AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

Then what do you say to the tests which show that AIDS patients basically always have significant levels of HIVs?

You can't have an AIDS patient without HIV. Per Definition. If a suspected AIDS patient tests negative on HIV, he doesn't have AIDS. He's just sick.

Just a question: Do you know how viruses reproduce?

Yep. Do you know how the HI-Virus destroys the immune system? I guess you don't, since nobody else does.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. To my knowledge, the link between AIDS (a syndrome) and HIV (a Virus) is what is shown, and that is why it is the way it is. You can have HIV and not have AIDS. I guess it is possible to have AIDS and not have an HIV infection.

That's where you are wrong. It's not possible to have AIDS without HIV. You don't believe me? Fine, go ahead, check the facts for yourself, but don't post pure speculation here.

AIDS is not "Some Immune Deficiency", but it is "You have HIV and get sick" Don't believe me? I've repeatedly posted the link to the CDC's 1993 revision of the AIDS definition where you can see for yourself.

If I postulate a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" based on the CDC AIDS definition that does not require the host to be HIV positive, we have a completely different thing. But then we find:

- There exists "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" without HIV infection
- There exist HIV-positive people without a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". Many. For 20 years and counting.

Why? Because "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" is merely an umbrella for 20-30 conditions, many of which are not at all rare in healthy humans. Get one of those diseases, and you are now suffering from "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". And if you are HIV positive, you are now suffering from AIDS.

Which *should* make you ask the question whether or not HIV is really related to "Mysterious Immune Deficiency".

How do you know HIV is the cause for the disease? Because that it is was never proven.

 

[Capsid]

The lab workers and Cuba situations make HIV a very compelling candidate for the cause of AIDS.

 

[Dabljuh]

Disagree. Mullis goes into detail about the lab workers, and what happened in Cuba is coherent with theories of the "HIV is harmless" variety.

 

[Capsid]

Disagree. Mullis goes into detail about the lab workers, and what happened in Cuba is coherent with theories of the "HIV is harmless" variety.

Would you care to summarise the details, please? I need to understand your side of the argument.

I found several papers that describe the poor vaccine response in HIV infected individuals. Such as this one. Isn't this evidence that HIV impairs the immune system?

 

[JoeEllison]

How do you know HIV is the cause for the disease? Because that it is was never proven.

Except, of course, that everyone besides a few sociopathic nutjobs accepts the evidence. Why does everyone in the medical and scientific community accept it as true, if it is so clearly false that a bunch of goofballs on the Internet with no medical or scientific background have more insight than the entire worldwide scientific community?

Can you answer that one?

 

[Dabljuh]

I found several papers that describe the poor vaccine response in HIV infected individuals. Such as this one. Isn't this evidence that HIV impairs the immune system?

The study wasn't double-blind.

Would you care to summarise the details, please? I need to understand your side of the argument

According to mullis, the statistical data of the infected "Lab Workers" is consistent with the general population. Meaning, it is more likely that those are closet gays / closet IV drug users, that simply claim they got infected in a lab environment to avoid disadvantages.

In cuba, there was a brief interventionist period and now there is not much action going on. According to e.g. Duesberg's theory, antiretroviral medication causes far more harm than good, i.e. they are capable of depressing the immune system in healthy persons. Cuba, due to being still under embargo, could not employ these antiretrovirals. Also, the cuban gay scene may be nitrite inhalant free compared to the US american one. The expected result would be that only a very small number of people in cuba would ever be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.

 

[Dabljuh]

Except, of course, that everyone besides a few critical thinkers accept the lack of evidence. Why does everyone in the medical and scientific community assert it as true? Because their jobs depend on it! it is so clearly false that a nobel laureates and a tenured professor of microbiology have more insight than the CDC and NIH!

Fixed

Asserting something is this particular way is not making up for a lack of evidence.

 

[JoeEllison]

Fixed

Asserting something is this particular way is not making up for a lack of evidence.

So, in other words, you don't have an answer, and are willing to accept without evidence the claims of a couple of discredited people over the vast majority of experts in the field... for what reason? You still haven't answered the question.

 

[Taffer]

You can't have an AIDS patient without HIV. Per Definition. If a suspected AIDS patient tests negative on HIV, he doesn't have AIDS. He's just sick.

Ok, fair point.

So AIDS is a blanket name for a number of different symptoms caused by an HIV infection.

Your problem with this is... what, exactly? Do you think this disproves HIV infections?

Yep. Do you know how the HI-Virus destroys the immune system? I guess you don't, since nobody else does.

