AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

Citation, please?

I'll have to find the study again, will take some time.

As fair as I know, the drop is far more significant in patients with HIV then without.

How would you know? There's not been a blinded RCT on the subject. Cohort- and population based studies don't have enough validity. Or: "Citation, please?"

If HIV is sexually transmitted, why do mostly gay men get it? Isn't most sex, you know, heterosexual? Wouldn't an STD infect vast parts of the population within a short time? Wouldn't a virus infect males and females at the same time?

To tell you a story, I'm acquainted with a gay couple. He is a 60 years old local, and his manbride is a 30 year old Brasilian. About a year ago, the Brasilian was diagnosed with HIV (and his T4 cell counts investigated since then) Interestingly, the 60 year old male, who, by his description, was purely the receiver of the gay sex, is not infected with HIV, despite him having received a fair share of poundings since the two got together a few years back. Another interesting tidbit: The Brasilian's T4 cell count has actually been rising steadily since the HIV diagnosis.

Of course this is just one case that has no statistically relevant meaning. Just like the "OMG my friend died of AIDS you INFIDEL HERETIC" examples.

 

[Taffer]

I'll have to find the study again, will take some time.

That's fine.

How would you know? There's not been a blinded RCT on the subject. Cohort- and population based studies don't have enough validity. Or: "Citation, please?"

I don't, for certain, and that is a fair call. Personally, I consider it well established enough to no bother look up sorces for you. Others on this forum will gladly, I'm sure, provide you with sources.

Oh, and by the by, a population statistical analysis certainly is valid.

If HIV is sexually transmitted, why do mostly gay men get it? Isn't most sex, you know, heterosexual? Wouldn't an STD infect vast parts of the population within a short time? Wouldn't a virus infect males and females at the same time?

To tell you a story, I'm acquainted with a gay couple. He is a 60 years old local, and his manbride is a 30 year old Brasilian. About a year ago, the Brasilian was diagnosed with HIV (and his T4 cell counts investigated since then) Interestingly, the 60 year old male, who, by his description, was purely the receiver of the gay sex, is not infected with HIV, despite him having received a fair share of poundings since the two got together a few years back. Another interesting tidbit: The Brasilian's T4 cell count has actually been rising steadily since the HIV diagnosis.

Quaint story.

Please explain when I said "only sexually transmitted". In fact, I specifically asked you if you think it is never transmitted sexually.

Of course this is just one case that has no statistically relevant meaning. Just like the "OMG my friend died of AIDS you INFIDEL HERETIC" examples.

A single case has no statistical merit, true. Many cases do.

Oh, and his t-count is probably increasing because of a) drugs, and b) the fact that HIV undergoes a long period of little activity. Of course, you should know this already.

ETA: Oh, and any hypotheses on what causes the immune deficiency effect seen in suffers of AIDS?

 

[Capsid]

The study wasn't double-blind.

They don't have to be double blind These are observational studies not interventional.

According to mullis, the statistical data of the infected "Lab Workers" is consistent with the general population. Meaning, it is more likely that those are closet gays / closet IV drug users, that simply claim they got infected in a lab environment to avoid disadvantages.

More likely? It would be better to have definitve proof don't you think?

In cuba, there was a brief interventionist period and now there is not much action going on. According to e.g. Duesberg's theory, antiretroviral medication causes far more harm than good, i.e. they are capable of depressing the immune system in healthy persons. Cuba, due to being still under embargo, could not employ these antiretrovirals. Also, the cuban gay scene may be nitrite inhalant free compared to the US american one. The expected result would be that only a very small number of people in cuba would ever be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.

Not true.

 

[Dabljuh]

I don't, for certain, and that is a fair call. Personally, I consider it well established enough to no bother look up sorces for you. Others on this forum will gladly, I'm sure, provide you with sources.

That's the major problem. In the 80ies so many assumptions became acknowledged without actual evidence. Stuff like "HIV causes Immunodepression" - Everyone believes it but nobody's ever proven it. That's faith.

