• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AIDS (hah)

Hepatitis B: Of these HBV is the most transmissible, with a risk of infection following exposure of around 6-30%.
Hepatitis C: Infection from HCV following a needle-stick is around 1.8%.
HIV: Risk of becoming infected with HIV is a mere 0.3%.

Look at how long those different viruses survive outside the human body, though, and there's a good explaination there.

Because it didn't spread through heterosexual populations, which is what observational based medicine predicted.

Since it didn't spread and act like an STD, observational medicine would conclude it isn't spread by heterosexual contact.

I do remember rumors of doomsday predictions that have not come to fruition.
But remember, there's a difference between "doesn't transmit at all, ever" and "doesn't transmit well".

If you're going to take HIV off the list of STDs, you have to take HepB off the list, too, I think.
Also, HIV does, in fact, transmit fairly well through heterosexual contact in Africa. Lots of differences between Africa and developed nations, though.


Same goes for evidence that HIV is transmitted through sex. Is there ANY evidence to show this is a scientific fact?

In Africa, the circumcision trials should work quite well to demonstrate this.

Especially the anecdotal claims about Africa.

The internet is full of weird anecdotes. You know this. You called it out...now let it go. :)
 
Last edited:
Robinson,

I think that's interesting. If prevalence is lower than we've been led to believe, why is that?

It's a separate issue from whether HIV is a dangerous virus that wrecks your immune system over time, no?

It seems malaria is a much worse problem.


Could it be that HIV is sexually transmitted, but not very easily? What's so mysterious about that?

I don't mind being called dumb. I have no expertise in any of the relevant fields. Just curious.
 
Robinson,

I think that's interesting. If prevalence is lower than we've been led to believe, why is that?

I have no idea. Money is always a good bet.

Robinson,
It's a separate issue from whether HIV is a dangerous virus that wrecks your immune system over time, no?

To me it is. As I said, I believe, based on evidence, that HIV is a cause of Immune system problems. And that it is infectious, and that it is real. I don't believe it is 100% death, based on evidence.

It seems malaria is a much worse problem.?

Malaria is a terrible problem. Parasites as well. They both cause false results on HIV tests in Africa as well.


Could it be that HIV is sexually transmitted, but not very easily? What's so mysterious about that?

Nothing to me. It was in response to comments that what we were taught about sex and HIV was bullpoop. Which it was.
 
It was in response to comments that what we were taught about sex and HIV was bullpoop. Which it was.

What year was that?

Besides that, I'd say your opinions expressed here are due to you "falling in with a bad crowd"...
 
That would be dumb. Evidence based decisions are better than making stuff up, or worse, just saying "everybody knows it is true".

Try looking at the facts. You might change your opinion and stuff.
 
That's the major problem. In the 80ies so many assumptions became acknowledged without actual evidence. Stuff like "HIV causes Immunodepression" - Everyone believes it but nobody's ever proven it. That's faith.

I remember learning about HIV pathology in my first year of uni. Unfortunately, it's a long time ago and I've forgotten most of it.

I think your claims of "never proved" is bunk, btw.

The problem with population studies and cohort studies is that you cannot rule out tertiary factors.

For example: A study on kenians and africans may find: Kenians eat a lot more millet than americans. And that kenians are a lot more black than americans. Result of the study? Eating lots of millet makes you black. Only an blinded RCT can rule out tertiary factors. And for HIV and immunodepression, I've seen enough bunk science that I do not accept studies that pitch 50 gay drug users with HIV vs 50 straight ivy league kids and then compare their health data, and somehow of course find that the HIV negative people are more healthy than the HIV positive ones.

You still haven't provided evidence that all AIDS patients are drug users.

Please quote when I said it is "never transmitted sexually" - I said it's not an STD, and robinson said the same thing. That does not mean it's not possible to transmit it sexually, but it means the STD aspect of HIV was extremely overstated in the past. (At least in my sex ed class)

My bad.

An STD is a disease which can ONLY be transferred sexually? If so, then HIV is not an STD. Not that this takes away from its pathology, of course.

He doesn't take drugs. As I said earlier: The drug studies that I've read never showed any increased longevity for AIDS patients. The only positive beneficial effect that I could find was that the AIDS patients reported better well-being. Of course the manufacturers now claim that the drugs are sooo effective and many people, due to lack of better knowledge, believe the "HIV epidemic" was under control because of something the pharma industry did.

