electricity supply, and trained manpower to perform the tests. The reagents require a cold chain thus posing logistical problems in distribution. In addition, the need for batch testing limit their use to high volume laboratories. ELISA is thus more likely to be suitable to public laboratories at Central and regional levels.

3.1.2 Simple/Rapid Assays

The level of use of Rapid/Simple assays has rapidly increased in many countries. In 76% of the countries more than half of the laboratories in the public sector use the assays, while the usage in the private and NGO sectors is 35% and 24% respectively. The increased usage is also reflected at different health care levels. In 54% of the countries more than half of the laboratories at district level use rapid assays.

In many countries ELISA equipment, installed many years ago, is in most cases non-functional. This has, therefore, given rise to the increasing use of rapid assays at all levels including the central level. All countries reported some level of use of rapid assays at all health care levels.

The many advantages of Simple/Rapid assays over ELISA have made possible their use on a much wider scale and in many settings. They do not require highly sophisticated laboratory infrastructure. They are now extensively used at all levels of health care delivery in both the public and private sector. Their simplicity and ability to offer same day HIV results have made them suitable for use in VCT and PMTCT programmes. This is reflected in their increasing use to meet the growing demand for VCT and PMTCT services.
Link (http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/dls/ila/cd/who-afro/LABORATORY%20CAPACITY%20TO%20RESPOND%20TO%20HIV_VE RSION%20REVISEE.doc)


As to their accuracy, I'd imagine it would be akin to the ELISA test. Not too sure to be honest.

The link provided with the quote above is quite comprehensive in testing proceedures followed and used in Africa. It is a bit dated, but it was all that was available that was this comprehensive from the WHO. Hope it helps.

wow, that's a tad controversial like to elaborate?
For quite a few years, many African Governments refused to accept AIDS as an issue, instead stating that it was a racist conspiracy by the white West. As a result, may African countries had sky rocketing AIDS and HIV infection rates, with their Governments giving very little funding or resources allocated towards educational programs or any form of programs at all dealing with HIV and AIDS. Instead they seemed to spend their money on what they considered more important, such as bigger and better weapons.

Made all the headlines in the early 2000's.

Remember that many of these countries were under white minority control just twenty to thirty years ago. The whites that were in control would jail and even kill people for having disagreements with the government. It is not only natural but accurate for the current governments to suspect conspiracies against them. That is the way things were done, and just because they handed over "power" last week does not mean that the whites have stopped doing what they were doing.

I don't want to simply declare a conspiracy about AIDS here. I want to show evidence that is true that adds up to whatever it adds up to.

I think it was more a case where they saw it as being a Western, foreign and white problem. It was basically a state of denial. I think only a couple of countries (in Africa that is) attempted to hold the spread of the disease and actually acted responsibly to educate, provive free AIDS tests and promote safe sex methods, etc, and they were fairly successful.. I think they were Senegal and Uganda if I remember correctly.. not too sure.

The rest just preferred to literally deny the risk existed. And the result has been catastrophic. It's only been in the last few years that the rest of the African nations have finally dragged their feet into accepting that it was a huge problem and they needed to do more. Sadly, it has been too late for millions of people.

Why is AIDS now a huge problem in Africa when, before it was invented, about two million people a year died of malaria and tuberculosis?

A man named Tony replied thus:
bla, bla, bla . . .


A man named Fred (who seems well informed on this subject) replied thus:
bla, bla, bla, . . .


thoughts?

yeah, who are tony and fred?

Why is AIDS now a huge problem in Africa when, before it was invented, about two million people a year died of malaria and tuberculosis?
Who said that tuberculosis and malaria weren't huge problems?

about the AIDS hoax:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8136240710964892606&q=Zapruder+Film

you are probably wondering what does the murder of JFK have to do with this.
the answer is simple really, disinformation.

i present the above to show that it doesn't really matter what position you are.
in situations like this you need to look outside the box. let's do that.

what are colds? have they been able to isolate the cold virus?
do colds actually exist? is there a single test for colds?

just something for you people to think about.

deleted

Remember that many of these countries were under white minority control just twenty to thirty years ago. The whites that were in control would jail and even kill people for having disagreements with the government. It is not only natural but accurate for the current governments to suspect conspiracies against them. That is the way things were done, and just because they handed over "power" last week does not mean that the whites have stopped doing what they were doing.

I don't want to simply declare a conspiracy about AIDS here. I want to show evidence that is true that adds up to whatever it adds up to.