Oh, and by the by, a population statistical analysis certainly is valid.

The problem with population studies and cohort studies is that you cannot rule out tertiary factors.

For example: A study on kenians and africans may find: Kenians eat a lot more millet than americans. And that kenians are a lot more black than americans. Result of the study? Eating lots of millet makes you black. Only an blinded RCT can rule out tertiary factors. And for HIV and immunodepression, I've seen enough bunk science that I do not accept studies that pitch 50 gay drug users with HIV vs 50 straight ivy league kids and then compare their health data, and somehow of course find that the HIV negative people are more healthy than the HIV positive ones.

Please explain when I said "only sexually transmitted". In fact, I specifically asked you if you think it is never transmitted sexually.

Please quote when I said it is "never transmitted sexually" - I said it's not an STD, and robinson said the same thing. That does not mean it's not possible to transmit it sexually, but it means the STD aspect of HIV was extremely overstated in the past. (At least in my sex ed class)

Oh, and his t-count is probably increasing because of a) drugs, and b) the fact that HIV undergoes a long period of little activity. Of course, you should know this already.

He doesn't take drugs. As I said earlier: The drug studies that I've read never showed any increased longevity for AIDS patients. The only positive beneficial effect that I could find was that the AIDS patients reported better well-being. Of course the manufacturers now claim that the drugs are sooo effective and many people, due to lack of better knowledge, believe the "HIV epidemic" was under control because of something the pharma industry did.

I mean, 20 years ago, doom was predicted for the human race due to HIV. Nothing of the sort happened. People simply need an explanation on why HIV is so irrelevant nowadays, outside africa that is. if you had asked me two years ago on why HIV isn't a bigger problem in the western world, I wouldn't have known what to answer myself because I never researched it. I might even have suspected that they may have found a cure or something.

ETA: Oh, and any hypotheses on what causes the immune deficiency effect seen in suffers of AIDS?

This is a very complex topic. Let me only give you a few of my thoughts.

Someone diagnosed with "AIDS" is, by definition, HIV positive and sick. Someone sick may have a depressed immune system, although there obviously does not have to be a causal connection to the HIV infection. If you find someone who is just abusing his body a lot with drugs, and he gets those opportunistic diseases that are also attributed to HIV/AIDS, and he tests positive on HIV, the diseases he is suffering from will be attributed - medically - to the HIV infection, and not the abusive lifestyle.

Furthermore, someone diagnosed with "AIDS" has been given a virtual death sentence. There is no way to be un-diagnosed with "AIDS" once you have it. Even if your tuberculosis or herpes goes away and you feel better than ever, you still, technically, suffer from AIDS. If you die now - for any reason - chances are it will be attributed to your "AIDS" diagnosis.

In addition: AIDS medication is extremely toxic. Duesberg describes it as "Chemo therapy" that was found to be too ineffective for cancer therapy. For example AZT was developed in the 60ies as a chemo therapy for cancer, which was not allowed by the FDA because it proved to be too toxic and ineffective. And as an AIDS drug, it is dosed higher than as a cancer drug. Chemo therapy on cancer is already very ineffective: You try to kill the cancer cells before the rest of the body dies. But what are you trying to accomplish with chemo therapy on AIDS patients? You can't kill the HIV with antiretroviral drugs, that is not even how the manufacturers claim they work. So what you end up with is purely killing the patient.

 

[Dabljuh]

They don't have to be double blind These are observational studies not interventional..

Please read the study again. They give the HIV positive folks a different amount of compound than the HIV negative folks, and then go on figuring that the two groups have a different reaction. That's junk science, absolute junk.

More likely? It would be better to have definitve proof don't you think?

Its always better to have definite proof, but for the time being, I think mullis' hypothesis is better than the alternative. He is a bright guy after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When, along with getting high, he has time to win a Nobel Prize, take the award for R & D scientist of the year, plus other sundry honours, I suspect those homours say more about him than his having the occasional spliff. Sagan used to smoke dope, I believe? Is Cosmos bunkum?

So you support megadose vitamin C as a preventative for cancer because a nobel prize winner thought of it?

A nobel prize is not an assurance that they do not have loony ideas, and reject good science when they want to.

 

[JoeEllison]

Its always better to have definite proof, but for the time being, I think mullis' hypothesis is better than the alternative. He is a bright guy after all.

Can you explain how you chose between the views of one "bright guy", versus the views of tens of thousands of other people, who also happen to be "bright"? The weight of the accepted evidence points away from your view, and towards the accepted view. What special faculty of observation or insight did you choose the rejected view over the accepted one?

 

[Dabljuh]

Can you explain how you chose between the views of one "bright guy", versus the views of tens of thousands of other people, who also happen to be "bright"?

Gladly. We have here two hypothesises:

A) (Mullis') The "Lab infections" are, to a large degree, closet gays and closet drug users.
->Expected result: The male to female ratio of the lab infections would be roughly equal to the infections in the general public (About 9:1 M:F)

B) (Yours) The "Lab infections" are authentic
->Expected result: We would see infections with those people who actually handle needles in medical environments, (75% female)

What is the result? (Drum roll) The "lab infections" Male to Female ratio closely resembles that of the general public's HIV infections. Hence I find Mullis theory to be more realistic.

 

[Dabljuh]

So you support megadose vitamin C as a preventative for cancer because a nobel prize winner thought of it?

A nobel prize is not an assurance that they do not have loony ideas, and reject good science when they want to.

I don't know much about Vitamin C and cancer. Are you going to tell me the idea of using vitamin C as a preventative measure against cancer has absolutely no merit?

 

[JoeEllison]

Gladly. We have here two hypothesises:

A) (Mullis') The "Lab infections" are, to a large degree, closet gays and closet drug users.
->Expected result: The male to female ratio of the lab infections would be roughly equal to the infections in the general public (About 9:1 M:F)

B) (Yours) The "Lab infections" are authentic
->Expected result: We would see infections with those people who actually handle needles in medical environments, (75% female)

What is the result? (Drum roll) The "lab infections" Male to Female ratio closely resembles that of the general public's HIV infections. Hence I find Mullis theory to be more realistic.

That's it? Fascinating. Based on that, you claim that there is an evil worldwide conspiracy to murder millions of people, and that every scientist and doctor in the world, except a tiny handful, are in on the conspiracy or are somehow blinded to the reality.

Are you a creationist as well? I ask only because the psychology appears to be similar.

 

[Capsid]

Please read the study again. They give the HIV positive folks a different amount of compound than the HIV negative folks, and then go on figuring that the two groups have a different reaction. That's junk science, absolute junk.

They gave the HIV+ group a double dose of vaccine and yet they still did not respond as well as the HIV- group receiving the normal dose. This isn't an isolated study there are other studies that support this view.
Did you have anything to say on the Cuban situation?
Post #2 maybe right after all.

 

[kellyb]

This is really one of the most pointless debates ever. W has set up an impenetrable circular argument. (which is ironic, since that's his fuzzy-headed accusation about the HIV/AIDS link).

He wants a RCT, yet disbelieves in the whole diagnosis of "HIV+", claiming that all the tests are "crap".
So even if you find him a hundred tests of good quality, like this:
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aid...ywpq0tF7pf2qR5h!-1740698184!181195629!8091!-1
He can say "Oh...but the tests that look for the HIV virus 'don't work', so it's meaningless!"
He can't say why they don't work, or back that claim up with anything at all, and yet in his twisted little mind, his argument is flawless.

Therein lies the power of woo-antilogic. All that one decides to not understand, 'doesn't count' and ceases to be 'real'.

How do you have a meaningful dialogue with someone who selectively checks out of reality whenever it's convenient for their argument?

 

[Deetee]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction.

Right, let’s see Duesberg’s arguments, shall we…
He is best known for promoting the idea that AIDS is caused by “chemicals” rather than a viral infection. He asserts these chemicals to be recreational drugs, Factor-8, or anti-HIV medications. He says AIDS in groups who clearly do not have exposures to these agents, such as Africans, is due to malnutrition. (He has no theory for transfusion recipients or occupationally-infected individuals except to say they must all have lied about their past lives and were drug users)

Duesberg stated (2003):

The chemical AIDS hypothesis could be readily refuted by any of the following experiments:
1. Demonstrate that in two matched groups, differing only with regard to HIV infection, HIV-positives develop AIDS but HIV-negatives do not (above the low, longestablished risk of AIDS defining diseases in the general population).

3. Demonstrate that in two matched groups of HIVpositive
humans, differing only in the addiction to recreational
drugs, both groups have the same incidence of
AIDS-defining diseases.

These (among many others) studies have been performed:

Does drug use cause AIDS? Ascher MS, Sheppard HW, Winkelstein W Jr, Vittinghoff E. Nature. 1993 Mar 11;362(6416):103-4.
Here in a rigorously controlled epidemiological study, none out of 367 (0%)HIV negative gay men developed AIDS compared to 204 out of 400 (51%) HIV positive gay men matched for recreational drug use.

The lack of association of marijuana and other recreational drugs with progression to AIDS in the San Francisco Men's Health Study. Di Franco MJ, Sheppard HW, Hunter DJ, Tosteson TD, Ascher MS. Ann Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;6(4):283-9.
Not directly comparing +ve and -ve, but groups according to drug use showing there was no difference in progression rate to AIDS:

No statistically significant associations were observed for nitrites, methylene dioxyamphetamines, ethyl chloride, downers, cocaine, stimulants, narcotics, or psychedelic drugs. These data suggest no substantial association between use of these drugs and the development of AIDS among HIV-infected men.

HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS. Schechter MT, Craib KJ, Gelmon KA, Montaner JS, Le TN, O'Shaughnessy MV. Lancet. 1993 Mar 13;341(8846):658-9.

The belief that HIV-1 infection causes AIDS has been questioned, and the suggestion made that to know the correct cause of AIDS the incidence of disease in patients with and without risk behaviours and with and without antibody to HIV-1 must be known. We describe findings in such a cohort. In 715 homosexual men followed for a median of 8.6 years, all 136 AIDS cases occurred in the 365 individuals with pre-existing HIV-1 antibody. Most men negative for HIV-1 antibody reported risk behaviours but none developed any AIDS illnesses. CD4 counts fell in anti-HIV-1-positive men but remained stable in antibody-negative men, whether or not risk behaviours were present. The hypothesis that AIDS in homosexual men is caused not by HIV-1 infection but by drugs and sexual activity is rejected by these data. HIV-1 has an integral role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.

Or how about hemophiliacs instead of gays?
Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV positive men with haemophilia A. Sabin CA, Pasi KJ, Phillips AN, Lilley P, Bofill M, Lee CA. BMJ. 1996 Jan 27;312(7025):207-10.
Between 1980 and 1990, 16 clinical events occurred in nine of the 17 HIV positive patients. No event occurred in the 17 HIV negative patients (matched for Factor 8 usage).

CONCLUSION--These data reject the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immunodeficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia.

Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs. UK Haemophilia Centre Directors' Organisation. Darby SC, Ewart DW, Giangrande PL, Dolin PJ, Spooner RJ, Rizza CR. Nature. 1995 Sep 7;377(6544):79-82.
A demonstration that HIV positives experienced a 10-fold higher mortality than HIV negatives, these excess deaths being certified as due to AIDS (ie they were from AIDS-related illnesses, not something else):

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.

The impact of HIV on mortality rates in the complete UK haemophilia population. Darby SC, Kan SW, Spooner RJ, Giangrande PL, Lee CA, Makris M, Sabin CA, Watson HG, Wilde JT, Winter M; UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organisation. AIDS. 2004 Feb 20;18(3):525-33.
Not only does the introduction of HIV into an intensively studied cohort cause a leap in AIDS mortality, but the introduction of anti-HIV drugs (which Duesberg says cause AIDS) reduced mortality.

CONCLUSION: These data provide a direct estimate of the effect of HIV-1 infection on subsequent mortality in a population with a high prevalence of hepatitis C. From approximately 3 years after HIV infection, large, progressive increases in mortality were seen. From 1997, after the introduction of effective treatment, substantial reductions occurred.

That all makes the following statement from you look a mite foolish, no?

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. But right now, it looks to me as if HIV could just as well be completely harmless, and the dreaded "AIDS" is merely a semantic disease.

I have given you plenty more "science" to investigate. Please do so, and you cannot possibly decide HIV is harmless, or that AIDS is all a question of semantics.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Are you a creationist as well? I ask only because the psychology appears to be similar.

Eerily similar. Good call.

 

[Deetee]

Here is some further refutation of Duesberg's claims.

 

[JoeEllison]

Eerily similar. Good call.

It is much more interesting, in my opinion, to identify the underlying causes of mistaken belief, then to attempt to attack those beliefs with reason. Since this sort of belief is not based in any sort of reason or logic, neither reason nor logic have much chance of changing the belief.

 

[Deetee]

The AIDSTruth web site has an excellent piece on the Nobel prize winners who supposedly deny HIV causes AIDS. Seems there is only one after all (Kary Mullis), and no-one is quite sure what he thinks these days.

 

[calebprime]

Right, let’s see Duesberg’s arguments, shall we…
...

Excellent post.

 

[robinson]

Gladly. We have here two hypothesises:

A) (Mullis') The "Lab infections" are, to a large degree, closet gays and closet drug users.
->Expected result: The male to female ratio of the lab infections would be roughly equal to the infections in the general public (About 9:1 M:F)

B) (Yours) The "Lab infections" are authentic
->Expected result: We would see infections with those people who actually handle needles in medical environments, (75% female)

What is the result? (Drum roll) The "lab infections" Male to Female ratio closely resembles that of the general public's HIV infections. Hence I find Mullis theory to be more realistic.

That is actually very astute. I've been checking on this, thanks to your re-involving me in this issue, (bad troll, very bad troll), and the statistics show a clear pattern of infection in Medical personal who suffer accidents.

Hepatitis B: Of these HBV is the most transmissible, with a risk of infection following exposure of around 6-30%.
Hepatitis C: Infection from HCV following a needle-stick is around 1.8%.
HIV: Risk of becoming infected with HIV is a mere 0.3%.

But when you look at the statistics based on sex, HIV doesn't match what you see with HBV and HCV, which is more female workers than male. With HIV, just like the HIV figures for the general population, it is mostly males. Which statistically is significant. You might think. In fact, a study found

CONCLUSION--Surveillance data suggest that most health care workers with AIDS acquired their HIV infection through a nonoccupational route.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1660544&dopt=Abstract

The same discrepancy shows up in sexual transmission. While the overwhelming amount of sexual transmission is heterosexual, the statistics have always shown males with high rates of HIV. No double blind study has ever been done to show anything about HIV transmission, through any kind of sexual activity. But going by the current evidence for HIV/AIDS, which is observational, not experimental, then HIV is spread by something other than sex.

Because it didn't spread through heterosexual populations, which is what observational based medicine predicted.

Since it didn't spread and act like an STD, observational medicine would conclude it isn't spread by heterosexual contact.

I mean, if you are going to base science on observational medicine, then you have to go with the facts, not theories about what might happen.

Same goes for Africa. You hear these horrible statistics, scare stories, then you look at the facts, and it doesn't add up.

http://indexmundi.com/africa.html

After somebody claimed entire villages were wiped out, and the population was devastated, I checked. It isn't true.

I don't understand why checking available facts, and looking at what is published by real agencies and stuff, I don't understand why that is considered unscientific, and people spewing stuff with no evidence for it, is considered scientific.

That is dumb.

If you have evidence Africa has suffered 20 million deaths, and there are 30 million orphans, (or whatever statistics, it changes), and it is because of HIV/AIDS, then simply show me.

Same goes for evidence that HIV is transmitted through sex. Is there ANY evidence to show this is a scientific fact?

What is the rate of transmission? What is the vector? What is the mechanism? Where is the data? Has any double blind experiment ever been done? No. Are you going by population statistics? yes. OK, where is the data?

I checked, and HIV/AIDS isn't even on the radar map for cause of death. Why is that?

meh

I can't believe I've been sucked back into this quagmire.

It reminds me of several dead ends which were never answered in another thread.

Especially the anecdotal claims about Africa.

 

[robinson]

Which I am going to bring up again, because nobody ever responded to it, and it shows how name calling and stuff replaces science and research. Which is dumb.

I'm not saying that AIDS is NOT a problem out here, it's a huge problem. I went up to Malawi and Botswana last year - there are areas that used to contain thriving village populations 15 years ago, now all gone. The extent of depopulation is staggering, and it's all due to AIDS.

Can you provide any recent figures on AIDS/HIV in Malawi? Sorry, but as a skeptic, I like to know if something is true or not. Some quick checking,(I looked it up)
http://www.globalhealthreporting.or...&malIC=1247&tbIC=1248&map=1253&con=Malawi&p=1

HIV/AIDS in Malawi

12,158,924: population of Malawi (July 2005 est.)

940,000: Estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

14.1%: Estimated percentage of adults (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

500,000: Estimated number of women (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

91,000: Estimated number of children (ages 0-15) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

78,000: Estimated number of deaths due to AIDS during 2005

Those figures make no sense, if AIDS is wiping out the population. Especially in children.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/malawi.htm
Population children <5 years old 2,262,359 (2004)
Annual live births 545,602 (2004)
Life expectancy at birth - male 35.7 years (2001)
Life expectancy at birth - female 36.7 years (2001)

or

http://www.afro.who.int/malaria/country-profile/malawi.pdf

Total population 1990, 9,434,000
Total population 2002, 11,848,000

Annual population growth rate 1990 - 1.21
Annual population growth rate 2002 - 2.36

Pop. less than 5 years 1990- 1,821,000
Pop. less than 5 years 2002 - 2,156,000

Are the people there getting some kind of super health care that allows them to not come down with AIDS? If AIDS is killing most everybody off, how is the population rising? Malaria seems to be a constant still.

Malaria cases reported
1990 - 3,870,904
2002 - 1,362,742

Malaria deaths
1990 - 57,649
2002 - 57,649

The data doesn't seem to match the report that AIDS is "wiping out" the population.

and

The South African writer Rian Malan in a recent article in the UK-based 'Spectator' makes similar conclusions regarding the AIDS pandemic in Southern Africa. In his article "Africa Isn't Dying of AIDS," Mr Malan reacts to UNAIDS claims that almost 30 million Africans now have HIV/AIDS.

- But, says Mr Malan, "the figures are computer-generated estimates and they appear grotesquely exaggerated when set against population statistics." In Botswana, the country with the world's highest AIDS prevalence, several reports had suggested that population had dropped from 1.4 million in 1993 to under a million currently, due to the AIDS pandemic.

Not true, says Mr Malan. "Botswana has just concluded a census that shows population growing at about 2.7 percent a year, in spite of what is usually described as the worst AIDS problem on the planet. Total population has risen to 1.7 million in just a decade. If anything, Botswana is experiencing a minor population explosion," the South African writer concludes.

He continues slaughtering UN and national statistics on South African AIDS deaths. UNAIDS is using a computer simulator called Epimodel to estimate AIDS related deaths, which had produced estimations of 250,000 AIDS deaths in South Africa in 1999 alone.

http://www.afrol.com/features/11116

There is a lot of stuff published about the numbers and such in Africa. More than enough to question the story.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ths-per-capita

Statistics. But no evidence. It looks like estimates are used, rather than doing any actual test.

And if you actually want to just look at the data
http://indexmundi.com/botswana/

I'm not going to do all the legwork, but it is obvious that the claims about the deaths are crap. Even if you include Malaria as AIDS, it is crap.

Now back to bashing each other about the head and shoulders...