I mean, 20 years ago, doom was predicted for the human race due to HIV. Nothing of the sort happened. People simply need an explanation on why HIV is so irrelevant nowadays, outside africa that is. if you had asked me two years ago on why HIV isn't a bigger problem in the western world, I wouldn't have known what to answer myself because I never researched it. I might even have suspected that they may have found a cure or something.

But it IS a problem. Simple microbiology will explain how HIV damages the immune system.

This is a very complex topic. Let me only give you a few of my thoughts.

Someone diagnosed with "AIDS" is, by definition, HIV positive and sick. Someone sick may have a depressed immune system, although there obviously does not have to be a causal connection to the HIV infection. If you find someone who is just abusing his body a lot with drugs, and he gets those opportunistic diseases that are also attributed to HIV/AIDS, and he tests positive on HIV, the diseases he is suffering from will be attributed - medically - to the HIV infection, and not the abusive lifestyle.

Furthermore, someone diagnosed with "AIDS" has been given a virtual death sentence. There is no way to be un-diagnosed with "AIDS" once you have it. Even if your tuberculosis or herpes goes away and you feel better than ever, you still, technically, suffer from AIDS. If you die now - for any reason - chances are it will be attributed to your "AIDS" diagnosis.

Do you have any evidence for this? Such as, evidence which supports HIV positive patients with drug use?

In addition: AIDS medication is extremely toxic. Duesberg describes it as "Chemo therapy" that was found to be too ineffective for cancer therapy. For example AZT was developed in the 60ies as a chemo therapy for cancer, which was not allowed by the FDA because it proved to be too toxic and ineffective. And as an AIDS drug, it is dosed higher than as a cancer drug. Chemo therapy on cancer is already very ineffective: You try to kill the cancer cells before the rest of the body dies. But what are you trying to accomplish with chemo therapy on AIDS patients? You can't kill the HIV with antiretroviral drugs, that is not even how the manufacturers claim they work. So what you end up with is purely killing the patient.

Why can't you kill HIV with anti-retrovirals? Is it magically immune to them?
 
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.
The only reason you are not satisfied with the proof HIV causes AIDS and that the mechanism by which HIV destroys the immune system isn't because the evidence isn't there. It's because either by choice or some other failure you have simply failed to educate yourself in this field.

We have listed resources. Were they over your head? Should we take it slower with you?

Here is the basic science you seem to be ignoring:

AIDS Pathology tutorial
The CD4+ T-lymphocytes have surface receptors to which HIV can attach to promote entry into the cell. The infection extends to lymphoid tissues which contain follicular dendritic cells that can become infected and provide a reservoir for continuing infection of CD4+ T-lymphocytes. HIV can also be spread via blood or blood products, most commonly with shared contaminated needles used by persons engaging in intravenous drug use. Mothers who are HIV infected can pass the virus on to their fetuses in utero or to infants via breast milk.

When HIV infects a cell, it must use its reverse transcriptase enzyme to transcribe its RNA to host cell proviral DNA. It is this proviral DNA that directs the cell to produce additional HIV virions which are released.

The genome of HIV contains only three major genes: env, gag, and pol. These genes direct the formation of the basic components of HIV. The env gene directs production of an envelope precursor protein gp160 which undergoes proteolytic cleavage to the outer envelope glycoprotein gp120, which is responsible for tropism to CD4+ receptors, and transmembrane glycoprotein gp41, which catalyzes fusion of HIV to the target cell's membrane. The gag gene directs formation of the proteins of the matrix p17, the "core" capsid p24, and the nucleocapsid p7. The pol gene directs synthesis of important enzymes including reverse transcriptase p51 and p66, integrase p32, and protease p11.

In addition to the CD4 receptor, a coreceptor known as a chemokine is needed for HIV infection. Chemokines are cell surface fusion-mediating molecules. Such coreceptors include CXCR4 and CCR5. Their presence on cells can aid binding of the HIV envelope glycoprotein gp120, promoting infection. Initial binding of HIV to the CD4 receptor is mediated by conformational changes in the gp120 subunit, but such conformational changes are not sufficient of fusion. The chemokine receptors produce a conformational change in the gp41 subunit which allows fusion of HIV. The differences in chemokine coreceptors that are present on a cell also explains how different strains of HIV may infect cells selectively. There are strains of HIV known as T-tropic strains which selectively interact with the CXCR4 chemokine coreceptor to infect lymphocytes. The M-tropic strains of HIV interact with the CCR5 chemokine coreceptor to infect macrophages. Dual tropic HIV stains have been identified. The presence of a CCR5 mutation may explain the phenomenon of resistance to HIV infection in some cases. Over time, mutations in HIV may increase the ability of the virus to infect cells via these routes. Infection with cytomegalovirus may serve to enhance HIV infection via this mechanism, because CMV encodes a chemokine receptor similar to human chemokine receptors.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