Whats up Metakron,

Yes, I think there is something perculiar about HIV/AIDS, I think some certain people know something about it than we do. Things that may have some socio-economical and even racial influence. Let me just go ahead and say this, AIDS is very possibly a synthetic ailment made out of a mistake or an intent by certain African government to reduce the population or fight rival tribes. Now of cause Western big wigs aren't entirely out of the fray. Westerners never interfere in African affairs unless they can exploit it, they don't even change anything, they just do as the African government says, but they find a way to serve their own purpose. Westerners probably helped develope AIDS, in fact they probably started the whole virus disaster.
My problem with AIDS is that there are too many unknowns and uncertainties surrounding the disease, while all primary and secondary medicinal companies are benefitting left and right. Most people with HIV/AIDS don't even die by hyper nutrition loss but by ailments such as fever, diarhear, and flu, and you can guess what kind of medicine these patients are using for this symptoms. The whole thing is too suspicions, even from its origin to its intricacies. Every ailment the human body has is a result of immune deficiency, even the common influenza, which pretty much means nobody knows Jack Shit about AIDS/HIV disease. Of cause I have absolutely no evidence for my acertions but we know pharmacutical industries constantly trial medicines in remote Africa and other undeveloped countries, and a lot of the trials and results are kept under the radar. I am not a consipracy type person but the whole event surrounding the disease is too fuckin suspicious. In Asia scientists wanted to breed a an ape with a human to see what would occur, but pressure from the people created mass hysteria and the science comunity halted the experiment, at least so they say, other scientists have some out to say there are strange rumours of such a thing actually happening but won't give details. However, I don't think AIDS/HIV came from monkeys, by all definition any money with that deficiency should die, and they is no record of any AIDS pandemic in apes or monkeys. I could be wrong about this post though, afterall Europe lost 1/3 of its population to the black plague many years ago, but who is to say the elite were not busy tampering with medicine and the human body in their relatively archaic universities. Biologicaly, virtually anything that can wipe out a huge population of any specie is almost always unatural.

Why is AIDS now a huge problem in Africa when, before it was invented, about two million people a year died of malaria and tuberculosis?

There is no real verifiable record for that acertion. Native Africans have had malaria medicines for hundreds of years, in fact the modern version of malaria medicine is not too different. Malaria kills some people, but believe it or not some people are more immune to Malaria. I had a friend who once survived malaria(though it can be a very debelitating diseases). Tuberculosis is a bacterial disease than can be cured with early vaccination or antibacterial regimen. If you know anything about medicine or ever been sick you will notice that all classified ailments usually have one or more similar symptoms, which pretty much means the doctors are just picking the best possible ailment- and for the best possible treatment. This pretty much means Malaria killing the most people is questionable, even AIDS/HIV patients have malaria. If malaria was so rampant in Africa, it should be just as rampant in South America, which it is, but not as devastating.

Hi spuriousmonkey,
Would you mind explaining something for me? Why is this disease called HIV-Aids? Is 'Aids' different from 'HIV-Aids'?
Thanks,
John

Well, Chatha, I pointed people to the Virusmyth site so they could read up on the whole thing. The African AIDS thing was debunked as early as 1987, by, you guess it, Duesberg. Then a lot of ad hominen arguments were used against Duesberg, but nothing came out that scientifically demonstrated that Duesberg was anything but right about "African AIDS."

I think that a conspiracy theorist is likely to be anyone who tried to find and use accurate information to debunk conspiracies. It may be the most certain route, if the debunker is intellectually honest and actually studies the material.

The things that are already admitted by so-called mainstream thinkers are absolutely horrifying. It seems innocent enough that before AIDS was invented, makers of baby formula were selling the formula to Africans. The trouble is, these people don't know a few things. These include the fact that baby formula is not that good for babies and increases the infant mortality rate. Then you have the fact that many Africans have no clean water to mix the formula with. Even if this is given to them free to "help feed Africa", it is still not a net benefit. The mothers would be better off drinking the formula themselves and breastfeeding.

It's not even part of a depopulation program because higher infant mortality rates drive people to have more babies, with a net gain over a lower infant mortality rate and fewer babies.

Then a lot of ad hominen arguments were used against Duesberg, but nothing came out that scientifically demonstrated that Duesberg was anything but right about "African AIDS."


Mod comment
Back it up with real sources or run the risk of removal: see the forum guidelines and rules

Look, guy, anyone who makes conversation needs a bit more room than that. Please chill out.

