Do HIV and AIDS exist

[anonimouse]

Ok, robinson - we know exactly where you stand when you start quoting whale and Lew Rockwell. I wonder if David Ayoub has an opinion on the subject? Please spare me the pretense of being a "skeptic".

 

[robinson]

Ok, robinson - we know exactly where you stand when you start quoting whale and Lew Rockwell. I wonder if David Ayoub has an opinion on the subject? Please spare me the pretense of being a "skeptic".

I have no idea who whale or Lew Rockwell are. Or David Ayoub, (though now I am going to check).

One of the problems with looking for data on the internet. I try to avoid sites that are one sided or obviously crackpots. If you are saying whale or Lew Rockwell are known to be delusional or something, I have no problem with that. Please explain why you think this is so. I put a lot of effort into avoiding obviously biased or ridiculous sources.

-------------------------
David Ayoub, OK it looks like he is involved with mercury and autism. What does that have to do with HIV? Or this discussion?

Lew Rockwell, can't find any obvious info that he is nuts, please explain.. whale is not worth searching on. Who is whale?

The link states source as Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman ©1977. Are you talking about the whale.to website? Where is Lew Rockwell mentioned?

 

[robinson]

Ahh, you mean the link http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

The article is by Rebecca V. Culshaw. But I see your point. The website is lewrockwell.com. Nothing I quoted is by him. He seems a bit radical, but interesting.

 

[geni]

Good points. From the little research I have done, there seems to be several questions that scientist are asking about HIV/AIDS that are not answered yet.

Why no Gold standard for the HIV virus?

More than one strain.

Why does AIDS happen without HIV?

There are a number of ways to destory the immune system.

Why do some HIV infected people never get AIDS?

Because something else kills them first.

Why doesn't HIV cause AIDS in Chimps?

Much the same reason the smallpox virus doesn't have much effect.

If HIV causes AIDS, why hasn't it spread according to known medical science?

It has.

How is it transmitted by sex?

Cuts appear to be the main root. For cultral reasons things invovleing sex are always tricky to study.

I can debunk several of those, but it isn't easy.

I could produce evidence that the water molecule is linear that you would struggle to debunk.

And these are not coming from cranks or nutjobs, (those websites are a completely different thing, and I don't use them as sources), but from scientist, researchers, Doctors.

I suggest that you are not very good at spotting cranks and nutjobs. Or you are lying to us.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/clues.html

Eh? Hardly Unknown. there are a couple of anti HIV drugs that are meant ot prevent HIV binding with CCR5. Vicriviroc for example.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I hate to say this robinson, but your resources stink, reeek, and are despicably notorious for their horrendous misinformation. If you would like to have any serious discussion, then I recommend you start over and actually learn:

a. How the body works.
b. How vaccines work.
c. how to spot erroneous and blatant misinformation

I don't even know where to start, but you can start in a few places:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Vaccines_and_anti-vaccinators

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccine Quotes.html

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccinations.html

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/vaccination.html

 

[blutoski]

There are a number of ways to destory the immune system.

Specifically, though, you'd have to take each case individually. I once reviewed a list of people who allegedly had AIDS, but not HIV, and actually, they didn't have AIDS by any known definition. Often, they had Kaposi's Sarcomas, but this is not sufficient to diagnose AIDS. Others had HTLV, which is another virus that infects CD4 cells and causes immunodeficiency.

Because something else kills them first.

You don't even need to go that far: why do people with Epstein-Barr sometimes get ill, but sometimes not? Why do billions of people with varicella virus infections from childhood chickenpox not develop shingles until they're in their 90s?

Viral dormancy is a mystery. It is not, however, exclusively an HIV mystery.

Much the same reason the smallpox virus doesn't have much effect.

Exactly. Or, to reverse the question: why does feline leukemia virus not make humans sick... oh yeah... wrong species.

Actually, to be specific, it's that they lack the right epitopes on both CCR5 and CCR12, which makes them pretty much unbindable.

Cuts appear to be the main root. For cultral reasons things invovleing sex are always tricky to study.

In any case, the sexual vectors are shared by other viruses. I don't see why this would even be a question. Every virus or bacterial transmission has its uniqueness, depending on the size, solubility, and surface epitopes of the particle.