When the CD4 lymphocyte count drops below 200/microliter, then the stage of clinical AIDS has been reached. This is the point at which the characteristic opportunistic infections and neoplasms of AIDS appear. Listed below are some of the more common complications seen with AIDS with images that illustrate gross and microscopic pathologic findings.

The organ involvement of infections with AIDS represents the typical appearance of opportunistic infections in the immunocompromised host--that of an overwhelming infection--that makes treatment more difficult. The strategies employed in AIDS patients to meet this challenge consist of (1) preserving immune function as long as possible with antiretroviral therapies, (2) using prophylactic pharmacologic therapies to prevent infections (such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia), and (3) diagnosing and treating acute infections as soon as possible.

It continues: Mechanism of Infection
HIV primarily infects cells with CD4 cell-surface receptor molecules, using them to gain entry. Many cell types share common epitopes with this protein, though CD4 lymphocytes play a crucial role. In macrophages and in some other cells lacking CD4 receptors, such as fibroblasts, an Fc receptor site or complement receptor site may be used instead for entry of HIV. Cells of the mononuclear phagocyte system, principally blood monocytes and tissue macrophages, T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) lymphocytes, dendritic cells (Langerhans cells of epithelia and follicular dendritic cells in lymph nodes), hematopoietic stem cells, endothelial cells, microglial cells in brain, and gastrointestinal epithelial cells are the primary targets of HIV infection.
HIV Structure and Function

The mature virus consists of a bar-shaped electron dense core containing the viral genome--two short strands of ribonucleic acid (RNA) about 9200 nucleotide bases long--along with the enzymes reverse transcriptase, protease, ribonuclease, and integrase, all encased in an outer lipid envelope with 72 surface projections containing an antigen, gp120, that aids in the binding of the virus to the target cells with CD4 receptors. By electron microscopy, the plasma membrane of an infected CD4+ lymphocyte exhibits budding virus particles approximately 90 to 100 n in diameter. The genome of HIV, similar to retroviruses in general, contains three major genes--gag, pol, and env.

The major structural components coded by env include the envelope glycoproteins, including the outer envelope glycoprotein gp120 and transmembrane glycoprotein gp41 derived from glycoprotein precursor gp160. Major components coded by the gag gene include core nucleocapsid proteins p55, p40, p24 (capsid, or "core" antigen), p17 (matrix), and p7 (nucleocapsid); the important proteins coded by pol are the enzyme proteins p66 and p51 (reverse transcriptase), p11 (protease), and p32 (integrase). Although most of the major HIV viral proteins, which include p24 (core antigen) and gp41 (envelope antigen), are highly immunogenic, the antibody responses vary according to the virus load and the immune competence of the host. The antigenicity of these various components provides a means for detection of antibody, the basis for most HIV testing.

HIV has the additional ability to mutate easily, in large part due to the error rate of the reverse transcriptase enzyme, which introduces a mutation approximately once per 2000 incorporated nucleotides. This high mutation rate leads to the emergence of HIV variants within the infected person's cells that can resist immune attack, are more cytotoxic, can generate syncytia more readily, or can resist drug therapy. Over time, different tissues of the body may harbor differing HIV variants.
HIV-2

A second HIV designated HIV-2 has been isolated. Most cases have appeared in West Africa and have appeared only sporadically in other parts of the world. The genetic sequences of HIV-1 and HIV-2 are only partially homologous. HIV-2, or other as yet uncharacterized members of the HIV-group of viruses, will not necessarily be detected by using the various laboratory tests for HIV-1 antibody. HIV-2 is genetically more closely related to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) than HIV-1.