Hi
Can ANYONE tell me why this disease is called HIV-Aids? Is 'Aids' different from 'HIV-Aids'?
Thanks,
John

Hi
Can ANYONE tell me why this disease is called HIV-Aids? Is 'Aids' different from 'HIV-Aids'?
Thanks,
John

It is. I don't know how it seems that the medical profession got into the habit of identifying AIDS with HIV. They should know better.

Hi
Can ANYONE tell me why this disease is called HIV-Aids? Is 'Aids' different from 'HIV-Aids'?
Thanks,
John


read this for general info.
http://www.avert.org/aids.htm

Post by metakron moved to cesspool due to failure to comply to the moderators instructions. So far he had three threads to come up with the argument to back up his claims and hasn't grasped the chance in any of them. Trolling will not be tolerated on this particular subject. AIDS denial is of such an irresponsible nature that I will not allow for its propaganda to spew freely. I'm quite happy if there would be a debate on the mechanisms of HIV and the link to AIDS.

You may well compare AIDS denial to holocause denial. I'm sure that for both cases there are internet sites that claim that neither is real. That is not going to get you of the hook of actually backing up this claims if you want to post them here. You may discuss the ethical aspects of AIDS denial here:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1251381#post1251381


Metakron's post moved here:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61071

Thanks Spurious,
I have no idea what's going on here. I know nothing about Aids denial or any of the other things you refer to. I just wanted to know the difference, if there is one, between HIV and AIDS. I remember when AIDS was first discovered it wasn't referred to as HIV/AIDS. I just wondered why the change in name - THAT ALL!
Thanks for the reference. That answers my question.
John

The slash merely represents a division.
HIV/AIDS. A thread about HIV and AIDS

a dash would make it one word.

HIV-AIDS. a thread about HIV-AIDS.


Sorry for the confusion.

http://www.physorg.com/news86960302.html

>> Clinical studies of the drug, called an integrase inhibitor, showed that, when combined with two existing drugs, it reduced the virus to undetectable levels in nearly 100 percent of HIV patients prescribed a drug regimen for the first time, The Los Angeles Times said Tuesday. It had a similar effect in 72 percent of salvage therapy patients, who take a mixture of existing medications aimed at stalling the virus until new drugs appear.

The drug essentially prevents the virus' DNA from integrating with a host's cells, inhibiting its ability to replicate itself.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should approve it in mid-2007. Manufacturer Merck & Co. is making it available sooner to patients in desperate straits.

"They tested it on some people who were in deep, deep salvage therapy, and even those people did remarkably well," Dr. Steven Deeks, a University of California, San Francisco salvage therapy authority, told the Times. "It seems to be a truly phenomenal drug that ... is changing the whole way we think about the management of these patients." >>>

Now that is promising

Hi Spurious,
No confusion for me. I didn't even consider the difference between slash and hyphen. Thanks for the primer.
John

That's wonderful URI!

I just wanted to know the difference, if there is one, between HIV and AIDS.

HIV is a virus.

AIDS is the disease (or, technically, syndrome) caused by the HIV virus.

HIV is a virus.

AIDS is the disease (or, technically, syndrome) caused by the HIV virus.

Tell HIM that.

So you agree now that HIV causes AIDS?

No I do not. I'm amazed at what you think convinces people. If it does work it's a sad commentary.

Thanks James.......... John

Uh oh. Genetically modified rats bred to be susceptible to hiv... this should make that prophecy guy cream his jeans...
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/103/1

I've been browsing a bit through the HIV literature and found the following article in Nature Reviews Microbiology

4 January 2007
Is HIV-1 evolving to a less virulent form in humans?
During the rapid spread of HIV-1 in humans, the main (M) group of HIV-1 has evolved into ten distinct subtypes, undergone countless recombination events and diversified extensively. The impact of this extreme genetic diversity on the phenotype of HIV-1 has only recently become a research focus, but early findings indicate that the dominance of HIV-1 subtype C in the current epidemic might be related to the lower virulence of this subtype compared with other subtypes. Here, we explore whether HIV-1 has reached peak virulence or has already started the slow path to attenuation.

HIV-1 was introduced into the human population just 60–80 years ago5 but an estimated 40 million individuals are currently infected with the virus The spread and expansion of HIV-1 across Africa and throughout the world has been accompanied by one of the most rapid evolutionary rates described for a human pathogen6, aside from hepatitis C virus. HIV-1 remains one of the most lethal pathogens (100% mortality) that currently infects humans, whereas infection by other human viruses that are often more feared, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), influenza H5NI and Lassa Fever, can have a mortality rate of <50% (Refs 7–9).

