The great HIV/AIDS thread

Theoryofrelativity said:
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).
Click to expand...

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


Theoryofrelativity said:
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
Click to expand...
Obviously you did demonstrate bias, since you didn't post any link showing HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.


Theoryofrelativity said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Theoryofrelativity said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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

spuriousmonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
spuriousmonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

spuriousmonkey said:
Position: Koch's postulate fulfilled?

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


Source SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994 p1647
Click to expand...

spuriousmonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

spuriousmonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

spuriousmonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Theoryofrelativity said:
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.
Click to expand...
what does this mean?
instead of 200 they accept 199?
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
leopold99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
draqon said:
Like having sex with the chimp that had the HIV virus...the virus catched on and got passed on to humans.
Click to expand...

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

Mod comment -

No flaming please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top