The transmission of HIV-2 is similar to that for HIV-1, though perinatal transmission is much less frequent. HIV-2 infection has a longer latent period before the appearance of AIDS, a less aggressive course of AIDS, and a lower viral load with higher CD4 lymphocyte counts than HIV-1 infection until late in the course of the disease when clinical AIDS is apparent. This may explain the limited spread of HIV-2, both in West African countries and elsewhere, due to less efficient transmission, particularly via heterosexual and perinatal modes. The mortality rate from HIV-2 infection is only two-thirds that for HIV-1.
Establishment of HIV Infection

After entering the body, the viral particle is attracted to a cell with the appropriate CD4 receptor molecules where it attaches by fusion to a susceptible cell membrane or by endocytosis and then enters the cell. The probability of infection is a function of both the number of infective HIV virions in the body fluid which contacts the host as well as the number of cells available at the site of contact that have appropriate CD4 receptors.

Within the cell, the viral particle uncoats from the envelope to releases its RNA. The enzyme product of the pol gene, reverse transcriptase that is bound to the HIV RNA, provides for reverse transcription of RNA to proviral DNA. It is this HIV proviral DNA which is then inserted into host cell genomic DNA by the integrase enzyme. Once the HIV proviral DNA is within the infected cell's genome, it cannot be eliminated or destroyed except by destroying the cell itself. The HIV provirus is then replicated by the host cell. The infected cell can then release virions by surface budding, or infected cells can undergo lysis with release of new HIV virions which can then infect additional cells. Antibodies formed against HIV are not protective, and a viremic state can persist despite the presence of even high antibody titers.
Dynamics of HIV Infection

After initial entry of HIV and establishment of infection, replication may at first occur within inflammatory cells at the site of infection or within peripheral blood mononuclear cells, but then the major site of replication quickly shifts to lymphoid tissues of the body, including those in lymph nodes, spleen, liver, and bone marrow. Besides lymph nodes, the gut associated lymphoid tissue provides a substantial reservoir for HIV.

Macrophages and Langerhans cells in epithelia such as in the genital tract are important both as reservoirs and vectors for the spread of HIV in the body. Langerhans cells (a subset of blood dendritic cells) act as antigen presenting cells for CD4 lymphocytes. Both macrophages and Langerhans cells can be HIV-infected but are not destroyed themselves. HIV can then be carried elsewhere in the body. Within lymph nodes, HIV virions are trapped in the processes of follicular dendritic cells (FDC's), where they may infect CD4 lymphocytes that are percolating through the node. The FDC's themselves become infected, but are not destroyed.

Viral replication is stimulated by a variety of cytokines such as interleukins and tumor necrosis factor which activate CD4 lymphocytes and make them more susceptible to HIV infection. Primary HIV infection is followed by a burst of viremia in which virus is easily detected in peripheral blood in mononuclear cells and plasma. In the period of clinical latency of HIV infection, there is little detectable virus in peripheral blood, but viral replication actively continues in lymphoid tissues.

Subsets of the CD4+ lymphocyte population are important in determining the host response to infection. The subset known as TH1 (T helper 1) is responsible for directing a cytotoxic CD8 lymphocyte (CTL) response, but the TH2 (T helper 2) subset of CD4 and CD8 T-lymphocytes diminishes the CTL response while increasing antibody production. HIV-infectons accompanied by a dominant TH1 response tend to proceed longer. The switch from a TH1 to a TH2 response has been suggested as a factor in the development of AIDS, but not all cytokines in HIV-infected persons at different stages of disease corroborate this hypothesis. Production of interleukin-5 and interferon-gamma by CD4 and CD8 lymphocytes expressing CD30, however, is associated with promotion of B-lymphocyte immunoglobulin production.
Immunodeficiency

The primary target of HIV is the immune system itself, which is gradually destroyed. Viral replication actively continues following initial HIV infection, and the rate of CD4 lymphocyte destruction is progressive. Clinically, HIV infection may appear "latent" for years during this period of ongoing immune system destruction. During this time, enough of the immune system remains intact to provide immune surveillance and prevent most infections. Eventually, when a significant number of CD4 lymphocytes have been destroyed and when production of new CD4 cells cannot match destruction, then failure of the immune system leads to the appearance of clinical AIDS.

