AIDS (hah)

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may be that neonates do not mount a good antibody response to HIV and the antibody tests (which are very reliable these days) would not be appropriate; therfore a PCR test is necessary (but more expensive so not used for the mothers) to confirm the HIV+ status.

Antibodies in the newborn reflect maternal antibody. Before PCR testing one had to wait a number of months to know if the baby was infected or just had Mom's antibodies in its blood.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

Magic Johnson.

 

[robinson]

Science does NOT mean educating yourself. Go look it up.

 

[Dabljuh]

*sigh*
Trying again.
http://biologie.kappa.ro/Literature/Misc_cogsci/Aids/AIDSCD4.pdf

I'm saying "Nobody knows how HIV destroys the CD4 cell population" and then... you sigh and post a paper that exactly restates my claim?

We still do not know how, in vivo, the virus destroys CD4+ T cells or whether, in quantitative terms, cell loss is due to direct destruction by virus or to other indirect means.

Maybe you could now begin to acknowledge that fact?

 

[Dabljuh]

Now onto the good stuff. Science stuff. From the only country in the world that responded to a deadly incurable Pandemic that was going to wipe out entire populations and devastate the planet.

Cuba. Cuba, the country that destroyed blood supplies, refused to import blood, tested all blood, and quarantined every person who was found to have an incurable deadly disease. The country that has records of every person who has HIV, that has come down with AIDS, and data on every person who died from AIDS.

What does the hard data from Cuba show? About HIV and AIDS, in Cuba?

HIV is transmitted by sex, but not often. HIV is transmitted through blood, very often. HIV is transmitted by mothers to children, sometimes.
HIV is very common in male to male sex. HIV is rare when I.V. drug use is absent. Most females that got HIV were infected by husbands who had male to male sex. Most AIDS deaths are Gay men, most HIV cases are Gay men.

Most people with HIV don't develop AIDS, at least not in 20 years. Of the HIV+ that develop AIDS, most have not died yet. (20 years). Taking drugs against HIV doesn't change your chance of death. The oldest person with HIV, but not AIDS, takes no medication. (over 20 years infected).

All of that is hard fact. Scientific data. Real information, based on a population of 11 million people, with good health care and sanitation and food.

None of that data is valid for any other population. But it is without a doubt real for Cuba. All of this data is, of course, available for anyone to read.

What does it all mean? That seems to be up to what ever you think.

Good stuff, if true. Does the cuban data indicate that HIV infection may be a causal factor for death? Or possibly just a side effect of the gay-sex-lifestyle? (Oh, and URL to a comprehensive source which confirms your summary, please)

 

[robinson]

I'm saying "Nobody knows how HIV destroys the CD4 cell population" and then... you sigh and post a paper that exactly restates my claim?

Thus, total body CD4+
T cells may be depleted in absolute number because they are
destroyed or because their production is impaired. In addition,
the fraction of circulating cells may decrease (giving
the appearance of loss) if viral infection results in their
redistribution out of the intravascular space and into the
confines of lymphoid organs.

You are correct. Nobody knows what is happening. Yet.

 

[robinson]

Good stuff, if true.

All my statements are from published information.

Does the cuban data indicate that HIV infection may be a causal factor for death? Or possibly just a side effect of the gay-sex-lifestyle?

I don't have that data.

(Oh, and URL to a comprehensive source which confirms your summary, please)

There isn't one. I got those facts from a dozen sources. I don't have time to make up a quote/link post right now. But if you want to spend an hour, you can verify every one of those as true, based on published documents.

Or you could try and show why they are bunk. Either way, we all learn. Got to go.

 

[kellyb]

Of course. Smith, W; Andrewes CH, Laidlaw PP (1933). "A virus obtained from influenza patients". Lancet 2: 66–68.

Nobody doubts that a virus causes the symptoms, the virus is always found, it can be isolated, introducing a pure isolation of the virus causes the symptoms. It is basic science.


Shimizu, K (Oct 1997). "History of influenza epidemics and discovery of influenza virus". Nippon Rinsho 55 (10): 2505–201. PMID 9360364.



You can see a picture of it here, http://www.state.nj.us/health/flu/pandemic.shtml


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

And HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients many, many, many times, too.