Is there attenuation?

With the exceptions of anecdotes, a few case reports and one published study on a large cohort, there is no evidence that HIV-1 virulence has either increased or decreased during the past 20–30 years of the pandemic. One of the main obstacles in comparing disease progression in the mid-1980s with the current day epidemic in the developed world is the significant medical advancements that have been made. In the developing world, until recently, few if any cohorts have been analysed for disease progression. Finally, owing to increased awareness and education about AIDS, patients are now diagnosed earlier, sometimes during acute infection, whereas in the 1980s many patients did not present to a clinic until the onset of AIDS. As a result, there is often the impression that HIV-1 infections are less aggressive now than they were at the beginning of the pandemic.

Not all HIV subtypes are equal though

HIV-1 subtype C might be in a more advanced stage of attenuation than other HIV-1 subtypes53, 96, 144. If it is less virulent than other subtypes, subtype C infections might result in slower disease progression, longer periods of asymptomatic infection and more opportunities for transmission


But in conclusion there is no real evidence that HIV is getting less virulent.

100% mortality

That's not exactly true.
Although I don't know what the exact percentage would be. Probably pretty damned close to 100% but accuracy in this case, I think, would suggest to round down to 99% if any rounding should occur at all.

Like having sex with the chimp that had the HIV virus...the virus catched on and got passed on to humans.

If you believe this, should Africans believe Europeans and Americans are rutinely having sex with sheep?:D

mod statement:
This thread has seen no action for almost a month. Members decided to rather discuss HIV rather somewhere else. Therefore I declare this thread unstickied.

The amazing thing is that they have actually managed to get around the fact that the so-called indicator diseases for AIDS do not require any "HIV" infection to be around to cause disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/MMWRhtml/00018871.htm

They include cervical cancer and tuberculosis on this list.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6357287.stm

Scientists have shown what happens when an infection-fighting antibody attacks a gap in HIV's formidable defences.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases-led team say the work could aid HIV vaccine development.

They have published an atomic-level image in Nature showing the antibody, b12, attacking part of a protein on surface of the virus.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42566000/jpg/_42566405_antibody203220.jpg

"NIH researchers and their colleagues have revealed a gap in HIV's armour and have thereby opened a new avenue to meeting that challenge."

HIV rapidly evolves, but not all areas of the virus do so. Until now it was difficult to say which areas can rapidly evolve and which areas cannot. Areas that are crucial for entering the cell could be conserved. Now these researchers have shown a prediction of the area that could be used for vaccine research.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/070212-10.html

Researchers have developed a better understanding of how the HIV virus enters the female body during sex.

method

Because the vagina's skin is the first barrier to the HIV virus, Florian Hladik, who is also at the University of Washington decided to look at vaginal skin removed during surgery. He used a chemical treatment to separate the outermost layer of vaginal skin from the underlying tissue. His team then exposed this layer to HIV viruses that had been tagged with a glowing dye. The team could then see which cells the viruses had infected.

results

Within two hours, HIV had attacked specialized immune cells called CD4+ T cells, and infected almost half of them. At the same time, the virus also infected other cells in the immune system called Langerhans cells, but it's not clear exactly how the virus does this.

"This is significant, because there's a lot of debate about what the initial targets of HIV infection are in the vagina," says Veazey.

And when the researcher who "discovered" HIV lied about a lot of things, it somehow has no bearing on all this. Amazing.

On what all?

Gallo lied about his test results and he got away with doing crazy things. The idea that anyone has HIV disease is not only based on his test, the test has absolutely no chance of being reliable and wasn't even approved for use to diagnose HIV disease in humans. On that has been built the fantasy that HIV disease exists and causes AIDS. That's what all.

From your own favourite virus site:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/panel/chapter4.htm

Prof Montagnier argued that no test is perfect and, moreover, that the current generation of ELISA tests is much more sensitive and more specific than in 1984.

Dr Magkoba pointed out that the ELISA test has a predictive rate of over 99% in South Africa. Both the predictive rate and the false positive rate of ELISA tests in South Africa compare very well with similar results obtained in the United Kingdom. Screening tests used in South Africa are as good as those used anywhere else in the world. The tests are highly specific, sensitive and reliable.

The site also explains why the "predictive rate" is so high. Stop cherrypicking.

It just explains that HIV testing is basically solid because of the strategies employed to not rely on one test or test session.