Infection with HIV is sustained through continuous viral replication with reinfection of additional host cells. Both HIV in host plasma and HIV-infected host cells appear to have a short lifespan; and late in the course of AIDS the half-life of plasma HIV is only about 2 days. Thus, the persistent viremia requires continuous reinfection of new CD4 lymphocytes followed by viral replication and infected host cell turnover. This rapid turnover of HIV and CD4 lymphocytes promotes origin of new strains of HIV within the host from mutation of HIV.
Genetic Variability of HIV

Presence or emergence of different HIV subtypes may also account for the appearance of antiretroviral drug resistance as well as the variability in pathologic lesions as different cell types are targeted or different cytopathic effects are elicited during the course of infection. Phylogenetic studies can identify genetic clusters of HIV-1 env genes which are known as subtypes, or clades, that have arisen with progression of the AIDS epidemic worldwide. The V3 loop amino acid sequences of these genetic variants influence HIV phenotype and immune response. Thus, the biologic properties of HIV can vary, even within an individual HIV infected person, where variants of HIV may arise that are "neurotropic" or "lymphocytotropic" for example.
Transmission of HIV

HIV infects definable population subgroups ("risk groups"). The transmission of HIV is a function of where the virus appears in the body and how it is shed. HIV can be present in a variety of body fluids and secretions, but the presence of HIV in genital secretions and in blood, and to a lesser extent breast milk, is significant for spread of HIV. However, the appearance of HIV in saliva, urine, tears, and sweat is of no major clinical importance, as transmission of HIV through these fluids does not routinely occur, primarily because of the low concentration of HIV in these fluids.

HIV is primarily spread as a sexually transmissible disease. Transmission of HIV can occur from male to male, male to female, and female to male. Female to female transmission remains extremely rare, though women with same-sex contact are often bisexual and have additional risk factors for HIV infection. The rate of HIV transmission with sexual intercourse is much lower than with other sexually transmitted diseases-approximately 0.3% per sexual contact with an HIV-infected person. However, some persons have become HIV-infected after a single sexual contact, while other persons have remained uninfected after hundreds of contacts.

Sexual contact with persons whose HIV viral load is greater, either with early infection or in the late stage of clinical AIDS, increases the transmission risk. The presence of cervical ectopia, oral contraceptive use, or pregnancy in women, intact foreskin in men, and genital ulcer disease in either sex increases the risk for HIV infection. Genital ulcers provide a more direct route to lymphatics draining to lymph nodes containing many CD4 lymphocytes and follicular dendritic cells. Tissue trauma during intercourse does not appear to play a role in HIV transmission.

HIV can be transmitted by parenteral exposure, which is the most highly efficient method of HIV transmission--close to 90%. There are many more peripheral blood mononuclear cells capable of either harboring or becoming infected by HIV in blood than are present in other body fluids or secretions. The primary risk group for HIV transmission via blood is intravenous drug users sharing infected needles. Less common practices of blood comingling or use of instruments such as tattoo needles not properly disinfected also carries a potential risk. Health care workers with percutaneous exposures to HIV-containing blood, however, are infected fewer than 1 in 300 times. Screening of blood products for HIV has almost eliminated HIV transmission by this means.

HIV infection can also be acquired as a congenital infection perinatally or in infancy. Mothers with HIV infection can pass the virus transplacentally, at the time of delivery through the birth canal, or through breast milk. Congenital AIDS occurs, on average, in about one fourth of babies born to HIV-1 infected mothers, with actual rates of transmission varying from 7 to 71%, depending upon the presence of risk factors for transmission during the course of HIV infection and pregnancy.
Primary HIV Infection

Primary HIV infection may go unnoticed in at least half of cases or produce a mild disease which quickly subsides, followed by a long clinical "latent" period lasting years. Prospective studies of acute HIV infections show that fever, lymphadenopathy, pharyngitis, diffuse erythematous rash, arthralgia/myalgia, diarrhea, and headache are the commonest symptoms seen with acute HIV infection. These symptoms diminish over 1 to 2 months. The symptoms of acute HIV infection resemble an infectious mononucleosis-like syndrome. Symptomatic acute HIV infection is more likely to occur in persons who acquired HIV infection through sexual transmission.

Generally, within 3 weeks to 3 months the immune response is accompanied by a simultaneous decline in HIV viremia. Both humoral and cell mediated immune responses play a role. The CD4 lymphocytes rebound in number, but not to pre-infection levels. Seroconversion with detectable HIV antibody by laboratory testing accompanies this immune response, sometimes in as little as a week, but more often in two to four weeks. Prolonged HIV-1 infection without evidence for seroconversion, however, is an extremely rare event.
Onset of AIDS

Unlike most infections in past epidemics, AIDS is distinguished by a very long latent period before the development of any visible signs of infection. During this phase, there is little or no viral replication detectable in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and little or no culturable virus in peripheral blood. The CD4 lymphocyte count remains moderately decreased. However, the immune response to HIV is insufficient to prevent continued viral replication within lymphoid tissues. Tests for HIV antibody will remain positive during this time but p24 antigen tests are usually negative. There is no evidence to suggest that seroreversion, or loss of antibody, occurs in HIV infected persons.