Eh? Hardly Unknown. there are a couple of anti HIV drugs that are meant ot prevent HIV binding with CCR5. Vicriviroc for example.

Most anti-HIV meds have well-understood mechanisms. Some bind to receptors, others bind to retrotranscriptase, &c. For me, the retrotranscriptase-binders are the smoking gun, as this molecule is specific to the HIV retroviruses, and people with mutated HIV strains that specifically distort the retrotranscriptase molecule such that antiretrovirals can't bind to it are much more likely to develop AIDS than their counterparts with pre-or-retromutated strains. Unless they take another variety of antiretroviral that fits the modified shape instead (thus the rotating-medication strategy that developed in the '90s).

 

[Chris Haynes]

I have no idea who whale ....The link states source as Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman ©1977. Are you talking about the whale.to website? Where is Lew Rockwell mentioned?

The whale.to website is run by a well-known usenet loon, John Scudamore. Referencing it is more likely to get you laughed at, and will definitely make sure you are not taken seriously.

Comments about John Scudamore in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationists/Individuals include "a
large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the whale,
illuminati, weird "science" and stuff which is not corrected to reflect demonstrated mistakes."

For an example of how seriously he is taken, check out my exchange with him on his posting on how to protect yourself from "black lines": An example of Whale.to John ... and the resulting JREF thread I started.

 

[robinson]

The whale.to website is run by a well-known usenet loon, John Scudamore. Referencing it is more likely to get you laughed at, and will definitely make sure you are not taken seriously.

Ahh, thanks. It is sometimes difficult to know which websites have accurate information, and which don't. I have been attempting to avoid obvious skeptical sites, (yes, that is ironic, considering this forum is one of them), as sources. The skeptical sites are many, and removing the wheat from the chaff is an effort. The whale site was not used for any HIV/AIDS information, but an related issue of a simian virus.

However, when engaged in a discussion where one view is considered "wrong", because most people hold a different view, (wikiality), I try not to use the obvious sources, because in a world of wikiality, something can't be true if most people don't believe it. They just won't accept any view they don't agree with, or refuse to look at any data.

You might think a skeptics forum would be free of such bias, but sadly, it seems to be human nature. Of course the scientific method, and experience with it, can lead to a better way of understanding the universe. The downside, is it takes time and effort to understand stuff, and most choose the safe and easy path of going along with popular opinion, or what they hear from the media.

I have been using the same method Randi would use on this issue. Can the truth be demonstrated, and repeated, with factors removed that would render the results invalid. Don't just tell me something is true, show me.

Obviously quoting sources that are "known" to be questionable would not advance a discussion, but lead to the ever tiresome insults, clowning around, and personal attacks that pass for discussion, with dumb people.

The few questions I mentioned are not all the issues of course, but the conflicting information provided here, does indeed point out one reason for controversy on the issues. None of the answers provided by anonymous members of this forum match what official websites say. Nor do they provide answers. In fact, there are large errors in the answers. That nobody has pointed this out, reveals the depth of ignorance one encounters on message boards, anonymous people providing erroneous information, which goes unchallenged.

Or as it was well put,

I mean, I'd love to just take the word of some random guy posting on the internet over the published research, but others may not be so forgiving.

I try to be forgiving, after all, ignorance is more common than knowledge, everywhere.

For example,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2342722#post2342722
clearly is based on real data, real information, from sites that are not questioned. Unlike the anecdotal evidence it was in response to. But nobody replied to it, or acknowledged the issue. Thus, one can claim there is no debate, the anecdotal evidence is not challenged, there is no debate. How simple.

I repeat, there is NO DEBATE about HIV causing AIDS among any credible scientists.

Rather than just accepting what somebody says, I looked at some data, read a lot of stuff. That statement is simply false, based on overwhelming evidence. The fact is, credible scientist and researchers are just the people who debate HIV causing AIDS, as well as the multitude of issues around it. That the debate is not represented, or dismissed, is not the same as it not existing.

