AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

Have fun getting an ethics committee to approve that one.
What you're proposing is another Tuskegee experiment, you know?

To be completely fair, I bet we learned a lot from the Tuskegee experiments!

You'll say that for HIV, but I'm assuming you buy it for the other infectious diseases. NONE of them have been studied in the way you're proposing. Because it's unethical nowadays. So science has jumped through a bunch of hoops to find alternative ways of studying stuff. But you don't believe in it, because you don't understand it.

I can't help you.

Ever heard of Animal testing? You know, infecting simians with the SIV. They actually did it. Result? SIV is harmless to monkeys' immune systems.

Edit: Oh and Tuskegee was some racist crap, that enforced a natural history investigation on blacks, not an RTC.

 

[kellyb]

That picture is an in vitro infected sample, not from a live AIDS patient.

Yeah, they should have used the electronmicroscopic nanobot photographytec probe (EMNPP).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Kary Mullis

Ah, if AIDS deniers are your only source, then it is no wonder you are so ignorant. Try exploring reality, and then decide. Look into microbiolgy instead of the ramblings from someone outside of the specialty who is decidedly debunked. Every word he utters against HIV flies in the face of the fact that it is proven. What kind of whackjob denies the existence of something you can see in action, and have specimens of? Does he deny the existence of water too?


http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/
http://www.badscience.net/?p=283

 

[kellyb]

Ever heard of Animal testing? You know, infecting simians with the SIV. They actually did it. Result? SIV is harmless to monkeys' immune systems.

My GAWD you really don't know ANYTHING, do you?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Oy, how ridiculous can we get? We have samples of HIV from patients, and surprise, they match the ones they culture from patients in the lab! Of course they are from patients, and cultured. Oy, where are they from? Aliens? Made up by mad scientists? Another idiotic weak argument. Want more pictures?

http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/47/00/470023/art-aids470023.fig4.gif

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470023_3

Complete HIV-1 genomic sequences were determined from plasma viral RNA from all seven subjects.

We have pictures and genome sequences from patients What a novel idea!

SIV is not HIV. What is your point? You also realize that there are different types of flu bugs, and many of them don't make us sick? Other flu bugs kill us. So what? That is what makes microbes so interesting, it doesn't make HIV harmless or nonexistent.

 

[kellyb]

SIV is not HIV. What is your point? You also realize that there are different types of flu bugs, and many of them don't make us sick? Other flu bugs kill us. So what? That is what makes microbes so interesting, it doesn't make HIV harmless or nonexistent.

Cats can catch H5N1 from eating dead birds. Doesn't make them sick at all. It kills birds by the millions, AND is highly infectious in them. It makes humans sick when humans get infected, etc. etc. etc.

Sheesh....

 

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2006/niaid-09.htm

Monkeys Vaccinated Against SIV Survive Longer After Infection

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/930401929.Vi.r.html
Both viruses are in the retrovirus family meaning they use RNA as their genetic material which, after the virus enters the cell, must be copied back to DNA for the virus to become active. Both viruses are in the genus Lentivirus which means they are "slow viruses". And both viruses infect the T cells of the host's immune system.

In general, SIV does not cause any symptoms in its natural host monkey species. Hosts and microbes have coexisted for thousands of years and it is not in the microbe's interest to kill the host. Disease can be thought of as something "out of balance" which neither organism wants. But when a microbe crosses its species barrier, the normal controls on its life cycle will be absent and disease can happen. For example, most SIV strains get macaques sick. There is also a case of a chimp developing AIDS and dying about ten years after being infected with HIV.

And what Kelly said. Just because a virus won't kill every organism it invades does not mean it can't infect and affect other hosts. Most viruses are host specific, and some can just hitch rides without doing harm in some organisms. That is why it is not advisable to eat raw meat, you may ingest some microbe that is dwelling within an organism. Well known fact that dab is ignorant of.

Oh, I'd love to know where dab gets his information from! Or is it his own stretches of warped logic that brings him to such ridiculous conclusions?

Oh and Tuskegee was some racist crap, that enforced a natural history investigation on blacks, not an RTC.

Tuskegee huh? This is 2007, and if you figure HIV is a conspiracy to infect the black population, then you must be acknowledging that it exists and that it is harmful.

 

[Rob Lister]

do I win yet?

[[[see post 2]]]

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Did you bet one thousand of your posts, or do you bet that in 1000 posts we'll figure out if this dab is just trolling along and not willing to learn anything?

If you win, who will up your post count up another 1000 counts, or what exactly did you put up as a bet?

 

[kellyb]

Tuskegee huh? This is 2007, and if you figure HIV is a conspiracy to infect the black population, then you must be acknowledging that it exists and that it is harmful.

No, no, Eos...
W wants to see a randomized controlled trial where half the people are shot up with HIV, and the other half with influenza, to compare notes on what happens.

THEN, and only then, will he believe that HIV causes AIDS.

I'm just assuming that this will not be able to be a highly publicised experiment, and the subjects will probably not exactly be providing informed consent.

Even W himself said he wouldn't even accept a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV positive.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

No, no, Eos...
W wants to see a randomized controlled trial where half the people are shot up with HIV, and the other half with influenza, to compare notes on what happens.

THEN, and only then, will he believe that HIV causes AIDS.

I'm just assuming that this will not be able to be a highly publicised experiment, and the subjects will probably not exactly be providing informed consent.

Even W himself said he wouldn't even accept a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV positive.

roflmao. Not only do we know what notes we'll get, making that trial useless and unethical, it's stupid. What is the point of comparing HIV to influenza? We can compare those cases now, but I don't see what the point is that dab wants to declare to us.

I'd gladly make dab the HIV test subject, and I'll take the flu bug. Let's go dab!