The average HIV-infected person may have an initial acute self-limited illness, may take up to several weeks to become seropositive, and then may live up to 8 or 10 years, on average, before development of the clinical signs and symptoms of AIDS. Persons infected with HIV cannot be recognized by appearance alone, are not prompted to seek medical attention, and are often unaware that they may be spreading the infection. There has been no study to date that shows a failure of HIV-infected persons to evolve to clinical AIDS over time, though the speed at which this evolution occurs may vary.

At least 10% of persons infected with HIV-1 are "long survivors" who have not had significant progressive decline in immune function. Findings include: a stable CD4 lymphocyte count, negative plasma cultures for HIV-1, a strong HIV-1 neutralizing antibody response, and a strong virus-inhibitory CD8 lymphocyte response. In addition, the lymph node architecture is maintained without either the hyperplasia or lymphocyte depletion common to progression to AIDS. Though peripheral blood mononuclear cells contain detectable HIV-1 and viral replication continues in long survivors, though their viral burden is low.

The development of signs and symptoms of AIDS typically parallels laboratory testing for CD4 lymphocytes. A decrease in the total CD4 count below 500/microliter presages the development of clinical AIDS, and a drop below 200/microliter not only defines AIDS, but also indicates a high probability for the development of AIDS-related opportunistic infections and/or neoplasms. Plasma HIV-1 RNA increases as plasma viremia becomes more marked. The risk for death from HIV infection above the 200/microliter CD4 level is low.
Persistent Generalized Lymphadenopathy (PGL)

There is loss of normal lymph node architecture as the immune system fails with emergence from latency of HIV infection. It is marked by development of generalized lymphadenopathy. This condition, described by the term persistent generalized lymphadenopathy (PGL), is not life-threatening. Lymph nodes throughout the body are large but usually do not exceed 3 cm in size and they may vary in size over time.
AIDS-related Complex (ARC)

Another phase of HIV infection described clinically but no longer commonly diagnosed in practice, is the condition known as AIDS-related complex (ARC), which is not necessarily preceded by PGL. ARC lacks only the opportunistic infections and neoplasms which define AIDS. ARC patients usually show symptoms of fatigue, weight loss, and night sweats, along with superficial fungal infections of the mouth (oral thrush) and fingernails and toenails (onychomycosis). It is uncommon for HIV infected persons to die at the stage of ARC. The staging of HIV disease progression through the use of CD4 lymphocyte counts has made use of the terms PGL and ARC obsolete.
Clinical AIDS

The stage of clinical AIDS that is reached years after initial infection is marked by the appearance of one or more of the typical opportunistic infections or neoplasms diagnostic of AIDS by definitional criteria. The progression to clinical AIDS is also marked by the appearance of syncytia-forming (SI) variants of HIV in about half of HIV infected patients. These SI viral variants, derived from non-syncytia-forming (NSI) variants, have greater CD4 cell tropism and are associated with more rapid CD4+ cell decline. The SI variants typically arise in association with a peripheral blood CD4 lymphocyte count between 400 and 500/microliter, prior to the onset of clinical AIDS. However, appearance of the SI phenotype of HIV is a marker for progression to AIDS that is independent of CD4 cell counts.

Other laboratory findings which indicate progression to AIDS include HIV p24 antigen positivity, increased serum beta2-microglobulin, elevated serum IgA, or increased neopterin levels in serum, cerebrospinal fluid, or urine. The p24 antigen is a highly specific predictor of progression, but only about 60% of HIV-infected persons develop p24 antigenemia prior to onset of clinical AIDS. Beta2-microglobulin is increased with lymphocyte activation or destruction associated with HIV disease progression. Neopterin, as measured in serum or urine, is also a measure of immune system activation and can predict HIV disease progression. The information provided by these tests is similar, so no advantage accrues from performing all of them simultaneously.

For perinatally acquired HIV infection, the time to development of clinical AIDS may be shorter than in adults. Signs associated with HIV infection appear in over 80% of seropositive infants by the age of 5 months. Infants in whom such signs appear at 3 months tend to have decreased survival. About half of children with perinatally acquired HIV infection are alive at 9 years.
After you have digested this, see the next post. Since you claim to be so well informed, I expect any rebuttal of this or the following material to be at least on a level suggesting you have some clue about the material. Another tripe answer like a molecular analysis of the immune response to a vaccine wasn't "double blinded" will only demonstrate further your complete ignorance of this subject.
 