Well, to some people it is. If they can't see it, it doesn't exist.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Ahh, thanks. It is sometimes difficult to know which websites have accurate information, and which don't. I have been attempting to avoid obvious skeptical sites, (yes, that is ironic, considering this forum is one of them), as sources. The skeptical sites are many, and removing the wheat from the chaff is an effort. The whale site was not used for any HIV/AIDS information, but an related issue of a simian virus.
...

Perhaps you should start here: www.pubmed.gov

If you find a paper there that is not available for free online, then go to your local library to see if they subscribe to the service that handles that particular journal.

 

[robinson]

I fundamentally believe that science itself points to experimental evidence as the key deciding factor as to whether a theory is true or false - not whether a large number of people believe it to be so. Conversely a large number of scientific theories that were believed to be true by a majority of scientists have been shown to be false by careful experiment. Just last year two Australian scientists were given the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their research that showed that stomach ulcer are caused by a bacterium and not by stress - and a majority of scientists at the time called them crackpots and worse.

No, a small minority of scientists may have called them crackpots and worse. The majority were unconvinced by the data that had been gathered up to that point and were respectfully doubtful. However, unlike the HIV denialists, Marshall and Warren collected more data and published it, which is what convinced the rest of the scientists.

This is an interesting point. I remember well the reaction to the first research on Helicobacter pylori. It was greeted with skepticism, denial, and ridicule. The case had been closed on peptic ulcers, and heretics were not welcome.

When I was first starting out in medical practice, back in the early 1980s, the accepted treatment for peptic ulcer disease was a bland diet plus antacids and more antacids. Later, histamine H2-receptor antagonists were added to the treatment. But that was it, case closed.

Then, in 1984, physicians Warren and Marshall from Australia claimed that peptic ulcer disease was not caused merely by overproduction of gastric acid, but rather by a specific bacterium: Helicobacter pylori, to be specific. They recommended antibiotic therapy. Believe me, they were ridiculed by the medical establishment. I recall my colleagues, and even my own physician-husband, scoffing at the idea of peptic ulcers being an infectious disease. For the next thirteen years, most of the “medical mainstream” refused to let go of their calcified notion that the only treatment for ulcers was to combat gastric acid secretion. After all, that was what we all learned in medical school. Therefore, it had to be the truth!

It wasn’t until 1997 that the CDC finally put out the word to the nation’s doctors: Drs. Warren and Marshall had been correct all along. Helicobacter pylori was, indeed, the cause of most cases of peptic ulcer disease. The treatment, at long last accepted by mainstream medicine, is now antibiotics.

- Dr. Tess Gerritsen

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/bacteria.html

Kimball C. Atwood IV then goes on to debunk the allegation that "they were ridiculed by the medical establishment. I recall my colleagues, and even my own physician-husband, scoffing at the idea of peptic ulcers being an infectious disease."

While that issue is hardly resolved, it does point out an obvious situation. Scientist and Doctors don't just accept stuff, especially radical new stuff, without a long period of skepticism, demanding evidence, and clinical trials and cold hard facts. Something as simple as treating ulcers took 13 years before it was accepted.

HIV causes AIDS was announced, accepted, and allowed a lucrative patent for the "discoverer", all in less than a year. And no dissent or questions are allowed, even if the Doctor is a Noble prize winner who invented the technology that is used to test for HIV???

It doesn't add up at all. The rabid responses from vested individuals, people who were making a lot of money from this, reeks of woo medicine. The controversy over who discovered the HIV virus is really something. But another issue.

It doesn't take long to find the controversy in this matter. The hard part is who do you believe? Because without evidence, without hard science, without facts that are right there, it comes down to belief in somebody, some agency, some person, rather than science.

I was surprised to find this is not the first time this has happened.

 

[JJM]

I repeat, there is NO DEBATE about HIV causing AIDS among any credible scientists.

Rather than just accepting what somebody says, I looked at some data, read a lot of stuff. Your statement is simply false, based on overwhelming evidence.

That statement by skeptigirl is simply true. Only the ignorant think otherwise. I hope no more of them get hurt.

If one knows how to evaluate science, rather than read words and imagine, it is clear that Duesberg's cheese slipped of his cracker. And more recent comments (compared to the one you cite) from Mullis distance him from denialism.