 

[kellyb]

What is the point of comparing HIV to influenza? We can compare those cases now, but I don't see what the point is that dab wants to declare to us.

To prove to denialists who are too lazy to learn about science that HIV causes AIDS, of course!
Learning about PCR and looking at the epidemiology is much too difficult, so they want an easy to understand, murderous test designed to be comprehended by those intellectually suck on the 3rd grade level before they're giving it up.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Yuh, cuz we nerd herd thtupid thientists don't know the diff between retroviruses and influenza bugs, so we hasta go dump some in hapless subjects to see what duh will happen

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, instead of recipes, wanna try jokes and funny stuff?

Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you'll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don' t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

(I don't know if this is true story, but it's funny )

 

[Rob Lister]

Did you bet one thousand of your posts, or do you bet that in 1000 posts we'll figure out if this dab is just trolling along and not willing to learn anything?

If you win, who will up your post count up another 1000 counts, or what exactly did you put up as a bet?

clearly I bet 1000 of my posts but later upped it to 2000.

not sure how I'll get paid though.

 

[The Atheist]

Forgive me, can you point out the posts where what he says is correct, rather than where he is being disingenuously misleading?

Karposi's Sarcoma. Not all HIV positive people developing AIDS. The umbrella of diseases it encompasses - Robinson covered most of the points in his post.

Not going to ignore my posts, now, are you?

Well, of course he is! He's not about to argue with someone who has current data.

Watch out, Taffer!
Last time I asked him that he told me to "do my own research".

I'll just note - in Taffer's absence - that Taffer is exactly the right person to tell to "do the research", becauise Taffer is, in fact, a research scientist, geneticist guy.

do I win yet?

clearly I bet 1000 of my posts but later upped it to 2000.

not sure how I'll get paid though.

The bad news is that I doubled you to 4000, coming back.

The good news is that Dubbya is proving that he is a troll by refusing to accept actual evidence which has been gained during the last decade. Ask Darat to deduct 4000 of my posts and add them to yours. (Warning - be very selective about which 4000 you take credit for!

 

[Capsid]

Hmmm, this circular argument thingy. It's AIDS not IDS, doesn't the Acquired mean just that, ie through HIV infection, you know to distinguish it from other immune deficiencies?

The macaque model uses SIV derived from african green monkeys which do not develop AIDS like disease; however infect indian macaques and they do develop pathogenic disease. It's a zoonotic infection and likewise HIV is most likely derived from infection by SIV derived from chimps which is non pathogenic in its natural host. The newly infected host has to adapt to its new infection and the CCR5 mutation may be one way in which humans can adapt to HIV.

 

[Deetee]

Karposi's Sarcoma. Not all HIV positive people developing AIDS. The umbrella of diseases it encompasses - Robinson covered most of the points in his post.

Well I was really looking for things Dubya said that were true whcih we disagreed with. I have no quibble with the idea that not everyone who gets HIV goes on to get severe immunodeficiency/AIDS.

The denialists constantly say "But not everyone gets AIDS! - therefore HIV does not exist/does not fulfil Koch's postulates" or some such drivel. By spreading this disinformation they can pretend they have science on their side - straw man to the end.

There are plenty examples of people who are tolerant of the virus or who progress very slowly (long term non progressors / elite controllers) for reasons already explained (host factors, HLA status, CCR allele mutations etc). Denialists try and point out these cases as though they disprove AIDS pathogenesis.

Re Kaposi sarcoma, I seem to recall Dubya saying something about poppers and Gallo saying HIV did not cause KS. Well way back, people did not know whether KS resulted from HIV itself or another virus like CMV (which was an early candidate). The popper theory was roundly dismissed by the available evidence back in the 80s.
Then they discovered HHV-6 (KSHV) was the cause. It causes problems in the immunosuppressed, you see, which is why it affects HIV-infected people. It is sexually transmitted, which is why you only usually see it in sexually transmitted cases of HIV - (hemophiliacs, drug users, babies etc have low prevalence of HHV-6).

I am reminded of what a certain doctor posted on the Aetiology blog:

Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Duesberg: Poppers cause KS
Scientists: HHV-6 causes KS
Duesberg: See, I was right, I told you HIV didn't cause KS!

ETA - I see Dubya actually said this:

Gallo, the inventor of the HIV-AIDS link, now says that KS is caused not by HIV but by amyl nitrate abuse

Now, Dubya, would you have a reference for this completely fabricated statement???

 

[Deetee]

Just a note on the "circular" AIDS definition. Dubya fails to take in what Robinson said in his very first post. Its a label, a syndrome - something contrived to explain a collection of signs/symptoms/disease manifestations.

Yes, the AIDS-defining infections and cancers can affect non-HIV infected people, but they have other causes of immune failure as the underlying cause. Without the HIV, you just have a case of PCP, for example.
However, if you have an individual who has become immunodeficient as a direct result of having HIV infection, and they then fall prey to an infection like PCP, then that person can be said to have "AIDS".

The term AIDS is rather redundant - I prefer "HIV infection", and then to go on and precisely qualify what stage or complications have resulted when describing it in more detail in a particular patient.

 

[Taffer]

God, what a waste of time. OK: the RT-PCR test is 100% sensitive and 100% specific to detect HIV in humans, even when it is performed by badly trained countryside hospitals in 15 minutes, dozens of times, daily.

So why do you bring it up in the first place?

And now what does this change about the lack of proof for a connection between HIV and a lethal, irreversible immunosupressive effect?

Complete lack of proof? Methinks thou art confused.

ETA: Oh, and while we're on the subject... If HIV tests are performed adequately (surely you are not suggesting that they are always flawed), and they find essentially all AIDS patients to be infected with HIV, what would that tell you?