AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

How does the "Cut Hunter" theory explain why nobody's ever heard of AIDS until the 1980ies? I mean, realistically, the cut hunter would have infected himself some 50'000 years ago. And since HIV is presumed super dangerous, died out. In a possibly repetitive cycle at the end of which large portions of the african population would be genetically immune to SIV/HIV.

There is an excellent, very thorough discussion of the origin of HIV on this web site.

I'm sorry but I fail to find a convincing argument on this page, why HIV only began to cause Immunodepression when a large number of retroviral researchers were losing their jobs, and not some 50'000 years earlier. Maybe my selective reading prevents me from seeing that, so feel free to quote.

Mind you: I have no problems with SIV crossing over to humans and turning into HIV. I have no problems with a "Cut Hunter" theory that places that event a couple 10'000 years into the past. What I have problems with, are arguments that don't give a *convincing* explanation why this only happened a few years back, rather than several millennia ago.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Secondly, I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.

Not to mention the hemophiliacs and the vast numbers of people dying of HIV-AIDS in all the third world countries.

 

[Dabljuh]

I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.

Asking evidence for ludicrous statements isn't honest. The thing is: The gay scene of the 70ies and 80ies was strongly dependent on recreational drugs, most visibly the so called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants, which are known to cause Immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's Sarcoma. IV Drug users developed distinctly different "opportunistic" diseases than gay clubbers. But: We have a cause and an effect. With HIV/AIDS, various and completely different conditions are supposedly being caused by the same virus. How to know when there's another cause for a particular condition (such as Amyl Nitrites for Kaposi's Sarcoma) or if its HIV? (HIV is no longer believed to cause KS, btw)

 

[Deetee]

W, I know how antiretrovirals work, you needn't explain it to me.

I was just curious over your "evidence" for stating that HIV is not affected by antiretrovirals.

Secondly, I see you have still failed to provide evidence that, as you suggest, all the gay me who had HIV/AIDS were, in fact, closet drug users.

I wouldn't recommend anyone taking lessons from Dubya about how antiretrovirals work, anyhow.
He thinks (and says Duesberg thinks) that they "slow down cell mitosis".
Doh!!!!?? This, according to Dubya/Duesberg, then "damages the immune system severely".
Not only is this complete nonsense, the evidence from studies unequivocally shows that HIV therapy restores immunity. This is an indirect effect - by inhibiting replication, ongoing damage is halted and natural immune recovery is allowed to occur (although this is not complete).

PS - I think you left the letter "n" off one of the words in your last sentence!

 

[Dabljuh]

Not to mention the hemophiliacs and the vast numbers of people dying of HIV-AIDS in all the third world countries.

Right, they die of HIV... not Malaria, not Malnutrition, not Lack of Sanitation, not diverse Toxic Wastes in the biosphere because third world countries rarely have pollution control, not inhumane work conditions, no... It must be a Virus!

But wait: Its the same virus, but its DIFFERENT! Why else would the same disease, which, hits mostly gay men in the first world, target children and young adults of both sexes equally in the third world? Because the Virus has a magical "GayTection" gene that is only activated in the first world?

I'm sorry if you honestly believe that the HIV/AIDS in the third world is the same thing as the HIV/AIDS in the first world.

 

[Deetee]

Asking evidence for ludicrous statements isn't honest.

Are we upsetting you by insisting upon this? - Ah, diddums! I am so sorry we are so particular and pedantic.

The thing is: The gay scene of the 70ies and 80ies was strongly dependent on recreational drugs, most visibly the so called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants, which are known to cause Immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's Sarcoma. IV Drug users developed distinctly different "opportunistic" diseases than gay clubbers. But: We have a cause and an effect. With HIV/AIDS, various and completely different conditions are supposedly being caused by the same virus. How to know when there's another cause for a particular condition (such as Amyl Nitrites for Kaposi's Sarcoma) or if its HIV? (HIV is no longer believed to cause KS, btw)

Sorry, but I am afraid I will have to ask you for evidence for your ludicrous statements again.

Nitrites do not cause significant immunosuppression, opportunistic diseases and Kaposi's sarcoma. HHV-8 is the cause of Kaposi, and there are hundreds of papers to prove it. This is sexually transmitted, so not unnaturally it is prevalent in those who have numerous sexual contacts.