HIV podcast:
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v445/n7129/nature-2007-02-15.mp3

Is an actual proof many of you asked for...HIV attacking human cell.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/images/070212-10.jpg

HIV attacks two cells at a time.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/070212-10.html

"The findings indicate that any effective microbicide must prevent HIV infection from entering both T cells and Langerhans cells"

Gallo lied about his test results and he got away with doing crazy things. The idea that anyone has HIV disease is not only based on his test, the test has absolutely no chance of being reliable and wasn't even approved for use to diagnose HIV disease in humans. On that has been built the fantasy that HIV disease exists and causes AIDS. That's what all.
Even if Gallo (who stole his research from the French team) lied, it doesn't change anything. So we throw his data out. We would still have the data of the French team, and still have the data of everyone who's done their own research since. This other data is what we're currently basing our work on.

What if people found a new virus or bacteria while looking for something else. Is that not valid? The results weren't the intended ones, so the data is no good to anyone?

It just explains that HIV testing is basically solid because of the strategies employed to not rely on one test or test session.

You do of course realize that your bullet through Bush's head avatar picture has been reported to the Secret Service?

Even if Gallo (who stole his research from the French team) lied, it doesn't change anything. So we throw his data out. We would still have the data of the French team, and still have the data of everyone who's done their own research since. This other data is what we're currently basing our work on.

What if people found a new virus or bacteria while looking for something else. Is that not valid? The results weren't the intended ones, so the data is no good to anyone?

This is just plain unacceptable. It is a double standard.

How so? What's the difference if we find something tangible while investigating falsified data compared to finding something completely by accident? The point is, even though Gallo was full of shit, he led us to finding something that is now backed up by correct and proper data. Even if his data is completely thrown out, that doesn't falsify the data we have now.

End of discussion.

How so? What's the difference if we find something tangible while investigating falsified data compared to finding something completely by accident? The point is, even though Gallo was full of shit, he led us to finding something that is now backed up by correct and proper data. Even if his data is completely thrown out, that doesn't falsify the data we have now.

End of discussion.

How does it even occur to you to say things like that?

were all the HIV nonbelievers?

You have no idea what constitutes proof, do you, Dragon?

Interesting article draq. I will, however, be moving this to the biology forum.:)

-----------------------------------

You have no idea what constitutes proof, do you, Dragon?

I know that you have some kind of HIV(dar), as though you have some kind of radar taking you straight to any article that deals with this topic, but how about you just allow people to discuss this instead of screaming 'lies' from your little soapbox and side-tracking the thread to suit your needs.

Yeah, Bells, like you and SpuriousMonkey would ever allow that.

It was a reasonable question. I have almost never seen a supporter of the HIV present me with a proof that actually constituted much of a real attempt at a proof, and this leads me to believe that there is a pathological lack of critical thinking or knowledge of anything even vaguely resembling scientific method.

Yeah, Bells, like you and SpuriousMonkey would ever allow that.

It was a reasonable question. I have almost never seen a supporter of the HIV present me with a proof that actually constituted much of a real attempt at a proof, and this leads me to believe that there is a pathological lack of critical thinking or knowledge of anything even vaguely resembling scientific method.

what more can you ask for?

Standards of evidence, reference to peer reviewed articles, articles that actually contain the evidence that Gallo claims to exist, to name a few things.

Standards of evidence, reference to peer reviewed articles, articles that actually contain the evidence that Gallo claims to exist, to name a few things.

go on that site and see yourself

mod statement: merged threads

[QUOTE=spuriousmonkey;1251376][COLOR="Red"]Post by metakron moved to cesspool due to failure to comply to the moderators instructions. So far he had three threads to come up with the argument to back up his claims and hasn't grasped the chance in any of them. Trolling will not be tolerated on this particular subject. AIDS denial is of such an irresponsible nature that I will not allow for its propaganda to spew freely. I'm quite happy if there would be a debate on the mechanisms of HIV and the link to AIDS.

You may well compare AIDS denial to holocause denial. I'm sure that for both cases there are internet sites that claim that neither is real. That is not going to get you of the hook of actually backing up this claims if you want to post them here.

The exploration of science is completely outside of the consideration of ethics. If this were not true, then the invention of the atomic bomb would have been unethical. The explorations of science are not considered bound by ethics, unless its use involves unethical conduct such as sacrifice of embryos for stem cell research.

The use of scientific knowledge, however can be judged as ethical or not.

Another analogy: The invention of the rifle is not in itself unethical, however, the use of that rifle to murder another human is considered unethical. The use of the rifle to kill another human in warfare as a soldier is considered ethical, etc.