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps by breaking said immune cells?

That's where you are wrong. It's not possible to have AIDS without HIV. You don't believe me? Fine, go ahead, check the facts for yourself, but don't post pure speculation here.

AIDS is not "Some Immune Deficiency", but it is "You have HIV and get sick" Don't believe me? I've repeatedly posted the link to the CDC's 1993 revision of the AIDS definition where you can see for yourself.

Fair call. See above.

If I postulate a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" based on the CDC AIDS definition that does not require the host to be HIV positive, we have a completely different thing. But then we find:

- There exists "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" without HIV infection
- There exist HIV-positive people without a "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". Many. For 20 years and counting.

Excuse me? Provide evidence that there has ever existed a patient who does not fit the criteria of AIDS and is not found to be HIV positive. You can't? Of course you can't, because you have AIDS if you exhibit certain symptoms, and being HIV positive is one of these.

Again, what is your problem with this?

Why? Because "Mysterious Immune Deficiency" is merely an umbrella for 20-30 conditions, many of which are not at all rare in healthy humans.

It is a description of having a multitude of said conditions, not just one.

Get one of those diseases, and you are now suffering from "Mysterious Immune Deficiency". And if you are HIV positive, you are now suffering from AIDS.

Of course, because that is the definition of AIDS. What is your point?

If you exhibit symptoms which match the definition of AIDS, then you have AIDS. Again, what is your point?

Which *should* make you ask the question whether or not HIV is really related to "Mysterious Immune Deficiency".

Of course it is. Because HIV infection is one of the criteria for the label "AIDS". Yet again, what is your point?

How do you know HIV is the cause for the disease? Because that it is was never proven.

Then let me ask you this: do you think that a progressive decrease of the CD4+ T cell count and an increase in viral load has no effect on the immune system?

 

[Taffer]

Meaning, it is more likely that those are closet gays / closet IV drug users, that simply claim they got infected in a lab environment to avoid disadvantages.

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

Duesberg's theory, antiretroviral medication causes far more harm than good, i.e. they are capable of depressing the immune system in healthy persons.

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

 

[Dabljuh]

So, in other words, you don't have an answer, and are willing to accept without evidence the claims of a couple of discredited people over the vast majority of experts in the field... for what reason? You still haven't answered the question.

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. But right now, it looks to me as if HIV could just as well be completely harmless, and the dreaded "AIDS" is merely a semantic disease.

 

[JoeEllison]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. But right now, it looks to me as if HIV could just as well be completely harmless, and the dreaded "AIDS" is merely a semantic disease.

So, in other words, you believe every stupid thing you read on the Internet, and reject everything that is based in facts and evidence. You need to seek psychiatric help.

 

[Dabljuh]

Taffer, you asked me in like 6 occasions "What is your point" - and I have tried to explain my point repeatedly - I think I lack the rethorical facilities to properly explain to you my problem. I think its best if you take a short walk and think about it. Maybe you will come up with a good idea of what my point is about all of this. Maybe you will also be able to identify the fallacy of my argument, or its merit.

 

[Taffer]

The arguments of Duesberg and Mullis have not been discredited to my personal satisfaction. Maybe to your satisfaction, maybe to someone elses satisfaction, but not to my satisfaction. Referring to the "Vast majority of experts" - As I said earlier: The truth is not something that can be democratically voted on.

And you are asking for the reason. Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.
- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system
- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero
- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia
- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

I want to know: What *is* the effect of an HIV infection, after all? Because, carefully investigating the science, I've come to the conclusion that this question was never answered satisfyingly. *IF* there is a danger, it should be investigated. But right now, it looks to me as if HIV could just as well be completely harmless, and the dreaded "AIDS" is merely a semantic disease.

So... significantly reducing T-cell count has no effect on the immune system?

 

[Taffer]

Taffer, you asked me in like 6 occasions "What is your point" - and I have tried to explain my point repeatedly - I think I lack the rethorical facilities to properly explain to you my problem. I think its best if you take a short walk and think about it. Maybe you will come up with a good idea of what my point is about all of this. Maybe you will also be able to identify the fallacy of my argument, or its merit.

Oh, I already know what your fallacy is, mate. At least, given what I've read of your posts.

You are basically trying to argue that, because AIDS contains "HIV positive" in its definition, this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS.

The problem is, it does. Because AIDS is a syndrome.

 

[Dabljuh]

So... significantly reducing T-cell count has no effect on the immune system?