What is better about the influenza science? What do we have there that you see lacking with HIV?

 

[kellyb]

Most people with HIV don't develop AIDS, at least not in 20 years. Of the HIV+ that develop AIDS, most have not died yet. (20 years). Taking drugs against HIV doesn't change your chance of death. The oldest person with HIV, but not AIDS, takes no medication. (over 20 years infected).

All of that is hard fact. Scientific data. Real information, based on a population of 11 million people, with good health care and sanitation and food.

None of that data is valid for any other population. But it is without a doubt real for Cuba. All of this data is, of course, available for anyone to read.

What does it all mean? That seems to be up to what ever you think.

Can you find a link on that part?

 

[kellyb]

I'm saying "Nobody knows how HIV destroys the CD4 cell population" and then... you sigh and post a paper that exactly restates my claim?

You mean you need to know every nut and bolt of how HIV induced apoptosis before you'll believe that it does?

 

[Dabljuh]

You mean you need to know every nut and bolt of how HIV induced apoptosis before you'll believe that it does?

I am not entirely convinced that HIV leads to an irreversible, ultimately lethal destruction of the immune system at all. Consequently, I am not convinced HIV solely and pathologically depletes the CD4 T-Helper-Cell count and/or that such a depletion would invariably lead to a wide range of opportunistic diseases of bacterial, viral and fungal origin.

A mechanism by which HIV supposedly destroys the CD4+ T-Helper cell population would at least be one part in the puzzle of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. As robinson said, the unscientific approach the medical science itself has taken so far, largely, is appalling.

Media: "We have people of a specific sexual subgroup who get frequently get similiar opportunistic diseases"
Montagnier: "Here's a bug that infects CD4 T-Helper cells"
Gallo: "Heureka! Obviously this bug must invariably destroy the immune system and be sexually transmissible"
Pharma Industry: "Lets sell everyone who is infected with the bug these leftover medications from cancer research!"
Religious Right: "And scare everyone out of their wits with doomsday predictions of what happens if they have premarital sex and alienate an entire sexual subgroup that merely got what god intended"

(20 years pass, and Gallo's original hypothesis has never been put to rigorous test)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Right. The ZVITAMBO group has done a bunch of studies.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=r&q=ZVITAMBO&as_ylo=1998

Just to clear this up a bit more this wasn't "a bunch of studies" exactly. Not that you have it wrong, kelly, but what this was was a very large data base collected on these mothers and infants over a period of 4 years. Then researchers who wish to use the data design their "study" but instead of collecting the data individually, they use the data already collected. When you collect detailed information about people and include a lot of variables, then other researchers can use the same data to analyze any number of different relationships.

The main study collected data with the following three goals.

ZVITAMBO is a 4-arm placebo-controlled trial of the impact of a single oral dose of vitamin A given to mothers (400,000 IU) and/or neonates (50,000 IU) within 96 h of delivery on 3 outcomes: 1) Infant mortality: Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) of preschool children is a cornerstone child survival intervention, but the benefit of neonatal VAS is uncertain; 2) Mother to child HIV transmission (MTCT) during breast feeding: Daily VAS of HIV+ pregnant women did not reduce MTCT in 3 trials. However in neonates of HIV+ mothers VAS may reduce susceptibility to infection during breast feeding by promoting gut integrity; 3). Incident HIV infections in post partum women

Put another way,

Complete Trial Name: Name/Number: ZVITAMBO project

Impact of vitamin A supplementation of mother and or infants during the immediate post partum period on infant mortality, mother to child HIV transmission during breast feeding, and incident HIV infection among post partum women.

Primary objective: To determine the impact of vitamin A on infant mortality, MTCT during breast feeding, and incidence of HIV infection among post partum women.

Secondary objective: To determine how to operationalize infant feeding guidelines of WHO in the context of HIV. To investigate associated feeding modes and infection free survival.

The link to the additional research reveals what a wealth of data this was which was collected.

But 'W''s imagination again left him with more false conclusions about any impact AZT had on these mothers and infants. From the following 2 studies I gleaned as much info as I could on the data collected on the mothers and infants. For someone to overlook the impact AZT would have had is preposterous in any single study, but in a study this size with data looked at by literally hundreds of researchers some who were really looking at the impact of giving vitamin A in the postpartum period, regardless of HIV status is beyond preposterous.

In other words, 'W', the nutrition researchers would have most certainly wanted to know what effect any drugs including AZT had because it would be relevant to their vitamin A research.

Effect of postpartum maternal or neonatal vitamin A supplementation on infant mortality among infants born to HIV-negative mothers in Zimbabwe

From 25 November 1997 to 29 January 2000, 14 110 mother-infant pairs were enrolled within 96 h of delivery at 1 of 14 maternity clinics and hospitals. Pairs were eligible if neither of the pair had an acutely life-threatening condition, the infant was a singleton with a birth weight > 1500 g, and the mother planned to stay in Harare after delivery. Written informed consent was obtained from the mother. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were collected by interview, and obstetric details of the pregnancy and delivery were transcribed from hospital records. Gestational age was estimated with the Capurro method (16). Infant birth weight was measured with an electronic scale (model 727; Seca, Hanover, MD), and infant length, infant head circumference, and maternal midupper arm circumference were measured according to methods described by Gibson (17). Addresses were recorded for the mother's urban and rural residences (it is common for urban Zimbabweans to travel frequently to extended family rural homesteads), for the mother's place of work, for the mother's husband's place of work, and for a relative of the mother who would always know of her whereabouts.

Blood collection and processing
The study nurses collected whole blood into EDTA and plain (serum) tubes from mothers and infants by venipuncture and heel prick, respectively. Blood for plasma was stored at room temperature ({approx}20 °C) and that for serum in a cool box ({approx}10–15 °C) before being transferred to the laboratory for processing within 2 h of phlebotomy. Plasma and serum were separated and stored in aliquots at –70 °C until used.

Randomization to treatment groups
Mother-infants pairs were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: mothers received 400 000 IU vitamin A (as retinyl palmitate) and infants received 50 000 IU vitamin A (Aa group), mothers received 400 000 IU vitamin A and infants received placebo (Ap group), mothers received placebo and infants received 50 000 IU vitamin A (Pa group), and both mothers and infants received placebo (Pp group). Treatment and placebo capsules appeared identical and both contained a soy oil base with vitamin E as a preservative (50 IU per maternal capsule; 10 IU per infant capsule) (Tishcon Corporation, Westbury, NY).

A separate team at Johns Hopkins University prepared the study capsule packets. Study identification numbers were randomly allocated to the treatment groups by computer in blocks of 12. The numbers were printed on adhesive labels and affixed to amber-colored zip-lock plastic bags that were packed with the assigned capsules. Capsule packets were prepared separately for each of the 4 treatment groups and were then merged into numeric order before shipping to Zimbabwe, where a series of packets were distributed to each recruitment site. As each mother- infant pair was recruited, the capsules in the next sequential bag were administered, and the associated study number was assigned to the pair. Lists linking the study number to the treatment were kept in sealed envelopes and encrypted computer files.

Follow-up of the subjects
Follow-up visits were conducted in 3 designated follow-up clinics at 6 wk, 3 mo, and then every 3 mo thereafter up to 12 mo. Home visits were attempted for defaulting pairs to either their urban or rural home anywhere within Zimbabwe. Cause of death was determined from medical records for infants who died in a hospital or from a review of verbal autopsy information by a study pediatrician, who was masked to treatment group, for infants dying at home. Multiple causes of death were permitted and were not ranked hierarchically, in keeping with the recommendations of an expert group convened by the World Health Organization (18).

An Education and Counseling Program for Preventing Breast-Feeding–Associated HIV Transmission in Zimbabwe: Design and Impact on Maternal Knowledge and Behavior

ZVITAMBO trial data collection

The ZVITAMBO trial has been described previously (10). Briefly, mother–baby pairs were enrolled, following written consent, within 96 h of delivery at one of 14 maternity clinics in greater Harare, being eligible if neither had an acutely life-threatening condition, the baby was a singleton with birth weight > 1500 g, and the mother planned to stay in Harare after delivery. Written informed consent included permission to test mothers for HIV. Mothers could learn their results at any time during the study with appropriate pre- and post-test counseling, but they were not required to do so. This feature makes ZVITAMBO unique. All other studies of infant feeding and HIV have been conducted among mothers who knew their HIV status.

Socioeconomic, demographic, breast-feeding initiation, and prelacteal feeding data were collected by interview at enrollment. Details of the pregnancy and the delivery were transcribed from hospital records. At delivery, 32% of the mothers were HIV positive (10). Follow-up visits at 6 wk, 3 mo, and at 3-mo intervals for up to 24 mo included maternal and infant blood collection. Detailed infant feeding information, including breast-feeding status and whether or not any of 22 nonmilk liquids, nonhuman milks (animal milks and commercial formula), medicines (traditional fluids, oral rehydration salts, other prescribed), or solid foods had ever been given to the infant were collected at enrollment, 6 wk, 3 mo, and 6 mo after delivery.

Infants who provided infant-feeding information at enrollment, 6 wk, and 3 mo were classified into 1 of 3 early breast-feeding patterns: 1) EBF—only breast milk, vitamins, or prescribed medicines at all 3 time points, or at 2 of 3 time points. One lapse in exclusivity of EBF at 1 of the 3 time points was allowed only if the nonbreast milk item consumed was a nonmilk liquid; 2) predominant breast-feeding—breast milk plus nonmilk liquids; 3) mixed breast-feeding—breast milk plus nonhuman milks and/or solid foods at one or more time points. Classification was limited to the first 3 mo, because 93% of study infants were mixed breast-feeding by 6 mo.

Psychosocial counseling was available throughout the study. The date and reason for each individual counseling session, and whether HIV test results were obtained, was documented.

I think this study mentioned already confirms the mothers and infants did not get any anti-retroviral drugs.

Child Mortality According to Maternal and Infant HIV Status in Zimbabwe.

Conclusions: Perinatally infected infants are at particular risk of death between 2 and 6 months: cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and early pediatric HAART should be scaled up. 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: provision of antiretroviral treatment to pregnant and lactating women is an urgent need for both mothers and their children.

So did this one:

Timing of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 and infant mortality in the first 6 months of life in Harare, Zimbabwe.

Conclusion: In the first 6 months of life, IU and IP/ePP transmission contributed more than three-quarters of the 30.7% MTCT. Our data, in addition to serving as a historical comparison, may be useful in designing and evaluating the efficacy of short course antiretroviral trials aimed at reducing MTCT in developing countries.

 

[Dabljuh]

All my statements are from published information.

I don't have that data.

There isn't one. I got those facts from a dozen sources. I don't have time to make up a quote/link post right now. But if you want to spend an hour, you can verify every one of those as true, based on published documents.

Or you could try and show why they are bunk. Either way, we all learn. Got to go.

Hmm, alright. I don't know the first thing about cuba. Well, its an island, I suppose.

Now here's my challenge for you: Write a comprehensive report with lots of references. Postulate the hypothesis that cuba's HIV is in fact a completely different (and harmless) strain of HIV, HIV-3 (Supposedly, africa's HIV is HIV-2 which is completely different from european-american "Gay AIDS" HIV-1) and then try to get it published somewhere.

Edit: You know, a "harmless" HIV-3 strain could be used as a vaccine to prevent infection with the dangerous strains. That sort of stuff tends to get published quickly.

 

[Dabljuh]

In other words, 'W', the nutrition researchers would have most certainly wanted to know what effect any drugs including AZT had because it would be relevant to their vitamin A research.

Actually... you're just speculating there. I have only found one reference that indicated they did not give AZT (the only drug freshly approved for treatment of HIV at the time) during at least the initial part of the study, and that was a report about participants of the study protesting the ZVITAMBO project *not* providing them with the Anti-Retroviral Treatment. (When other studies in Africa just began to do that)

 

[kellyb]

I am not entirely convinced that HIV leads to an irreversible, ultimately lethal destruction of the immune system at all. Consequently, I am not convinced HIV solely and pathologically depletes the CD4 T-Helper-Cell count and/or that such a depletion would invariably lead to a wide range of opportunistic diseases of bacterial, viral and fungal origin.

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aid...1ytmLmLQx2Tnky26!1047416762!181195628!8091!-1

Abstract:
Objective: To examine the association of viral load and CD4 lymphocyte count with mortality among HIV-infected children over one year of age.

Results: Of 155 HIV-infected children originally enrolled, 115 (74%) had viral load testing and 82 (53%) had both viral load and CD4 cell percentage testing after their first year. Among children over one year of age, significant associations were found between mortality and the log10 viral load and CD4 cell percentage in both univariate and multivariate models. Independent of the CD4 cell value, a one unit log10 increase in HIV RNA level increased the hazard of child mortality by more than twofold. Children with low CD4 cell counts (< 15%) and high viral loads (>= 250 000 copies/ml median value) had the worst survival; children with high CD4 cell counts (>= 15%) and low viral loads (< 250 000 copies/ml) had the best survival.

Conclusion: As in developed countries, viral load and CD4 cell count are the main predictors of mortality among African children. Making these tests available adds to the challenges to be considered if antiviral therapies were to be adopted in these countries.

Coincidence again, W?

Man those HIV scientists have a lot of luck with those coincidences, don't they?

 

[Dabljuh]

Coincidence again, W?

Yes, coincidence.

 

[kellyb]

Am I wearing you down yet?

 

[kellyb]

There isn't one. I got those facts from a dozen sources. I don't have time to make up a quote/link post right now. But if you want to spend an hour, you can verify every one of those as true, based on published documents.

Or you could try and show why they are bunk. Either way, we all learn. Got to go.

I'm going to make a logical assumption that, if what you're saying is correct, this information must be somewhat difficult to locate, or it would be all over the denialist websites.

Here's what the WHO has to say about HIV in Cuba:

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/prev_care/en/cuba.pdf

History
The use of products that bolster the immune system for all
HIV-positive people has been recommended in Cuba since
1986. From 1987, zidovudine (ZDV) was recommended as
monotherapy for all those who developed AIDS. In 1996, after
the World AIDS Conference and the recommendation of
Highly Active Antiretroviral Treatment (HAART) as the treatment
of choice, the Ministry of Public Health bought antiretroviral
treatment for all children with AIDS and their
mothers. Since 1997, HIV-infected pregnant women have
been receiving ZDV to prevent mother-to-child transmission
of the virus as well as breast milk substitutes

These triple combinations are used initially for all patients.
However, those who develop tuberculosis during treatment are
switched to a dual therapy scheme using two nucleoside reverse
transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), with either nevirapine or nelfinavir
as options for second-line treatment. In other patients,
second-line treatment possibilities are protease inhibitors, if
available.

Since the introduction of HAART in 2001 there has been a
decrease in the number of deaths from AIDS and the incidence
of opportunistic infections (OIs) related to HIV/AIDS
(Figure 3). Since all OIs are treated in the hospital, the reduction
in the number of OIs has in turn, resulted in a countrywide
drop in hospital admissions; as for the IPK, admissions
for opportunistic infections have decreased by almost half
(Table 1).
Furthermore, treatment with ARVs showed beneficial effects
on survival: from the time people developed AIDS, average
survival time for those who did not receive treatment* during
2000-2003 was at 1.2 years while AIDS patients with ARV
treatment survived almost four times longer (4 years;
p < 0.001). Out of the 1292 patients under treatment, only 87,
about 7%, died.

They've got nifty little charts, too.

Ball's in your court, Robinson.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually... you're just speculating there. I have only found one reference that indicated they did not give AZT (the only drug freshly approved for treatment of HIV at the time) during at least the initial part of the study, and that was a report about participants of the study protesting the ZVITAMBO project *not* providing them with the Anti-Retroviral Treatment. (When other studies in Africa just began to do that)

More poorly informed conclusions. They recorded everything from these people's medical records in the data base. It is not speculation to conclude out of all these highly educated experienced researchers no one would have looked at the effects of AZT or other HAART drugs as one of the variables in their studies. I'm sorry you just don't get it, but you don't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Am I wearing you down yet?

Ever tried to wear down a delusional person?