Last edited:
Mechanism of HIV spread from lymphocytes to epithelia.
Phillips DM, Bourinbaiar AS.

Population Council, Center for Biomedical Research, New York, New York 10021.

Contact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected MOLT-4 lymphocytes with epithelial cells derived from small intestine (I407; Intestine 407) resulted in a rapid polar budding of viral particles into an enclosed space formed by interdigitating microvilli of the contacting cells. Electron microscopy showed that released HIV was taken up into the mucosal cell via three independent mechanisms: (1) phagocytosis, (2) coated pits, and (3) direct fusion. Morphological evidence suggests that internalized HIV may escape into the cytoplasm of the target cell by uncoating at the endosomal membrane. Based on CD4 antibody binding and CD4 antibody blocking experiments, HIV entry does not appear to be mediated by a viral CD4 receptor. Productivity of I407 infection was confirmed by virus isolation from cocultured MT-4 lymphocytic cells, reverse transcriptase assay, p24 antigen ELISA, in situ HIV mRNA hybridization, and Southern dot blot analysis. Contrary to infection with free virus, the cell-to-cell infection was not blocked by anti-gp120 or antiviral serum from HIV-positive individuals. It appears that HIV transmission within the confined space between contacting cells enables HIV to evade immune protection provided by neutralizing antibodies. Our results reveal a mechanism of HIV infection of epithelial cells which is triggered by cell-cell contact. Furthermore, these observations offer an insight into the cellular sequence of events which may take place during sexual transmission of HIV across an intaepithelial barrier.


Molecular pathway involved in HIV-1-induced CNS pathology: role of viral regulatory protein, Tat
Jay Rappaport, Jeymohan Joseph, Sidney Croul, Guillermo Alexander, Luis Del Valle, Shohreh Amini, and Kamel Khalili; Center for NeuroVirology and NeuroOncology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Department of Neurology, MCP Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Abstract: The broad range of histological lesions associated with HIV-1 are somewhat subtle relative to the clinical manifestations that occur as a result of HIV infection. Although it is clear that HIV has a causative role in CNS disease, dementia appears to be a consequence of the infiltration of inflammatory cells and cytokine dysregulation rather than the amount of virus in CNS. The HIV transregulatory protein Tat plays an important intracellular as well as extracellular role in the dysregulation of cytokines. The cytokines and possibly chemokines that are induced by Tat modify the action of astrocytes such that the survival of neurons is compromised. Pathogenetic alteration induced by Tat involves a series of interactions between circulating monocyte/macrophages, endothelial cells, and astrocytes. Cytokine dysregulation induced by viral infection and extracellular Tat leads to alterations in expression of adhesion molecules and promotes migration of non-infected inflammatory cells into the CNS compartment. We demonstrate here that recombinant HIV-1 Tat protein introduced by stereotaxic injection into mouse brain can induce pathologically relevant alterations including macrophage invasion as well as astrocytosis. The mechanism of destruction of the CNS by Tat appears to involve autocrine and paracrine pathways that depend not only on Tat, but cytokine and chemokine signaling pathways that are altered by viral infection. In this review, we discuss various pathogenic effects of Tat in brain cells and provide experimental evidence for an increased TNF-a level in CSF in mice injected intracerebrally with Tat protein. J. Leukoc. Biol. 65: 458–465; 1999.


CD4 lymphocytes in the blood of HIV+ individuals migrate rapidly to lymph nodes and bone marrow: support for homing theory of CD4 cell depletion
Jenny J-Y. Chen, Jason C. Huang, Mark Shirtliff, Elma Briscoe, Seham Ali, Fernando Cesani, David Paar and Miles W. Cloyd,

Departments of Microbiology & Immunology, Pathology, Nuclear Medicine, and § Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

Correspondence: Miles W. Cloyd, Ph.D., Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rt. 1070, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555-1070. E-mail: mcloyd@utmb.edu