You do not have "cause and effect" in linking the nitrites in the gay scene to Kaposi - you have a weak correlation and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which has been investigated and conclusively disproved.

By the way, disseminated KS is common in African AIDS - did they also have a wild 80s gay club scene where they spent every night inhaling poppers?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry but I fail to find a convincing argument on this page, why HIV only began to cause Immunodepression when a large number of retroviral researchers were losing their jobs, and not some 50'000 years earlier. Maybe my selective reading prevents me from seeing that, so feel free to quote.

Mind you: I have no problems with SIV crossing over to humans and turning into HIV. I have no problems with a "Cut Hunter" theory that places that event a couple 10'000 years into the past. What I have problems with, are arguments that don't give a *convincing* explanation why this only happened a few years back, rather than several millennia ago.

Well then just look a little deeper for Pete's sake. It's not like this information is hard to find.

The construction of a new trucking road through Uganda is suspected as one of the major factors which spread the infection from the isolated area in central Africa. It began in spreading across Africa by way of truck drivers and prostitutes. Frequent travel between high prevalence areas in Africa and Haiti spread it to Haiti. And the infamous patient zero, an oversexed gay airline steward spread it to a number of very sexually active gay communities in the late 70s and early 80s in the USA. This is all fairly well documented and discussed in scientific articles on the epidemiology of HIV.

The Development of Human Immune-deficiency Virus (HIV) in Africa over the past 20 years is outlined by the following four maps.

Over the past 20 years, the spread of HIV in Africa has been prolific. Sub-Sahara Africa is the area most devastated by HIV in the world. Many countries are overwhelmed by the disease. HIV is not simply a medical disease. HIV affects African countries in all aspects of life. Social relationships, the economy, family structures, the health-care industry, all are influenced by the spread of HIV.

The origin of HIV in Africa is still unknown. However, there are two major theories about how HIV developed into a virus that affects humans. One theory is that HIV initially crossed from chimpanzees to humans in the late 1940's in the Congo. The exact mechanism of of this transfer is unknown, however, the eating of contaminated chimpanzees is one possible explanation. Once human beings were infected, the virus quickly spread among war zones and the countryside through traveling soldiers. The first major sectors of Africa that were affected by the HIV virus were along popular truck routes and major transportation lines. Transient truck drivers who engaged in sexual activities with prostitutes on the road were the first victims of HIV/AIDS.

The article goes on to discuss the since discredited theory of the disease being spread via polio vaccine.

I have read genetic research suggesting the SIV and HIV viruses have common ancestor a thousand or so years ago calculated by looking at how divergent the two viruses are genetically. But there are no viable hypotheses suggesting HIV entered the human population much further back than a century. So I don't know where you are getting the 10,000 years ago figure. As to retroviral researchers and their jobs, that is ludicrous. You are claiming the world revolves around the HIV epidemic in the USA and a few scientists here and maybe in Europe. How foolishly egocentric a view you have. HIV is a worldwide pandemic and the US has but a tiny fraction of the cases.

 

[Dabljuh]

Man, Dab, where in the hell is your evidence that American hemophiliacs had severely supressed immune systems in only the eighties.
You are obtuse to a degree I have never encountered outside of geometry.

Where did I state that? If anything, I would state the opposite. Duesbergs theory: Getting blood transfusions (foreign proteins and lots of it) severely depresses the immune system. Even with today's technology, hemophiliacs don't get very old.

In fact there was data posted which can realistically be interpreted in a "HIV is harmless, AZT is not" way: Mortality of HIV seropositive hemophiliacs only began to rise when antiretroviral therapy (AZT) was made available, and only decreased when AZT was replaced by the less toxic HAART. The HIV/AIDS nuts of course interpret it something like this: blood transfusions were tested after 1985, and since HIV takes 10 years to kill someone, the highest death rate to HIV/AIDS with hemophiliacs would be expected in 1995.

Which is complete ***** when you consider the standard variation (=superhuge) of the duration HIV/AIDS supposedly takes to kill: most that die, die within 6-12 months, others die never at all to "AIDS".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Right, they die of HIV... not Malaria, not Malnutrition, not Lack of Sanitation, not diverse Toxic Wastes in the biosphere because third world countries rarely have pollution control, not inhumane work conditions, no... It must be a Virus!

But wait: Its the same virus, but its DIFFERENT! Why else would the same disease, which, hits mostly gay men in the first world, target children and young adults of both sexes equally in the third world? Because the Virus has a magical "GayTection" gene that is only activated in the first world?

I'm sorry if you honestly believe that the HIV/AIDS in the third world is the same thing as the HIV/AIDS in the first world.

Apparently you have some bizarre imagination no one in Africa has access to a blood test, a doctor, a culture? They just die of filth and malnutrition and no one is quite sure when it is malaria or HIV?

Look, real cities in Africa! Imagine that. I'm shocked, where are the huts?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Less toxic HAART?

First off, AZT is still in the regimen unless the person's strain in AZT resistant. Second, AZT is one of the least toxic drugs in the regimen. The protease inhibitors are the most toxic.

HAART side effects.

And as bad as these toxic drugs are, people take them because the know the drugs are the only things that are going to keep them alive.

Life expectancy of patients with newly-diagnosed HIV infection in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy

 

[Dabljuh]

Skeptigirl, you think Prostitution was invented in africa 30 years ago?

On KS:

KSHV infection does not always lead to KS; it is still unclear what other factors may be required, such as pre-existing immune system damage, or a specific interaction with HIV or other viruses. However, research in Africa has shown that even in the absence of HIV/AIDS, KS is more common in men than women although KSHV infection is equal between both sexes. This suggests that sex hormones may either protect from or predispose to KS in persons infected with the virus.

So... Herpes-8 is not the *cause* of KS, but a necessary factor?

At least four separate hypotheses have been proposed that suggest a role for nitrites in the pathogenesis of AIDS. When AIDS cases were first recognized in 1981, nitrites were proposed as a possible cause of the new syndrome (5,6). Nitrite abuse was virtually universal among the gay men diagnosed with AIDS in 1980-1983. However, this hypothesis was dismissed when the disease was recognized among drug injectors, hemophiliacs, and other heterosexual men and women who did not consistently report using nitrites. In 1983 and 1984, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was discovered and reported as the cause of AIDS (31,32). Subsequently, three other hypotheses suggesting nitrites as promoting factors in AIDS have been proposed. First, nitrites have been proposed to enhance HIV transmission by their association with risky sexual behaviors and HIV infection among gay men. Second, nitrite use has been associated with immune suppression and thus might hasten the onset of symptomatic disease. Third, nitrite inhalant use has been associated with the development of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma.

This section fails to mention that Kaposi's Sarcoma is extremely rare outside the "Gay clubbing scene", i.e.

this hypothesis was dismissed when the disease was recognized among drug injectors, hemophiliacs, and other heterosexual men and women who did not consistently report using nitrites.

speaks of "AIDS", and not "Kaposi's Sarcoma" in particular.

Duesberg's page also has some interesting bits on this, of course.

 

[Dabljuh]

Less toxic HAART?

First off, AZT is still in the regimen unless the person's strain in AZT resistant. Second, AZT is one of the least toxic drugs in the regimen. The protease inhibitors are the most toxic.

Um... HAART is a combination of usually 3 "antiretroviral" drugs, sometimes AZT is part of that as well, but in a much lower dosage. 350mg AZT don't kill you as fast as 1500mg AZT daily.

And as bad as these toxic drugs are, people take them because the know the drugs are the only things that are going to keep them alive.

Wat does that tell you, Mrs. Sceptic Science Girl? Homeopathy ring a bell? People don't take drugs because they work, but because they are (mis)led to believe that they would work.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Dabljah,

I've read most of this thread and am still a little uncertain as to what you believe

From my reading of your posts you think:

a) HIV infection is (relatively?) harmless compared to the antiviral drug treatments used to suppress it.

b) HIV is rarely (or never?) a significant factor in a HIV+ person's cause of death.

and

c) There is a massive conspiracy that has managed to fool (or turn) the vast majority of HIV researchers on the planet.

Would this be a fair summary of your position?

What evidence would get you to change your opinion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, you think Prostitution was invented in africa 30 years ago?...

Did you miss the part about New Highway, Truck Drivers, and HIV crossing the species barrier 50 or 60 years ago?

And you're trying to equate HAART with placebos, homeopathy and then claiming 40 million people or so are being fooled?

I return to my earlier post. Have you ever seriously thought about why the entire scientific community except for a couple of oddballs from 10-20 years ago are wrong and only the oddballs are right? Once again you have this fantasy built up around HIV and the scientific community. Did you look at the pictures of the cities in Africa? Think there might be a modern hospital in those cities somewhere? You never addressed the absurd idea the HIV pandemic evolves around a couple of "retrovirus" experts who are faking all the science to create jobs for themselves. Tell me how they are getting away with it? How many of these people are there who are in on this conspiracy?

We've already debunked everything Doucheberg had to say so bringing up his old stuff isn't helping your cause.

 

[Dabljuh]

Dabljah,

Dabljuh

I've read most of this thread and am still a little uncertain as to what you believe

So am I I have a theory (posted it not long ago) but that's just one possibility.

From my reading of your posts you think:

a) HIV infection is (relatively?) harmless compared to the antiviral drug treatments used to suppress it.

Well, that's one possibility. Maybe I am misled to believe antiretroviral therapy is much more dangerous than it actually is. Maybe I don't even know the half of it. I'm looking for coherence, and saying that "HIV seropositivity is not as bad as the treatment" is coherent with what I believe is reasonable to assume.

b) HIV is rarely (or never?) a significant factor in a HIV+ person's cause of death.

Depends on how you look at it. If you're in Frisco, and you get diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, and put on an antiretroviral therapy, and die within 2 years, does that make HIV seropositivity a significant factor in the cause of death?

Is it possible that HIV is dangerous to one's health, even if only in some instances? I do believe this possibility exists and should be investigated. I'd even ask for a simple quantification: Without antiretroviral treatment etc, is being HIV seropositive more - or less - detrimental to one's health, on average, than smoking? You may be stunned that I dare to ask this, but not even this question can be answered by myself. There has been too much hyperdramatization and doomsaying going on with regards to HIV/AIDS to be able to make any realistic assumptions without the use of carefully designed, double blinded randomized controlled trials.

c) There is a massive conspiracy that has managed to fool (or turn) the vast majority of HIV researchers on the planet.

I don't call it a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when a number of folks sit together and go "How can we fool billions of people"

Let me give you an example, professional race cycling. Everyone's doped there, I think by now people have realized that. But is that now a conspiracy to fool everyone to think the races are legit? I don't think so. It doesn't need a conspiracy to work. Every individual racer has his own, individual motives for doping, and lying about it, and the racing sport removes "bad racers" (who do not dope) on its own. Eventually everyone is doped, all without a conspiracy.

I see something similiar in the medical "establishment" - Too many people's jobs are simply based on the assumption that HIV is a horrible, infectious disease. Even when the science to that end simply isn't there. Every single researcher has his own, individual motive to strongly convince himself that HIV is the most horrible thing since the black death in the middle ages. No need for a conspiracy the way I understand the word.

What evidence would get you to change your opinion?

I don't think "evidence" would help me anymore. Sounds terrible and unscientific, I know, but hear me: I've simply seen too much false, fradulent, irrelevant but important sounding, and doctored "evidence". What I think is needed first, is a massive, public backlash against the AIDS industry, for basically terrorizing an entire generation with lies and exaggerations. Lies about that HIV is an STD, the uselessness of the "AIDS" definition, that HIV/AIDS is a death sentence, and lies about what's going on in africa, or the lies about the supposed effectivity of the antiretroviral treatment. These things are evident, and acknowledged by large parts of the medical establishment, all that's missing is basically the public realizing it.

Once that is done, once it is OK again for real scientists to pose the question: "How dangerous is HIV, after all" or "How would a sensible AIDS definition look like" and perform tests and studies on the subject, then its time to act scientific again.

Right now, if you're a scientist and you'd create a study that could reliably figure out how dangerous HIV natural history is, or if it's more dangerous than smoking, if at all, then you'd get under massive fire from all sides - democrats, religious rights, civil rights, gay groups - because you dare to question the HIV/AIDS validity, because you shame the gay community, because you are obviously racist, etc etc... All sorts of bullpoop things.

There are very many important questions about HIV, about AIDS, but due to the atmosphere, nobody whose job depends on it, is going to ask them or ask them the right way, or dares to come up with the "false" results.

 

[Cuddles]

Some people are just odd.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... If you're in Frisco, and you get diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, and put on an antiretroviral therapy, and die within 2 years, does that make HIV seropositivity a significant factor in the cause of death?

Life expectancy on HAART is over 10 years not 2.