When you dismissed the summary I cited from the NIH, what was the basis for each item you rejected? You claim to have looked at some data. On the Net, others can't know; but it is clear that you have know reliable basis for evaluating such data. New Age claptrap leads people to think they are all competent to figure things out. That may work in the case of social issues (gun control, immigration policy, etc.); but it fails on technical subjects. Apropos of his birthday this week: Darwin wrote something to the effect that "Ignorance gives rise to more certainty than does education."

The point is not your uncertainty about AIDS; it is your certainty that you can figure out technical things, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[robinson]

Perhaps you should start here: www.pubmed.gov

Thanks, but I have hundreds of links to there already. Because of your friendly and helpful nature, here are a few of the links I looked at today in this matter. A true skeptic likes to see evidence, not anecdotes.

http://www.univie.ac.at/hygiene-aktuell/lederberg.htm
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/abst...ne&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/467307_print
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...eve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1548762&dopt=Abstract
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9294155
http://www.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2000/sw_jan-feb2000_page8.htm
http://www.healtoronto.com/durban/gannett-durban.html
http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/death-2.html
http://www.jco.org/cgi/content/full/23/5/990
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hiv_aids/deaths.htm
http://www.aegis.com/news/DMG/2000/MG001003.html
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/720
http://home.myuw.net/tkerns/MyUWsite/evtsite/evt-chp5.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#ddaids
http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/14/1/165#SEC2_2
http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/HIV/HIVback.html
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full...chid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC2_2

You tell me which one are not valid, based on the current wikiality.

 

[robinson]

That statement by skeptigirl is simply true. Only the ignorant think otherwise. I hope no more of them get hurt.

Saying something is true is not going to cut it. You have to provide evidence. Otherwise, you might look dumb.

If one knows how to evaluate science, rather than read words and imagine, it is clear that Duesberg's cheese slipped of his cracker.

Please provide something other than opinion.

And more recent comments (compared to the one you cite) from Mullis distance him from denialism.

You make it sound like competing religions. It is about science, and questions, and evidence. There are no competing religious views.

When you dismissed the summary I cited from the NIH, what was the basis for each item you rejected?

Where is this?

 

[JJM]

Once again into the breach...
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This refers to expert studies and publications. So far, the response to this from the denialists has been "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The linked site is an introduction to an enormous wealth of data linking HIV to AIDS, if you know how to evaluate it.

This is the NIH fact sheet, with citations, that you dismissed out of hand. Surely you remember it, it must have taken you some time to read the background.

 

[JJM]

Now, before anybody has a cow, look at

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This is the "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS, and I have read it. The problem here, is that as a skeptic, I want to see evidence to back up the claims made. There isn't any. I looked at the research, read the reports/studies. It doesn't meet the requirements for science at all.

This is where you dismissed the NIH fact sheet. We await your detailed rebuttal.

 

[robinson]

This is the NIH fact sheet, with citations, that you dismissed out of hand. Surely you remember it, it must have taken you some time to read the background.

I didn't dismiss any of it, especially out of hand. I looked for the obvious evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Now, before anybody has a cow, look at

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

This is the "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS, and I have read it. The problem here, is that as a skeptic, I want to see evidence to back up the claims made. There isn't any. I looked at the research, read the reports/studies. It doesn't meet the requirements for science at all.

http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hivcausesaids.html

Another evidence page. Same problem. No double blind study at all on HIV causing AIDS.

No evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV. This is crazy. There must be a scientific, peer reviewed, repeated experiment that proves HIV causes AIDS. How can there not be? We all know it is true. How can the tests not be there?

Millions of people have died, millions more have it, why no scientific evidence that shows HIV leads to AIDS? Yeah, yeah, I read all the stuff that is offered as evidence. None of it meets the requirements for a disease cause. Or does it?

I know this is going to be shown to be simply nuts. Google must be broken. There HAS to be a peer reviewed, published paper showing HIV causes AIDS. There HAS to be a repeated experiment to show it wasn't a flawed study. That is how science works.

Since I wrote that, I have searched a lot. I stand by my statement. There HAS to be a peer reviewed, published paper showing HIV causes AIDS. There HAS to be a repeated experiment to show it wasn't a flawed study. That is how science works.

Obviously, no one here has the ability to show the study, and the peer review, or we wouldn't be discussing it.