Not according to science. The T4 cell count was investigated even before the 1993 revision to include the 200/ml standard, and it basically came up with the conclusion, that the T4 cell count can not only not be used to measure the state of one's immune system, but also, goes up and down, more or less at random. In short: They don't know what the T4 cell count means or why it changes.

And with regards to "HIV" depressing T4 cell counts: HIV infections nowadays take upwards of 20 years to break out into AIDS, it is possible that the T4 cell count simply goes down slightly with increasing age. As I said: double-blind RCTs on HIV were never performed.

 

[Dabljuh]

Oh, I already know what your fallacy is, mate. At least, given what I've read of your posts.

You are basically trying to argue that, because AIDS contains "HIV positive" in its definition, this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS.

The problem is, it does. Because AIDS is a syndrome.

That is purely semantical. Of course "HIV" causes "AIDS" in semantic terms. That's what the semantics of "AIDS" do. The question is: does this accurately reflect what happens in reality? Do you get Herpes because of the HIV infection? Or did you just get herpes, while you were HIV positive?

Remember: HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease. It is inherited in utero most of the time. There's roughly 1 million HIV positive people living in the US (Army survey), but only a handful of AIDS cases. If most people live happily ever after for 40 years after being born HIV positive, and then get herpes, tested for HIV, and now diagnosed with AIDS, don't you see the problem here?

 

[Taffer]

Not according to science. The T4 cell count was investigated even before the 1993 revision to include the 200/ml standard, and it basically came up with the conclusion, that the T4 cell count can not only not be used to measure the state of one's immune system, but also, goes up and down, more or less at random. In short: They don't know what the T4 cell count means or why it changes.

Citation, please.

Careful. A definition of AIDS != HIV pathology.

And with regards to "HIV" depressing T4 cell counts: HIV infections nowadays take upwards of 20 years to break out into AIDS, it is possible that the T4 cell count simply goes down slightly with increasing age. As I said: double-blind RCTs on HIV were never performed.

As fair as I know, the drop is far more significant in patients with HIV then without.

But not even that. HIV infects T4 cells, and disrupts T4 cell function. T4 cells are vital for a healthy immune system. Therefore...

 

[Taffer]

That is purely semantical. Of course "HIV" causes "AIDS" in semantic terms. That's what the semantics of "AIDS" do. The question is: does this accurately reflect what happens in reality? Do you get Herpes because of the HIV infection? Or did you just get herpes, while you were HIV positive?

As far as I am aware, HIV does not cause any infection. AIDS is a description of a number of simptoms, including HIV infection. This does not take away from the fact that HIV infection significantly reduces the immune system.

Remember: HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease. It is inherited in utero most of the time. There's roughly 1 million HIV positive people living in the US (Army survey), but only a handful of AIDS cases. If most people live happily ever after for 40 years after being born HIV positive, and then get herpes, tested for HIV, and now diagnosed with AIDS, don't you see the problem here?

For the record, are you suggesting that HIV is never transmitted sexually?

Also, for the record, a problem with incorrect diagnosis of disorders and syndromes != HIV pathology.

 

[calebprime]

Remember: HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease. It is inherited in utero most of the time. There's roughly 1 million HIV positive people living in the US (Army survey), but only a handful of AIDS cases. If most people live happily ever after for 40 years after being born HIV positive, and then get herpes, tested for HIV, and now diagnosed with AIDS, don't you see the problem here?

stats from WHO: http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/20061121_EPI_FS_NAWCE_en.pdf

In these regions, the total number of people living with HIV continues to increase, in
great part due to the life-prolonging effects of antiretroviral therapy, a relatively steady
number of new HIV infections each year in North America and an increase in the number
of new HIV diagnoses in Western Europe since 2002.
Approximately 2.1 million people were living with HIV in North America, Western and
Central Europe in 2006, including 65 000 people who newly acquired the virus.
In the context of widespread access to effective antiretroviral treatment, comparatively
few people died of AIDS-related illnesses in these regions (an estimated 30 000 in
2006).
Country developments
Worldwide, only seven countries are estimated to have more people living with HIV than
the United States of America, where 1.2 million were living with the virus in 2005.
In 2001-2004, 50% of HIV diagnoses were among African-Americans and 20% among
Hispanics (who constitute only 12% and 14% of the US population respectively).
Men still account for the majority of HIV diagnoses in the US—about 73% in 2004.
Almost two thirds of HIV infections diagnosed in men in 2004 were attributable to unsafe
sex between men, and several studies have reported evidence of an increase in unsafe
sexual behaviour in this group.