......There has been too much hyperdramatization and doomsaying going on with regards to HIV/AIDS to be able to make any realistic assumptions without the use of carefully designed, double blinded randomized controlled trials. I don't call it a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when a number of folks sit together and go "How can we fool billions of people"
....
I see something similiar in the medical "establishment" - Too many people's jobs are simply based on the assumption that HIV is a horrible, infectious disease. Even when the science to that end simply isn't there. Every single researcher has his own, individual motive to strongly convince himself that HIV is the most horrible thing since the black death in the middle ages. No need for a conspiracy the way I understand the word. I don't think "evidence" would help me anymore. Sounds terrible and unscientific, I know, but hear me: I've simply seen too much false, fradulent, irrelevant but important sounding, and doctored "evidence". What I think is needed first, is a massive, public backlash against the AIDS industry, for basically terrorizing an entire generation with lies and exaggerations. Lies about that HIV is an STD, the uselessness of the "AIDS" definition, that HIV/AIDS is a death sentence, and lies about what's going on in africa, or the lies about the supposed effectivity of the antiretroviral treatment. These things are evident, and acknowledged by large parts of the medical establishment, all that's missing is basically the public realizing it.

Who are these people making their living off HIV paranoia? Have you really looked into this? The two guys who identified the virus may have had their egos caught up in it. That's about the only people I can think of who might vaguely fit your description. That was over 20 years ago. You think all the research done since is just made up by people faking it for the money? There are thousands of researchers all over the world, there are doctors and nurses all over the world who work sometimes for little or no pay. Do you really think they are all in on it or duped?

Your scenario is absolutely unrealistic just like your belief that people in Africa all have malnutrition and have no access to real hospitals, real lab tests, real doctors or whatever it is you imagine that makes the rest of the world claim all these Africans with malaria have HIV-AIDS.

 

[Capsid]

I'm sorry but I fail to find a convincing argument on this page, why HIV only began to cause Immunodepression when a large number of retroviral researchers were losing their jobs, and not some 50'000 years earlier. Maybe my selective reading prevents me from seeing that, so feel free to quote.

Mind you: I have no problems with SIV crossing over to humans and turning into HIV. I have no problems with a "Cut Hunter" theory that places that event a couple 10'000 years into the past. What I have problems with, are arguments that don't give a *convincing* explanation why this only happened a few years back, rather than several millennia ago.

There was that bit about chimps being infected recently with two strains of SIV which then had the capability of infecting humans and being pathogenic.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Skeptigirl, given Dabljuh's reply to me I think you'll have as much success convincing him that a person with untreated HIV is likely to have a shortened lifespan, as you are with me that it's ethically right that parents can choose to have their infant circumcised for UTI risk reduction/cosmetic/religious reasons

 

[Dabljuh]

Alright, Skeptigirl.

Lets assume for a second, that you're right. Well, no, lets assume instead that HIV is deadly. Lets say it kills 80% of the people within 25 years, with less than 10% remaining asymptomatic during the entire time.

That's about the most "pessimistic" estimate I'm willing to discuss. But lets assume it's right. Is this a horrible disease?

Assume I claimed to know magic. I poke people on the forehead, and 80% of them will die within 40 years. A very realistic assumption, provided I only or mostly poke people on the forehead who are 25 or older. I'm fairly sure, observational science could prove this. Would you then find a study that finds that 80% of the people who I poked on the forehead, died within 40 years, to be proof of my magical abilities?

I have for a long time researched circumcision. I came accross a similiar argument there: Penile cancer is super deadly since most people that get penile cancer don't survive the next 5 years. The argument is simple: Thus circumcision (which prevents penile cancer much like lung amputation prevents lung cancer) is an important health measure. What's not told by the study is that penile cancer almost exclusively afflicts people aged 70 or older. And even then it only hits 1 in 600 men, tops, ever.

What am I saying? There's 100's and 1000's of scientific papers on HIV/AIDS published every year. Who do you think writes those? Do you believe the people who write those papers have no financial interest in keeping the HIV/AIDS myth alive in the public? Do you think those retrovirologists and AIDS researchers would keep their jobs for long if they publicly questioned the fundamental validity of the HIV/AIDS theory, regardless of its actual validity?

And do nurses and people like you really do a whole lot of own research, or do they just pay the tuition for their three-week evening course in "how to treat for HIV patients"