All that being said, I have my own evidence for believing HIV causes AIDS. (I have stated that I believe HIV causes AIDS).

 

[hammegk]

This is where you dismissed the NIH fact sheet. We await your detailed rebuttal.

Good point by point rebuttals like you serve up reasons to accept?

That statement by skeptigirl is simply true. Only the ignorant think otherwise. I hope no more of them get hurt.

Gee, is that 51%, or 75%, or 90%? Ask schneib, maybe?

If one knows how to evaluate science, rather than read words and imagine, it is clear that Duesberg's cheese slipped of his cracker.

Good one, that. Do you have the DSM-V category?

And more recent comments (compared to the one you cite) from Mullis distance him from denialism.

Ed only knows what you might mean here.

When you dismissed the summary I cited from the NIH, what was the basis for each item you rejected?

Hmm. Perhaps we're all waiting on you to provide the detailed basis demonstrating each factoid True ... and at what % did you/schneib say???

The point is not your uncertainty about AIDS; it is your certainty that you can figure out technical things, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

ROTFLMGDFAO. Do you think you could sell $1 bills for 50cts?

 

[blutoski]

If one knows how to evaluate science, rather than read words and imagine, it is clear that Duesberg's cheese slipped of his cracker. And more recent comments (compared to the one you cite) from Mullis distance him from denialism.

I met Duesberg in Durban a few years ago. He had his little fan club mobbing him, but was basically an outsider at the AIDS conference, since his history has led him to be less than credible. His role there was sort of forced, since his prestige was due to his political connections with the South African government.

My personal opinion is not that Duesberg has slipped his cracker: I suspect he painted himself into a corner and has chosen to start a new career as a big fish in the denialist pond and make an easy fortune, rather than return to the scientific fold with such little currency, and have to redouble his efforts to restore his old career.

 

[fls]

Rather than just accepting what somebody says, I looked at some data, read a lot of stuff. That statement is simply false, based on overwhelming evidence. The fact is, credible scientist and researchers are just the people who debate HIV causing AIDS, as well as the multitude of issues around it. That the debate is not represented, or dismissed, is not the same as it not existing.

Robinson, your own posts perfectly illustrate exactly why your advice to ignore what the knowledgeable and experienced people here say, and instead randomly troll google, fails. By doing it your way, you have managed to get it mind-numbingly wrong.

If you are sincere about trying to understand various issues, take advantage of the wealth of knowledge available here and listen to what people are telling you. You are doing an awful job of finding credible sources of information. Please re-evaluate how you gather information. It is very difficult to extract an understanding of the legitimate scientific debates, in any particular field, from the information that is available on the internet.

Linda

 

[robinson]

Robinson, your own posts perfectly illustrate exactly why your advice to ignore what the knowledgeable and experienced people here say, and instead randomly troll google, fails. By doing it your way, you have managed to get it mind-numbingly wrong.

Linda, you seem to be making unscientific claims, based on limited knowledge, with no research. While it might make you feel good, it doesn't advance knowledge in any way. Give us some information to back up your point.

If you are sincere about trying to understand various issues, take advantage of the wealth of knowledge available here and listen to what people are telling you. You are doing an awful job of finding credible sources of information. Please re-evaluate how you gather information. It is very difficult to extract an understanding of the legitimate scientific debates, in any particular field, from the information that is available on the internet.

Based on your comments, I shouldn't listen to you, because you said it on the Internet. You don't have any idea of the information I have found, because either I didn't link to it, or you didn't read the links. Take your own advice. It is difficult to understand some issues. That is one reason I am skeptical of people who make claims that they can't back up with any real evidence, other than they said so. Or worse, everybody knows it.

Once more, I point out that rather than accepting an anecdotal story about massive population loss in Africa, I looked at the facts. The facts, as reported by credible agencies, don't match the story I heard. I find issues like this all the time while researching HIV/AIDS. I'm not the only skeptic looking at this right now. The evidence is overwhelming that issues involving HIV/AIDS are full of controversy.

Even discounting the obvious sources that have vested interest, (AIDS survivors, Duesburg, etc), it is obvious.

What is messed up, is that I am sure HIV is one cause of AIDS.