Likewise, when it comes to the medical science of HIV/AIDS, there are no unethical areas of exploration. There are only possibly unethical or unethical uses for the results of that science.

There are those such as the moderator of this thread who claim it is unethical to pose scientific questions about the hypothesis, “the retrovirus HIV causes the syndrome called AIDS, a constellation of numerous diseases associated with immune deficiency”.

This type of censorship if wrong and favors special interest groups who benefit from this form of censorship. Who benefits from this type of censorship?

The argument has been made that million of people would stop taking their anti-HIV drugs and therefore die if we allow questions concerning the HIV/Aids hypotheis.

Is this a true statement?

What if the anti-HIV drugs are highly toxic and they themselves result in death for millions of people who are trusting people like our good moderator who takes it upon himself to censor discussion?

The concept of censorship is a military and government concept which is imposed voluntarily during wartime. This is also the origin of censorship involving the HIV AIDS hypothesis which was announced in 1984 at a government press conference at the NIH.

Could it be possible that the government is wrong about this? We cannot ask that question because that question is censored.

I do not believe the moderator of this forum has an obligation to the government to perform a censorship role.

If the HIV AIDS hypothesis is incorrect, and HIV is a benign passenger virus which is not the primary causative agent in AIDS, and does not cause death, then this amounts to the greatest medical blunder in the history of medicine, and then censorship is merely an attempt to continue the blunder. If the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is incorrect, then there have been hundreds of thousands of iatrogenic deaths from anti-HIV medications, amounting to a second Holocaust in the 20th century. This is the true source of the unethical nature of this discussion.

Hover, on the other hand, if the HIVAids hypothesis is correct, then there is no need to censor discussion, and it becomes the same as any other area of medical science where free discussion is openly encouraged.

And so I would ask this moderator to justify his censorship of this discussion, since the discussion of scientific questions can never be considered ethical or unethical. It is the use of the products of science which can be judged as ethical or unethical. A discussion about a rifle cannot be considered ethical or unethical. The use of that rifle however can be.

It just explains that HIV testing is basically solid because of the strategies employed to not rely on one test or test session.

HIV testing with Elisa antibody testing is unreliable because of false positives after influenza vaccination, and after hepatitis B vaccination among other reasons. This is due to cross reaction.(references available upon request)

In addition the recent study published in JAMA by Rodriguez Sept 2006 shows that HIV viral load measurements with PCR is unreliable as a predictor of T cell count (which is the definition of pregression to AIDS). The use of quatitative HIV PCR has been categorically denounced by the inventor of the PCR test who says that "quantitive PCR" is an oxymoron.

The Monkey has nothing real to justify the way that he disrupts threads about this subject, and he insists on following such threads down into the cesspool and trolling them, so he's not exactly the best source of information on this, and you have to wonder who his buddies are and how many of them are regulars at the Bohemian Grove.

Oh come awwwwwn. Are you still at it?

Give me a shred of proof that remotely suggests spurious shot JFK or whatever the fuck it is you believe. Give me a fucking shred!

he/she probably has AIDS and in last resort to live on...denies it.

he/she probably has AIDS and in last resort to live on...denies it.

That's about the size of an AIDS believer's case.

I had to wonder how an untested and untestable theory became a "mainstream" medical theory. Then I found out that the believers in AIDS know how to create the appearance of a theory without the substance.

The biggest problem in the cure for AIDS is that current medical approaches do not work because even if they manage to clean out most of the infection through bone marrow transplants, cellular flushes etc, there is still latent HIV. Latent HIV is inactive virus planted deep in the DNA of human cells and is safe from antiretroviral therapy.


However, a totally new approach to HIV treatment makes use of an epilepsy drug { valproic acid } that flushes HIV out of its most remote hiding places in the body. Most efforts focused on turning the latent infection into active infection but this only caused the virus to replicate faster. Now the focus is on agents that target different HIV replicative enzymes like Integrase or RNase.

David Margolis from the University of Maryland School of Medicine has found that valproic acid can flush out HIV from resting CD4 cells. He combines HIV drug, Fuseon with valproic acid, "The researchers found that the amount of replication-competent HIV hidden in resting CD4 cells declined by 68%-84%" Research is still ongoing.
http://www.thebody.com/content/art2515.html

Though there is no current cure this shows potential for future studies.


As for the great HIV does not cause AIDS debate: here is all the old arguments { and some new ones } in a simple and convenient place. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.htm

HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS Appendix 2: DOES HIV CAUSE AIDS? University of South Carolina's School of Medicine from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology.