AIDS (hah)

[robinson]

What do you make of the HIV/circumcision RCTs?

I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at the data on circumcision among the two test groups in Africa, and found serious problems with the research. It helps to remember that Africa is a different situation than the rest of the world. Different HIV, different co-factors, different sexual practices, different definition of circumcision, a lot of stuff that confounds the dubious conclusion that circumcision prevents HIV.

Are you implying those latter assertions have not been supported by the data, robinson? I am confused by your post.

Back when we discussed this early this year, I checked the figures. There are no facts to support the theory that HIV is spread by sex, like every other STD is. Yes, you can become infected through sexual contact, but not like an STD. It did not spread like a STD. It does not spread like an STD. If you believe it has, try and find the data to support that theory.

(Now to be fair, I am talking about normal heterosexual sexual relations. Not perversions involving violence and anal penetration. That sort of behavior involves blood and non-sexual transmission of fluids, which I don't define as sex, for purposes of argument.)

Same for the other two claims made about HIV/AIDS. There isn't any evidence to support the claims. If you can show me evidence, I will, of course, change my mind on this. And state that I was in error.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at the data on circumcision among the two test groups in Africa, and found serious problems with the research. It helps to remember that Africa is a different situation than the rest of the world. Different HIV, different co-factors, different sexual practices, different definition of circumcision, a lot of stuff that confounds the dubious conclusion that circumcision prevents HIV.

What problems did you find with the research?

I agree that it's a totally different situation over there. But HIV seems to spread fairly efficiently through heterosexual contact over there.

ETA:

There are no facts to support the theory that HIV is spread by sex, like every other STD is

This is getting semantical again. What qualifies as an "STD" or "STI" is a spectrum. Back to HepB, it doesn't spread really well through sex, like, say, crabs or Herpes do. And neither does HIV. But its still considered an STD.

 

[robinson]

Semantics. That really is a lot of this thread. But I stand by my conclusions on these difficult semantic matters.

To clarify, HIV is the retrovirus. AIDS is a label for a set of diseases combined with HIV being detected. Neither HIV nor AIDS kills you, it is some disease that kills you, not HIV. Semantics. HIV leads to AIDS leads to some disease, or combination of diseases, which leads to death, which means you don't breath anymore, and your body starts to decompose. Does that help?

HIV didn't spread like it was predicted. HIV didn't spread into the heterosexual population through sex, like other STDs. HIV didn't get spread through needle sticks and medical accidents, as predicted.
HIV didn't kill the massive populations in Africa, as reported, or predicted.

I'm tired of HIV and AIDS. Damn troll. Suckered me into this conversation again.

Damn you troll. Damn you to hell!

 

[The Atheist]

Adding to SYLVESTER1592's comments on the ways which viruses can produce illness, here are a couple of additional discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Good luck,

SYL

Actually I think I authored the argument, back in the 1990s.

Kudos to all. I'm still not sure Dubbya's a troll, any more than any other deluded person who posts here. His premise is supported by some elements of mainstream science, some of what he says is correct - which shows that myths persist. He has discussed other subjects in a non-trolling manner.

Regardless of that, the thread now contains a lot more facts than it did, which has certainly taught me a few new points about AIDS.

I'm tired of HIV and AIDS. Damn troll. Suckered me into this conversation again.

Damn you troll. Damn you to hell!

Mate, you're not only a knowledgeable bloke, you're a bloody good bloke, too! Take it on the chin and kick the next dog you see.

 

[kellyb]

HIV didn't kill the massive populations in Africa, as reported, or predicted.

Well, there are a lot of dead HIV+ 20-somethings and 30-somethings in Africa. Areas where the little kids are alive, granmas are still alive raising the little kids, but the kid's parents are dead.
Yeah, they're starving and coinfected with stuff like malaria, but the kids and granmas are still left. So I think it was the HIV that pushed the infected over the edge. I think there are "massive amounts", but the true number is unknown.

 

[Taffer]

PCR multiplies genes. For HIV testing purposes, it multiplies RNA. The problem is: it doesn't specifically multiply HIV genes, but any sort of RNA. And it does not multiply it by any consistent factor, but rather randomly in fact. The Result? "Viral Load" doesn't say anything and you can't test for HIV either.

Do you know how PCR works?

 

[Taffer]

Do you realize that every human has between 30 and 70 retroviruses inside them, and none of them cause any problems? That every human has around 10'000 retroviral genes in his genome, but only the HIV one supposedly causes any problems?

Yes of course, any viral infection is a strain for the immune system. after all, the immune system has to produce an immunological reaction to it. But when even 100's of viruses at the same time don't cause problems, why do you believe that HIV, which is only different from other retroviruses in that its target cell is the immunologically relevant T-Cell, where other retroviruses infect othercell types such as muscle cells, nerve cells, fat cells etc is the only retrovirus that destroys the immune system and kills its host?

Just to clarify, retrotransposons != retroviruses. They are similar, and probably came from retroviruses, but they are not the same.

Don't you understand that a retrovirus requires its host to live and reproduce? Any retrovirus that would kill its host would soon die out.

The same goes for any virus. And any parasite. Does this mean that no parasites and no viruses exist which kill their host?

 

[Deetee]

Sheesh!
I neglect the board for a day or two and this happens! 4 pages of it, too!

I agree with Robinson (in this one thing, anyway) - Damn troll!

A few points -
Dubya is definitely a troll, albeit a somewhat sophisticated one. He started out all sciency-questioningly, pretending he was unconvinced about certain aspects of HIV/AIDS. He offered opinions, and the only facts or data he produced have been culled from well-trodden HIV denialism web sites. We get the occasional creationist in here who does the same thing, well there are HIV denialists who are fewer in number, but potentially much, much more dangerous. He real agenda became quickly apparent, with his scatter-gun rejection of almost every fact that was thrown his way. His tactic of switching targets each time he was held to account for a dishonest statement is classical too (the HIV whack-a-mole game).

I think Dubya thought he could get away with disinformation, but fortunately our regulars were onto him pronto and he has probably got the message that he cannot get away with his unfettered wild claims. I spend quite a bit of time on other forums engaging these trolls. Try aetiology for a flavour of what goes on.

Kudos to all. I'm still not sure Dubbya's a troll, any more than any other deluded person who posts here. His premise is supported by some elements of mainstream science, some of what he says is correct - which shows that myths persist. He has discussed other subjects in a non-trolling manner.

Forgive me, can you point out the posts where what he says is correct, rather than where he is being disingenuously misleading?

 

[Dabljuh]

Heya robinson. At first, I thought "Finally, a worthy opponent! One that I can learn something from" But alas...

Actually I think I authored the argument, back in the 1990s. Here are some quotes, which also will link you to the original post, which is convenient because it links to another thread about this. Note to the newcomer, I was called a troll in that thread for pointing out some of the fallacies and problems with AIDS, HIV research and such. I think I can understand where you are coming from. However, consider the following ideas, which I can expand upon if needed.

To sum up, while there are problems and politics galore with HIV/AIDS, and always have been, there is good evidence that HIV is associated with a decreased immune system, which can lead to opportunistic infections, and death.

The policy of diagnosing Africans with AIDS, without doing an HIV test, is problematic, and may well be a funding issue.

And yes, the hype about catching AIDS from unprotected sex was hype, and yes, there have been a lot of people who used AIDS to promote agendas, as well as conspiracy theories, and yes there is dispute over many of the issues around HIV.

Based on my research, AIDS has not spread or killed anywhere near what the predictions were, it hasn't spread like a sexually transmitted disease, and it certainly hasn't killed the number of people in Africa that some would have you believe.

Now before somebody jumps in demanding I back up all that with links and quotes and evidence and stuff, I would say this.

If you claim AIDS has killed the number of people that it was predicted it would, you have to show that.

If you want to claim AIDS has spread sexually, you have to show that it has.

And if you want to claim Africa has been decimated by AIDS, you have to show that this is true.

Because the onus of proof is on the person making some wild ass claim, not the person who debunks it, and tells you that they don't believe it.

... You agree with everything I say. Or I agree with everything you say. I'm not saying strictly: HIV is harmless. I repeatedly said there is some good possibility that HIV does harm the immune system, but that it was never shown that this is causally the case.

But: According to some of the people here, you're be a conspiracy nut now, since you imply that the threat of AIDS is systematically exaggerated.

Needless to say, there are statistics that have no problem showing that "millions of people died of "AIDS" in africa." But those studies never go into the semantic detail of the quality of the AIDS diagnosis.

Back when we discussed this early this year, I checked the figures. There are no facts to support the theory that HIV is spread by sex, like every other STD is. Yes, you can become infected through sexual contact, but not like an STD. It did not spread like a STD. It does not spread like an STD. If you believe it has, try and find the data to support that theory.

Again, by the standards of some people in this forum, you are a conspiracy nut, implying there was a massive conspiracy trying to make people believe HIV was extremely lethal and transmitted sexually. I go a step further now and blame the religious right, mostly, for this hype, seeing HIV/AIDS not only as an opportunity to scare heterosexual kids into abstinence, but also as a righteous punishment for the gays in their mind.

(Now to be fair, I am talking about normal heterosexual sexual relations. Not perversions involving violence and anal penetration. That sort of behavior involves blood and non-sexual transmission of fluids, which I don't define as sex, for purposes of argument.)

I don't like how you define anal intercourse as "perversion." I'd define it as "fun".

But anyhow. My position is only a tiny bit different from yours: I acknowledge everything you said there is true
- HIV is not an STD
- AIDS's definition is problematic
- HIV is much less dangerous than advertised
- "AIDS in Africa" is a made up hype
- The danger of HIV/AIDS is systematically exaggerated

I'm just going a step further and consider another possibility, which is a realistic possibility given the data:
- HIV *may* be mostly harmless
- HIV is unlikely to be a new virus at all

I am not saying that I am 100% sure that HIV is completely harmless. I simply consider the possibility that it is. And since we both now are "conspiracy nuts" according to some of the mentally impaired on this forum, I dare another preposition:
-A lot of people know that HIV may be mostly harmless, but dare not to speak up, for fears of losing their jobs.

Also, I disapprove of being called a troll. Or a conspiracy nut. You may think that. I may think "Wow, what an utter retard", but lets both just keep those thoughts to ourselves, as they don't help the discourse.

 

[Terry]

So what did all the gay guys die of before the anti-viral drugs? And why aren't we still dying of that now?

 

[Dabljuh]

So what did all the gay guys die of before the anti-viral drugs? And why aren't we still dying of that now?

This is mostly Duesberg's theory, but seeing as how Gallo, the inventor of the HIV-AIDS link, now says that KS is caused not by HIV but by amyl nitrate abuse, it does have some credibility in my mind.

Basically, what these people, gays especially, died of, was drug abuse. Poppers and other recreational drugs, are known to depress the immune system, and are known to cause the "AIDS defning diseases" specific to nitrate inhalant abuse and IV drug users.

 

[kellyb]

W,
Can we get back to PCR?
Why do you think it's not good for identifying HIV? Do you think it's good at finding influenza?

 

[Dabljuh]

W,
Can we get back to PCR?
Why do you think it's not good for identifying HIV? Do you think it's good at finding influenza?

You should ask someone else about PCR. I'm not a molecular biologist (Although I considered this career some 10 years ago) and I don't know enough about PCR to educate you. I suggest you go look for more information on PCR yourself. I only have a rough idea of what PCR does (Multiplication of genetic material)

I said PCR was unsuitable as an HIV test, because even Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR method, does not believe in a causal link between HIV and immunodepression. It is not unreasonable to believe that, while PCR may be the most accurate HIV test, in reality it may still produce far too many false positives.

I repeat: Do your own research. I'm not an expert on PCR. Maybe you can shed some more light on this. I'm not that particularly interested in PCR because I've learned that the other HIV tests are horribly inaccurate, and that PCR, when it is used as an HIV test, is not much better. Simply finding viral rna of an approximate size is not good enough for me, and that is, apparently, how the PCR-HIV test works.

Remember: Kary Mullis said: There has never been a case where a HI-Virus could be isolated from an AIDS patient. I have not seen evidence to the contrary in my (albeit brief) research.

 

[kellyb]

You should ask someone else about PCR. I'm not a molecular biologist (Although I considered this career some 10 years ago) and I don't know enough about PCR to educate you. I suggest you go look for more information on PCR yourself. I only have a rough idea of what PCR does (Multiplication of genetic material)

The problem here, W, is that pretty much all biologists think PCR, when done correctly, is excellent at identifying viruses. Even HIV. There's no debate about this. None.

I said PCR was unsuitable as an HIV test, because even Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR method, does not believe in a causal link between HIV and immunodepression.

Kary Mullis apparently believe PCR is good for identifying HIV. And it's a little unclear what he's thinking about HIV and AIDS nowadays.

I repeat: Do your own research. I'm not an expert on PCR. Maybe you can shed some more light on this. I'm not that particularly interested in PCR because I've learned that the other HIV tests are horribly inaccurate, and that PCR, when it is used as an HIV test, is not much better.

No, you haven't "learned" that. You just want/need to think that so your theory can stayed artificially glued together. A pretty high rate of false positives with the antibody test is a reality. All kinds of other viruses cross react with it. I'm pregnant and just had a routine HIV test last week. It was the antibody test, and if it comes back positive, I'm not going to flip out. If it's confirmed through multiple tests, then I'll worry.

Simply finding viral rna of an approximate size is not good enough for me, and that is, apparently, how the PCR-HIV test works.

No, that's not how it works.
How silly. No wonder you think PCR is worthless.

If you're not going to take the time to learn about the basic plausibility behind your own claim, then this discussion is utterly futile.

Remember: Kary Mullis said: There has never been a case where a HI-Virus could be isolated from an AIDS patient. I have not seen evidence to the contrary in my (albeit brief) research.

Do you know how viruses are isolated, W? Do you understand what that means?

 

[Taffer]

Not going to ignore my posts, now, are you?

Simply finding viral rna of an approximate size is not good enough for me, and that is, apparently, how the PCR-HIV test works.

PCR requires primers to work. Sequence specific primers. It doesn't just amplify "any old sequence of the right size".

 

[Dabljuh]

The problem here, W, is that pretty much all biologists think PCR, when done correctly, is excellent at identifying viruses. Even HIV. There's no debate about this. None.

ORLY? You know that pathological phimosis (Lichen Sklerosis / Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans) Is a very good reason to circumcise. Yet "Phimosis" is one of the most overdiagnosed conditions in the western world, and even when limiting the argument to those cases where a correct phimosis diagnosis is made, circumcision is performed far too often? Theory and Reality of a procedure often differ dramatically. When it comes to issues where so much misinformation is spread such as circumcision or HIV, I don't automatically assume that PCR is great at detecting HIV reliably.

Kary Mullis apparently believe PCR is good for identifying HIV. And it's a little unclear what he's thinking about HIV and AIDS nowadays.

That's worse than the creationist bullcrap argument that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.

No, you haven't "learned" that. You just want/need to think that so your theory can stayed artificially glued together. A pretty high rate of false positives with the antibody test is a reality. All kinds of other viruses cross react with it. I'm pregnant and just had a routine HIV test last week. It was the antibody test, and if it comes back positive, I'm not going to flip out. If it's confirmed through multiple tests, then I'll worry.

You're probably better informed than most people. You state that the antibodytest is crap. Yet you claim I was fantasizing when I say the HIV tests in general are crap. Offer me some proof of the validity of HIV tests, against a reliable gold standard.

What about those, what about when these people who are not as well informed receive a positive HIV test (of any type) ? What about doctors who are not as well informed. Why, in the first place, did you perform an HIV antibody test during pregnancy, when you know that the result is likely going to be a false positive? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, that's not how it works.
How silly. No wonder you think PCR is worthless.

If you're not going to take the time to learn about the basic plausibility behind your own claim, then this discussion is utterly futile.

The basic plausibility behind my claim is that the AIDS definition is circular. This has nothing to do with PCR tests, or empirical evidence in the first place. My initial argument is purely semantical, as it allows for a certain possibility: HIV is not the causative agent for diseases, despite apparent empirical evidence to the contrary based on the circular definition.

Do you know how viruses are isolated, W? Do you understand what that means?

Basically, you take a sample (e.g. a blood sample) and then centrifuge it. Eventually you're supposed to see the viruses of a specific size and shape at a specific density band under the electron microscope. This was never done, to date, for HIV with a sample from an AIDS patient. Only in vitro samples produced something that may be HIV particles, and there's even people who argue that even this was never done satisfyingly.

PCR requires primers to work. Sequence specific primers. It doesn't just amplify "any old sequence of the right size".

Primers are very short sequences of DNA. It is still possible (Mullis stated that) that PCR multiplies not a specific RNA sequence but pretty close to "any old DNA". He also stated that such an error would be detected with more testing. How much testing is performed, realistically, with an HIV test? In practice, that is? Do you have any data?

 

[Taffer]

Primers are very short sequences of DNA. It is still possible (Mullis stated that) that PCR multiplies not a specific RNA sequence but pretty close to "any old DNA".

Um...no. As someone who regularly uses PCR to amplify DNA, I can tell you how wrong this is. PCR amplifies specific sequences which occur between two primers. For PCR to amplify anything, the sequences have to bind to the DNA. The can only do so if their compliment sequence exists. How does this amplify "any old DNA"?

He also stated that such an error would be detected with more testing. How much testing is performed, realistically, with an HIV test? In practice, that is? Do you have any data?

I have no idea. I feel no need to provide counter evidence for something like PCR. We know it works, how it works, why it works, and how to make it work. Can you provide any evidence to suspect that PCR doesn't work for HIV?

How about normal viruses? dsRNA viruses? What about ssRNA viruses? ssDNA viruses? When does it work and when does it not? Why is HIV any different?

 

[Dabljuh]

God, what a waste of time. OK: the RT-PCR test is 100% sensitive and 100% specific to detect HIV in humans, even when it is performed by badly trained countryside hospitals in 15 minutes, dozens of times, daily.

So.

And now what does this change about the lack of proof for a connection between HIV and a lethal, irreversible immunosupressive effect?

 

[kellyb]

ORLY? You know that pathological phimosis (Lichen Sklerosis / Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans) Is a very good reason to circumcise. Yet "Phimosis" is one of the most overdiagnosed conditions in the western world, and even when limiting the argument to those cases where a correct phimosis diagnosis is made, circumcision is performed far too often? Theory and Reality of a procedure often differ dramatically. When it comes to issues where so much misinformation is spread such as circumcision or HIV, I don't automatically assume that PCR is great at detecting HIV reliably.

You know what?
I totally agree with you about the overdiagnosis of phimosis. I even know the nuts and bolts of why it's being overdiagnosed. Every time I hear "Oh, we had to have him circumcisied at a year because of phimosis" I know exactly what's gone wrong. And I'm not psychic. I just know the anatomy, popular practices, popular myths, etc. It's not rocket science.

This is nothing like PCR. But just like you can't convince someone that their 12 month old probably doesn't have "phimosis" if they refuse to learn about that issue, I can't convince you that PCR is excellent if you refuse to learn about it.

That's worse than the creationist bullcrap argument that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.

Do you want me to pll up the KM email again and again quote him?

You state that the antibodytest is crap.

No, I don't think it's crap. It's imperfect, though.

Yet you claim I was fantasizing when I say the HIV tests in general are crap. Offer me some proof of the validity of HIV tests, against a reliable gold standard.

What do you consider the gold standard? Do you want me to find the rate of agreement between various antibody tests, culture, and PCR?

What about those, what about when these people who are not as well informed receive a positive HIV test (of any type) ? What about doctors who are not as well informed. Why, in the first place, did you perform an HIV antibody test during pregnancy, when you know that the result is likely going to be a false positive? That doesn't make sense to me.

Most of the time, most doctors know that there are false positives. For the rest...I don't know what to say. I don't mean to sound brutal, but it's really not my problem.
I got the test because it's just part of the package that comes with the blood draw, and I really don't care. While false positives do happen, they're still unlikely.

The basic plausibility behind my claim is that the AIDS definition is circular.

Which is why you need to dig a little deeper, dude.

This has nothing to do with PCR tests, or empirical evidence in the first place.

If you'd take the time to learn about PCR, you'd change your mind.

My initial argument is purely semantical, as it allows for a certain possibility: HIV is not the causative agent for diseases, despite apparent empirical evidence to the contrary based on the circular definition.

Of course it allows for that possibility. And yes, the profit motive is there, sometimes "science" is highly political and brainwashy, there are confounding factors with "AIDS" that make the whole deal messy, yadayadayada.
It's true.
But just because something is possible doesn't mean it's correct, or "the truth".
Again...please learn about some of the more technical science. It's the only way to troubleshoot the theory you're presently subscribing to. (unless you want to come up with your own thought experiments.

Basically, you take a sample (e.g. a blood sample) and then centrifuge it. Eventually you're supposed to see the viruses of a specific size and shape at a specific density band under the electron microscope. This was never done, to date, for HIV with a sample from an AIDS patient. Only in vitro samples produced something that may be HIV particles, and there's even people who argue that even this was never done satisfyingly.

No, that's not right either, but I still bet I can find an electron microscopy picture of an HIV virus taken from someone with actuals AIDS.
Would that convince you? Or would it just be another waste of time?

When does it work and when does it not? Why is HIV any different?

Watch out, Taffer!
Last time I asked him that he told me to "do my own research".

 

[Capsid]

There's also the cases of the unfortunate lab workers who got accidentally infected with HIV in the lab , amazingly they went on to develop AIDS.