AIDS (hah)

[Deetee]

RE: Duesberg infecting himself with HIV.

Source? Who would want to let a "stupid old man" infect himself with HIV?

I have certainly seen something about this where Duesberg rejected the "offer" for the reasons I said. I will keep hunting the net till I find it.
Meanwhile.....
Duesberg's own website contains the following exchange, including something of an indirect explanation (excuses) as to why he has not actually taken up the offer:

Q16: The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.

A16: I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:
1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.
2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.
3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms, and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!

 

[Dabljuh]

Sorry, Deetee, I'm not going to discuss with you any further. In my opinion you lack certain vital mental facilities, such as rational thought. I mean you still don't even seem to understand the KS phenomenon. You say it's caused by Herpesvirus-8 - A virus that between 50 and 80% of the world's population is infected with. And then you ignore a 96% correlation of homosexuals diagnosed with KS admitting the use of nitrite inhalants.

You're just a waste of time. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

 

[Deetee]

Sorry, Deetee, I'm not going to discuss with you any further. In my opinion you lack certain vital mental facilities, such as rational thought. I mean you still don't even seem to understand the KS phenomenon. You say it's caused by Herpesvirus-8 - A virus that between 50 and 80% of the world's population is infected with. And then you ignore a 96% correlation of homosexuals diagnosed with KS admitting the use of nitrite inhalants.

You're just a waste of time. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

You are of course free to put me on ignore if you wish. I am sorry that my persistence in trying to get you to answer a simple question is so upsetting for you. I'll give it one more go, just on the offchance (6th time of asking now):

Given your hypothesis that Kaposi sarcoma is caused by inhalation of poppers, how would you explain the epidemic of aggressive Kaposi that has occurred in SubSaharan Africa since the 1980s?

Oh, BTW, 50%-80% of the world's population is NOT infected with HHV-8 as you say it is.
You might like to look at this study about its prevalence (read it, and look at the references too):

Research on Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8, has shown it is a necessary etiologic agent of Kaposi sarcoma (KS).1-5 It has also been shown that the prevalence of KSHV parallels the prevalence of KS. For example, in the United States, KSHV infection is common in homosexual men (prevalence, 15%-60%) but infrequent in heterosexual groups (0%-9%), paralleling the KS pattern.2, 6-8

Relevant References:
1. Chang Y, Cesarman E, Pessin MS, et al. Identification of herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma. Science. 1994;266:1865-1869. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FREE FULL TEXT[/FONT]

2. Gao SJ, Kingsley L, Hoover DR, et al. Seroconversion to antibodies against Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus-related latent nuclear antigens before the development of Kaposi's sarcoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:233-241. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FREE FULL TEXT[/FONT]

3. Martin JN, Ganem DE, Osmond DH, et al. Sexual transmission and natural history of human herpesvirus 8 infection. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:948-954. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FREE FULL TEXT[/FONT]

4. O'Brien TR, Kedes D, Ganem D, et al. Evidence for concurrent epidemics of human herpesvirus 8 and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in US homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1999;180:1010-1017. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FULL TEXT[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ISI[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]PUBMED[/FONT]

5. Renwick N, Halaby T, Weverling GJ, et al. Seroconversion for human herpesvirus 8 during HIV infection is highly predictive of Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS. 1998;12:2481-2488. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FULL TEXT[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ISI[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]PUBMED[/FONT]

6. Kedes DH, Operskalski E, Busch M, et al. The seroepidemiology of human herpesvirus 8 (Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus). Nat Med. 1996;2:918-924. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FULL TEXT[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ISI[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]PUBMED[/FONT]
19. Hayward GS. KSHV strains: the origins and global spread of the virus. Semin Cancer Biol. 1999;9:187-199. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]FULL TEXT[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ISI[/FONT] | [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]PUBMED[/FONT]

20. Rutherford G, Payne S, Lemp G. The epidemiology of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma in San Francisco. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1990;3(suppl 1):S4-S7.

 

[Capsid]

I have failed to find a paper supporting your claim, although I have found a multitude of papers investigating measures to protect macaques from SIV-infection or apparent vaccination attempts.

Experimental infection of rhesus monkeys with SIV isolated from African green monkeys

 

[Taffer]

How was the HIV status of the children determined?

For all infants born to HIV-positive mothers, cell pellets (Roche Diagnostics Systems, Alameda, CA) and plasma were prepared from whole blood collected at baseline and follow-up visits and stored at –70°C. Following all patient contact, the last available sample from each infant was tested (pellet by Roche Amplicor version 1.5 qualitative DNA PCR assay [Roche Diagnostic Systems] for samples collected prior to 18 months; serum by GeneScreen ELISA for samples collected >=18 months). If this sample was negative, the child was classified as HIV-negative; if it was positive, earlier samples were tested to determine timing of infection.

The cause of death was, largely, assigned by the hospitals.

Your point?

Time to read the "Fair Use" provisions in the US copyright laws:

I am not in the US, and I do not believe it falls under "Fair Use" to reproduce an entire document verbatim. Especially considering this is a public forum, and the document is available only through paid subscription.

Also, you could just make it available on a hidden website and PM me the URL.

No.

If you want the original document that badly, go to your local public library or university. And good library at either of these two places will likely have journals available for public viewing.

Or do you simply not trust me?

Africa has nothing to do with nitrate inhalants or other recreational drugs. African "AIDS" has nothing to do with First-World "AIDS".

Your unattributed quote is none too impressive, W.

Also, the paper we have been discussing seems to disagree.

 

[patrick767]

What is the point of arguing here? It's obvious that nothing anyone says, that no evidence presented, will ever convince Dabljuh of anything but his strongly held crackpot theories about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence is. He dismisseso ut of hand everything that disagrees with his view and accepts the words of a handful of nutjobs that he read somewhere.

Arguing with people like him is an exercise in futility.

 

[Taffer]

What is the point of arguing here? It's obvious that nothing anyone says, that no evidence presented, will ever convince Dabljuh of anything but his strongly held crackpot theories about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence is. He dismisseso ut of hand everything that disagrees with his view and accepts the words of a handful of nutjobs that he read somewhere.

Arguing with people like him is an exercise in futility.

You must be new here.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

What is the point of arguing here? It's obvious that nothing anyone says, that no evidence presented, will ever convince Dabljuh of anything but his strongly held crackpot theories about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence is. He dismisseso ut of hand everything that disagrees with his view and accepts the words of a handful of nutjobs that he read somewhere.

Arguing with people like him is an exercise in futility.

And a warm welcome to the forum.

Occasionally, people actually do change and understand. I can name at least three times I've seen it. If anything, the argument is worth it for lurkers and fence sitters.

 

[Dabljuh]

Experimental infection of rhesus monkeys with SIV isolated from African green monkeys

Hmm, a test with 6 monkeys... 4 seroconverted... 3 developed a persitent lymphadenopathy (Swollen Lymph nodes)... No depletion of CD4 T-Cells or opportunistic diseases reported... and no controls used...

 

[calebprime]

The Drug-AIDS hypothesis basically says: "If you do drugs such as Heroin, your health will suffer"

People who have ingested heroin by snorting it or smoking it have failed to get AIDS.

Actually, while recreational drugs are often bad for people, tarring them with the broad-brush approach (drugs cause AIDS) seems just as bad as what you're objecting to. And it has the additional disadvantage that it's not even true.

What is the point of arguing here? It's obvious that nothing anyone says, that no evidence presented, will ever convince Dabljuh of anything but his strongly held crackpot theories about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence is. He dismisseso ut of hand everything that disagrees with his view and accepts the words of a handful of nutjobs that he read somewhere.

Arguing with people like him is an exercise in futility.

You must be new here.

There was Christophera. Truthseeker1234 is still flogging the no-planes theory. Kurious Kathy is still trying to konvert people here. T'ai Chi is still using the cryptic oracular approach: "This is interesting."

These people are the life of the party. Or, more accurately, they provide a foil for the more rational people here.

 

[Dabljuh]

For all infants born to HIV-positive mothers, cell pellets (Roche Diagnostics Systems, Alameda, CA) and plasma were prepared from whole blood collected at baseline and follow-up visits and stored at –70°C. Following all patient contact, the last available sample from each infant was tested (pellet by Roche Amplicor version 1.5 qualitative DNA PCR assay [Roche Diagnostic Systems] for samples collected prior to 18 months; serum by GeneScreen ELISA for samples collected >=18 months). If this sample was negative, the child was classified as HIV-negative; if it was positive, earlier samples were tested to determine timing of infection.

So... the children of HIV-positive mothers had basically blood taken from them every opportunity. I don't think that the practice of taking blood samples from newborns is particularly healthy to them, and I hypothesize this may falsify the results.

Your point?

Different standards. African Hospitals may just tag "Uh, AIDS" on the report when kids die, making the entire study worthless.

Or do you simply not trust me?

As a general rule, I don't trust anybody. Not even myself. In this particular case, the problem is not of trust but I can't study the study without access to the fulltext article.

 

[Dabljuh]

People who have ingested heroin by snorting it or smoking it have failed to get AIDS.

I don't think those groups are particularly large. Heroin is usually consumed intravenously, where it is the most potent. Of course I don't have any data on this, just speculating there. As you are.

Actually, while recreational drugs are often bad for people, tarring them with the broad-brush approach (drugs cause AIDS) seems just as bad as what you're objecting to. And it has the additional disadvantage that it's not even true.

Well "truthiness" aside, you think a "Sex (and especially gay and black sex) causes AIDS" theory is better than a "extreme overuse of recreational drugs causes AIDS" from that point of view?

Not like this point of view is particularly important, what's important is what really causes "AIDS" then. Or rather, destruction of the immune system, since "AIDS" is a worthless, incoherent and out of date definition.

 

[Dabljuh]

Lesson in deliberately misinterpreting studies?

One thing I just noticed reading the abstract of the study again:

HIV causes substantial mortality among African children but there is limited data on how this is influenced by maternal or infant infection status and timing

Translates to: HIV causes substantial mortality amongst african children, though we have no clue if the kids actually need to be infected with HIV for it to work its destructive magic:

Uninfected infants of infected mothers have at least twice the mortality risk of infants born to uninfected mothers: all HIV-exposed infants should be targeted with child survival interventions. HIV-positive mothers with more advanced disease are not only more likely to infect their infants, but their infants are more likely to die, whether infected or not

It is obvious: The HI-Virus is so evil it even kills people it doesn't infect.

 

[kellyb]

Translates to: HIV causes substantial mortality amongst african children, though we have no clue if the kids actually need to be infected with HIV for it to work its destructive magic:

No, it doesn't translate into that, W. "Status" means "disease progression" among other things, and "timing" means "in utero", during delivery, or later, as in breastfeeding transmission.

It is obvious: The HI-Virus is so evil it even kills people it doesn't infect.

Do you know what "passive immunity" is for human babies, W?
Or what normally happen when an immunocompetent mother with a newborn comes into contact with all the various rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, etc that are endemic among humans on Planet Earth?

 

[kellyb]

By the way, you asked for "evidence" that HIV inhibits/depresses the immune system. I don't even have to show evidence to that effect: I believe it is sufficient to point out the many sources that I have posted, which make nitrite inhalants the prime candidate for causing Kaposi's Sarcoma. The occurrence of which you probably would equal with a "depressed immune system"... (Semantics *is* important in this field)

Are these kidney transplant patients all just on poppers?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10342315&dopt=Citation

Human herpes virus-8 and other risk factors for Kaposi's sarcoma in kidney transplant recipients

METHODS: We carried out a retrospective and a prospective study among kidney transplant recipients (TP) to identify the risk factors for posttransplantation KS.

Sixty-eight percent (17/25) of TP with HHV-8 antibodies before or after transplantation developed KS compared with 3% (1/33) of seronegative TP (P<0.00001). HHV-8 DNA was detectable in seven of nine peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and in six of six KS lesions at diagnosis; it became negative in PBMC in three of five patients in parallel with tumor regression. CONCLUSION: African and Middle East geographic origins, HHV-8 infection before and after kidney transplantation, and initial use of polyclonal antilymphocyte sera were independent risk factors for KS. The presence of HHV-8 antibodies before or after transplantation was highly predictive of the emergence of posttransplantation KS and conferred a 28-fold increased risk of KS (odds ratio=28.4; 95% confidence interval: 4.9-279). Detection of HHV-8 DNA within PBMC and KS lesions seems related to tumor burden and evolution.

Coincidence again?

 

[Capsid]

Hmm, a test with 6 monkeys... 4 seroconverted... 3 developed a persitent lymphadenopathy (Swollen Lymph nodes)... No depletion of CD4 T-Cells or opportunistic diseases reported... and no controls used...

It's unethical to use large numbers of primates for such studies, 6 is sufficient to answer the question.
Lymphadenopathy is not just swollen lymph nodes but a disease of the lymph nodes indicative of AIDS.
I thought you said CD4 decline was not a good marker for HIV/AIDS?
The macaques are held in very clean conditons so there is limited exposure to other pathogens to trigger opportunistic diseases.
No need to use controls, what would they be anyway? Naive uninfected animals? The question is does this virus preparation infect macaques and cause AIDS-like symptoms, why the need to control for that?

 

[kellyb]

I have failed to find a paper supporting your claim, although I have found a multitude of papers investigating measures to protect macaques from SIV-infection or apparent vaccination attempts.

Edit: Oh, here's something
Unfortunately, no figures about the actual incidence of each pattern, nor any mention of controls in the abstract. Of course, the "SHIV" pathogen was artificially created and inoculated. which raises the question: Would the results look any different with natural (oral, perinatal or even sexual) transmission of a "wild" SIV-Pathogen?

Chubaka is a Wookie and he lives on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks!
It don't make no sense!
If the glove don't fit you must aquit! (the HIV virus as the cause of AIDS)

More whack-a-mole, huh?

 

[Dabljuh]

No, it doesn't translate into that, W. "Status" means "disease progression" among other things, and "timing" means "in utero", during delivery, or later, as in breastfeeding transmission.

No, Status means just that: The kid is HIV infected or not.

Do you know what "passive immunity" is for human babies, W?

Nope

Or what normally happen when an immunocompetent mother with a newborn comes into contact with all the various rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, etc that are endemic among humans on Planet Earth?

You mean Immunoincompetent? You mean that the mother would become a virus-spoting infectionmachine, which would severely weaken the child. I think far more realistic is to assume that a severely sick mother has more problems caring for her child, and the lack of care (such as nutritional and emotional) increase the predisposition of the child to develop diseases.

 

[Dabljuh]

Are these kidney transplant patients all just on poppers?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10342315&dopt=Citation

Coincidence again?

No, at first glance, this looks pretty good at showing the link between a depressed immune system and KS. But...
- It does not disprove any link between poppers and KS
- It does not prove a supposed link between HIV and KS (which is discredited)
- What about other, so called "opportunistic diseases" such as PCP in transplant patients?

 

[kellyb]

So... the children of HIV-positive mothers had basically blood taken from them every opportunity. I don't think that the practice of taking blood samples from newborns is particularly healthy to them, and I hypothesize this may falsify the results.

Let's look at the resuls again:

http://www.pidj.org/pt/re/pidj/abst...sQvCn2FvdLpJt1zZy!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

Methods: Children enrolled in the ZVITAMBO trial were divided into 5 groups: those born to HIV-negative mothers (NE, n = 9510), those born to HIV-positive mothers but noninfected (NI, n = 3135), those infected in utero (IU, n = 381), those infected intrapartum (IP, n = 508), and those infected postnatally (PN, n = 258). Their mortality was estimated.

Results: Two-year mortality was 2.9% (NE infants), 9.2% (NI), 67.5% (IU), 65.1% (IP), and 33.2% (PN). Between 8 weeks and 6 months, mortality in IU infants quintupled (from 309 to 1686/1000 c-y). The median time from infection to death was 208, 380, and >500 days for IU, IP, and PN infants, respectively. Among NI children, advanced maternal disease was predictive of mortality. Acute respiratory infection was the major cause of death.

All babies having the same amount of blood taken.
Mortality in babies not infected, but with HIV positive mothers: 9.2%
Babies infected in the womb or during labor: 67.5% - 65.1%

Why the difference, W?
Coincidence again?