AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

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.

Yeah, there's all kinds of theories going around about why HIV broke out. But there's only two types of discussions: One that dismisses the "harmless passenger virus" theory a priori and then goes on to suspect magical means or other absurdities by which HIV could be as dangerous as it's claimed, and then there's the other where you don't dismiss the "harmless passenger virus" theory, and end up with suspecting that it's probably the best explanation...

 

[Deetee]

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

You deliberately misinterpret this.
HHV-8 is a sexually transmitted, latent infection. The "co-factor" for its emergence as in the form of an endothelial angiogenic tumour is the immunosuppression, which is of course the result of underlying HIV infection. Other people get Kaposi lesions, live renal transplant patients on immunosuppressants.

Obviously not everyone with latent HHV-8 gets Kaposis lesions.
Do you think everyone with latent varicella zoster virus gets shingles? No, of course not - but they can get it when the host is in some way immunocompromised by eg HIV, or just advancing age or waning natural immunity versus the virus. (But seeing as how you admit you think people with latent Toxoplasmosis (nearly half the world's population) all have massive multiple brain abscesses from cerebral toxo, I cannot say I am surprised)

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

Again, I am sorry to upset you by asking for evidence for a ludicrous claim. Kaposi is very common in HIV- infected Africans. Are you personally familiar with a previously secret gay club scene in rural Africa, where hundreds of thousands of men sniff poppers all day?

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.

I am having trouble keeping up with the constant flow of intentionally misleading garbage you spout.
AZT remains an integral part of HAART. The original standard dose when it was given as monotherapy was 1200mg/d, NOT 1500mg. This is a lie.
The current dose of AZT is 600mg/day, NOT 350mg. So this is also a lie. Not big ones, but lies all the same, and sufficient for denialists to claim that AZT doses today are only 20% of what they were when the truth is that it is 50%. As Skeptigirl has said, it is still one of the less potentially toxic drugs within HAART regimens.

Do you not find it odd that many RDBPC drug Trials have shown that :
One ("toxic") drug is much better than taking nothing?
Two ("toxic") drugs are much better than one?
Three ("toxic") drugs are much better than two?

The denialist position is that these toxic drugs actually cause AIDS (remember they stop cell "mitosis" ), so please explain why taking increasing numbers of more and more toxic drugs results in patients living for longer, staying free of AIDS-defining illnesses for longer, and having their immune function being restored??

(Oh I forgot - you don't believe in scientific studies, you already told us. You said, what was the phrase? .....Ah yes, you said "I don't think "evidence" would help me anymore". Belief in your own fevered imaginings is obviously less threatening to you. Heaven forbid you should actually look at some data!)

 

[Taffer]

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)

You misunderstand me, W. I asked you for evidence, not unsupported claims.

 

[Taffer]

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).

Yup, I know he doesn't have any clue about how they work. I just can't really be bothered arguing the point.

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

Heh, oops.

 

[Dabljuh]

You deliberately misinterpret this.
HHV-8 is a sexually transmitted, latent infection. The "co-factor" for its emergence as in the form of an endothelial angiogenic tumour is the immunosuppression, which is of course the result of underlying HIV infection. Other people get Kaposi lesions, live renal transplant patients on immunosuppressants.

Wait. Scientists say:
"HIV is not the cause of KS, but potentially assisting factor"
"H8 is not the cause of KS, but a necessary factor"

So basically... Either HIV is not causing this immunosuppression you are talking of, or there is a third factor required for KS.

Again, I am sorry to upset you by asking for evidence for a ludicrous claim. Kaposi is very common in HIV- infected Africans. Are you personally familiar with a previously secret gay club scene in rural Africa, where hundreds of thousands of men sniff poppers all day?

And KS has been "very common" before HIV in africa.

I am having trouble keeping up with the constant flow of intentionally misleading garbage you spout.

AZT remains an integral part of HAART. The original standard dose when it was given as monotherapy was 1200mg/d, NOT 1500mg. This is a lie.

AZT dosages were all over the place, from 1000mg to 2500mg per day. Only after the 1993 concorde study, which attested higher mortality in patients treated with AZT than those who received a placebo, dosages were generally reduced to below 1000mg. In a HAART, Zidovudine doses are reduced further.

 

[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.

You misunderstand me, W. I asked you for evidence, not unsupported claims.

I guess you mean "articles in peer reviewed medical journals and the NY Times" which is just "opinions of some people", and not "evidence" (for which you would have to go look yourself)

NY Times, July 3, 1981 Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals
...Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure...

An investigation of 20 homosexual men with histologically confirmed Kaposi's sarcoma and 40 controls revealed significant associations between Kaposi's sarcoma and use of a number of drugs (amyl nitrite, ethyl chloride, cocaine, phencyclidine, methaqualone, and amphetamine), history of mononucleosis, and sexual activity in the year before onset of the disease.

Nitrite inhalants were investigated as a possible cause of AIDS early in the epidemic, partly because of the preponderance of homosexual men who used nitrites among the early patients with AIDS. During
pilot testing of questionnaires in 1981, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigators found that nitrites were used by nearly all homosexual men with AIDS. In addition, a 1981 survey of 420 men attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics showed that homosexual men reported use of nitrites far more frequently than did heterosexual men, and that the amount of use directly correlated with the number of different sexual partners (Centers for Disease Control 1982). In 1982, Marmor and colleagues repotted significant associations between use of amyl nitrite and sexual activity, and the development of AIDS (all 20 patients in the study had KS) among homosexual men (Marmor et al. 1982)

Jeez, just read the rest of that section (page 96 and on) and it'll blow your mind, the sheer amounts of dope those guys did is unbelievable.

 

[Taffer]

I guess you mean "articles in peer reviewed medical journals and the NY Times" which is just "opinions of some people", and not "evidence" (for which you would have to go look yourself)

Journals, yes. NY Times, no.

Jeez, just read the rest of that section (page 96 and on) and it'll blow your mind, the sheer amounts of dope those guys did is unbelievable.

See? That wasn't hard at all.

Now, please provide evidence that said drugs do, in fact, inhibit the immune system.

 

[robinson]

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.

Umm... remember, I am not advocating that HIV or other retroviruses are harmless, however, if one thinks about the entire scientific community believing something, except for a couple of "oddballs", who claim everybody else is wrong... well... nothing is more certain than this happening.

The entire history of science, and especially medicine, has example after example of one or two lone voices showing EVERYONE else to be wrong. Nothing is more sure than such a situation arising. Using that as an argument is dumb. It happens all the time.

And yes, everybody can be wrong, except for one person. That is how science works.

.

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

I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.

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. ...

Do you really think they are all in on it or duped?HIV-AIDS.

Oh please. Are you really unaware of the amount of profit HIV/AIDS generates?

You don't have to be on anything to be duped. Remember, I am no supporting the claims, I am pointing out your debunking sucks. Not the same thing.

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.

What world do you live in? Are you unaware of how things are in rural Africa? Or the slums?

Get a clue.

 

[kellyb]

What do you make of this one, W?
http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abst...QwJ0NdH1G9zVdZ7pR!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

 

[kellyb]

I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.

What claim of Duesberg's do you find interesting, compelling, or would like to see debunked?
His main claim is that HIV is a "harmless passenger virus"...and you've already debunked that one on your own. What's left in your mind?

 

[Deetee]

Wait. Scientists say:
"HIV is not the cause of KS, but potentially assisting factor"
"H8 is not the cause of KS, but a necessary factor"

No... scientists say HHV-8 is the cause of KS.
HIV may play a regulatory role (through HIV-Tat, but that is another story....)

And KS has been "very common" before HIV in africa.

Sigh....
There are 3 basic types of KS.
The endemic form is rare and mainly affects children.
The classical forms is an uncommon, indolent slow growing tumor of the feet that occurs in Africa and the Middle East. It affects people who have HHV-8 but who have relatively normal immunity, it being triggered by cofactors such as trauma or infections in the extremities.

Then there is the "epidemic" type associated with HIV-immune deficiency. This is a highly aggressive, disseminated form of the disease that is very common in immunodeficient Africans (as well as gay men). This is the type we are referring to.

I don't really expect you to know this stuff (you have shown your clinical ignorance concerning AIDS-defining illnesses before), but I am a little fed up that for the 3rd time now I have to tell you that this type of Kaposi is common in Africans with HIV.

This is at complete variance with your discredited theory that Kaposi is solely due to Popper inhalation in drug using gay men. I repeat: Where are all the gay saunas in Uganda and Congo filled with thousands of men snorting poppers?? Your failure to fit popper use with the the epidemiological distribution of Kaposi (which coincidentally mirrors HHV-8 prevalence) is only one thing that refutes your lame hypothesis.

See here for an article on HHV-8
See here for an article about Kaposi pathogenesis.
See here, here and here for a few articles about African Kaposi (which Dubya thinks does not exist)

I am having trouble keeping up with the constant flow of intentionally misleading garbage you spout.

ROTFLMAO!

AZT dosages were all over the place, from 1000mg to 2500mg per day. Only after the 1993 concorde study, which attested higher mortality in patients treated with AZT than those who received a placebo, dosages were generally reduced to below 1000mg. In a HAART, Zidovudine doses are reduced further.

You are lying. AZT has never been prescribed in doses of 2500mg per day. Find me a valid reference for this dose being used therapeutically and I promise to give $1000 to a charity of your choice.

The Concorde study neatly demonstrates that AZT does not cause immune deficiency or AIDS (as would be predicted by another of your silly "what-causes-AIDS" hypotheses). Since you think AZT, particularly at these "high doses" of 1000mg, is so toxic and damages the immune system, the Concorde trial should have readily demonstrated lower CD4 counts and faster progression to AIDS in the AZT treatment arm. The trials results do not bear this out: those on AZT DID NOT progress faster or have higher mortality than those on placebo (go and read the study again, since you clearly do not understand its results). Those on AZT had a rise in CD4 counts.

Your hypothesis is refuted, even by your own citation.

 

[Deetee]

Re Duesberg: I'm still waiting for evidence. Claiming somebody is wrong isn't debunking them.

Did you miss the post I made with links to the controlled trials refuting Duesberg's "chemical AIDS" hypothesis? I am not in the habit of just saying someone is wrong, I also like to point to the evidence.

 

[JoeEllison]

Umm... remember, I am not advocating that HIV or other retroviruses are harmless, however, if one thinks about the entire scientific community believing something, except for a couple of "oddballs", who claim everybody else is wrong... well... nothing is more certain than this happening.

The entire history of science, and especially medicine, has example after example of one or two lone voices showing EVERYONE else to be wrong.

And, for every example of that, there are dozens of "lone voices" who everyone said were wrong, WHO WERE ACTUALLY WRONG. That's a lot more likely than the alternative you support.

 

[kellyb]

The Concorde study neatly demonstrates that AZT does not cause immune deficiency or AIDS (as predicted by another of your silly "what-causes-AIDS" hypotheses). Since you think AZT, particularly at these "high doses" of 1000mg, is so toxic and damages the immune system, the Concorde trial should have readily demonstrated lower CD4 counts and faster progression to AIDS in the AZT treatment arm. The trials results do not bear this out: those on AZT DID NOT progress faster or have higher mortality than those on placebo (go and read the study again, since you clearly do not understand its results). Those on AZT had a rise in CD4 counts.

Your hypothesis is refuted, even by your own citation.

In fact, looks like survival was ever-so-slightly better in the (Imm) ATZ group.

I am curious to see W's impending intellectual gymnastics to explain why, if ATZs cause AIDS, didn't the folks on ATZ from the get-go develop and die from AIDS more quickly?
Perhaps the sneeky scientists put all the popper-users in the def group to even things out a bit?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why, oh why are you bothering?

W. has already equated HIV researchers' ethics with those of doping cyclists.

Any research he doesn't like the results of are going to have been produced by 'one of them'. Anything that fits his hypothesis wild speculation is going to be impeccably conducted research by an expert.

 

[kellyb]

Why, oh why are you bothering?

W. has already equated HIV researchers' ethics with those of doping cyclists.

Any research he doesn't like the results of are going to have been produced by 'one of them'. Anything that fits his hypothesis wild speculation is going to be impeccably conducted research by an expert.

Don't have anything better to do today.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't have anything better to do today.

Oh, ok

Seriously, I think engaging the likes of W is a double-edged sword. Sure, there may be lurkers reading and learning about HIV and the scientific research, but there may also be lurkers reading W's posts about how AZT is more dangerous than not treating HIV and AIDS is more likely caused by a depraved lifestyle.

IMO, once W said he would not be swayed by any evidence presented I think that was the time to stop debating him.

 

[kellyb]

Oh, ok

Seriously, I think engaging the likes of W is a double-edged sword. Sure, there may be lurkers reading and learning about HIV and the scientific research, but there may also be lurkers reading W's posts about how AZT is more dangerous than not treating HIV and AIDS is more likely caused by a depraved lifestyle.

.

Naw...I don't think you can be on the internet without hearing that there are people who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. And out of curiosity, I googled does HIV cause AIDS? and the second hit is a denialist site. And really, I've debated with several denialists before, and W is actually not even very good at it compared to some. I think it would take a....special kind of person...to find W's arguments thought provoking.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I think dab went to homeopathy or naturopathy school, and wants to tell HIV patients that he can cure them with magic water or colon cleanses (since HIV apparently isn't real, and all they need to do is purge their systems of "toxins" instead of taking "nasty" retrovirals). He just needs realistic arguments (since his current ones are nutty/outdated) to convince his clients/patients of this.

Hmm, what is your opinion of vaccines dab?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Naw...I don't think you can be on the internet without hearing that there are people who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. And out of curiosity, I googled does HIV cause AIDS? and the second hit is a denialist site. And really, I've debated with several denialists before, and W is actually not even very good at it compared to some. I think it would take a....special kind of person...to find W's arguments thought provoking.

I was thinking more along the lines of Dawkins. If you are seen engaging these people in a debate, some on-lookers may think you believe they have something valid to say on the subject.

The internet is rife with extreme opinions (looking at some of the anti/pro-circ. sites is quite amusing) and it's a tough call as to whether it's better to refute with evidence every wild claim someone makes (and hope on-lookers read and understand it), or to ignore the attention seeking.

My personal opinion is when people start making claims that if believed could seriously damage another person's health (or kill them) and they admit they will not be swayed by any evidence, walk away.