ABSTRACT

The mechanism(s) by which human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes depletion of CD4 lymphocytes remains unknown. Evidence has been reported for a mechanism involving HIV binding to (and signaling) resting CD4 lymphocytes in lymphoid tissues, resulting in up-regulation of lymph node homing receptors and enhanced homing after these cells enter the blood, and induction of apoptosis in many of these cells during the homing process, caused by secondary signaling through homing receptors. Supportive evidence for this as a major pathogenic mechanism requires demonstration that CD4 lymphocytes in HIV+ individuals do migrate to lymph nodes at enhanced rates. Studies herein show that freshly isolated CD4 lymphocytes labeled with 111Indium and intravenously reinfused back into HIV+ human donors do home to peripheral lymph nodes at rates two times faster than normal. They also home at enhanced rates to iliac and vertebral bone marrow. In contrast, two hepatitis B virus-infected subjects displayed less than normal rates of blood CD4 lymphocyte migration to peripheral lymph nodes and bone marrow. Furthermore, the increased CD4 lymphocyte homing rates in HIV+ subjects returned to normal levels after effective, highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment, showing that the enhanced homing correlated with active HIV replication. This is the first direct demonstration of where and how fast CD4 lymphocytes in the blood traffic to tissues in normal and HIV-infected humans. The results support the theory that the disappearance of CD4 lymphocytes from the blood of HIV+ patients is a result of their enhanced migration out of the blood (homing) and dying in extravascular tissues.


MECHANISM OF HIV TRANSMISSION ACROSS FEMALE GENITAL EPITHELIUM IN AN EX-VIVO MODEL
Int Conf AIDS. 2006 Aug 13-18;16 Abstract No. ThPE0031

S. Fernandez, A. Nazli, M. Bunce, C. Kaushic
McMaster University, Molecular Medicine & Pathology, Hamilton, Canada

BACKGROUND: Our lab is currently utilizing human primary endometrial and cervical epithelial cultures to investigate the mechanism of HIV transmission across the female genital mucosa.

METHODS: Primary genital epithelial cells (ECs) grown on matrigel- coated cell inserts were used for HIV infection studies. EC's were infected via the apical surface with cell- free or cell- associated R5 and X4 virus strains. Infections were performed in the presence or absence of the appropriate macrophage (U937) or T cell (Jurkat) target cell- line in basolateral compartments of cultures. Virus was quantified from supernatants using p24 ELISA. U373-CXCR4 and CCR5 magi cell lines were utilized to measure infectious virus and tropism. Sybrgreen real time PCR was used to detect viral RNA in ECs and target cells.

RESULTS: Infectious HIV particles were found only in basolateral supernatants of primary EC's infected with X4 strains of cell-free and cell-associated HIV in the presence of appropriate target cells. This indicated that EC's themselves may not be productively infected, but were only able to transmit HIV in the presence of target cells. These results were supported by the detection of higher levels of gag gene (CT-15) in X4 target cells compared to epithelial cells (CT-25) using real-time PCR. No infectious virus was present in primary EC's infected with cell-free R5 strain, although gag gene product was detected by real time PCR in both R5 target cells as well as EC's. P24 levels in supernatants were not indicative of infectious virus.

CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicates that R5 and X4 virus strains have differential abilities to cross the female genital mucosa to infect target cells. The presence of target cells appears to be critical for the production of infectious HIV particles under these culture conditions. These studies are providing important information regarding the ability of HIV-1 to cross the female genital mucosa.

Correlation of HIV-1 Detection and Histology in AIDS-Associated Emphysema.
Diagnostic Molecular Pathology. 14(1):48-52, March 2005.
Yearsley, Martha M MD; Diaz, Philip T MD; Knoell, Daren PhD; Nuovo, Gerard J MD

Abstract:
HIV-seropositive individuals are at an increased risk for an accelerated form of emphysema. The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution of HIV-1 RNA in lung tissues and correlate this with the histologic findings and expression of matrix metalloproteases (MMPs). Reverse transcriptase (RT) in situ PCR analysis was performed on 11 AIDS lung autopsy specimens which showed varying degrees of emphysematous changes. In each lung, HIV-1 RNA was detected. In areas of histologically normal lung, very rare HIV-1-infected cells were evident. In contrast, many HIV-1-infected cells were noted in areas of emphysema. HIV-1 gag RNA was evident primarily in macrophages; infected pneumocytes were also seen. Similarly, MMP mRNA and protein, primarily MMP-9, localized to the areas of emphysema. Colabeling experiments documented that MMP expression was found primarily in cells that were HIV-1 negative and adjacent to HIV-1-infected macrophages. These results suggest that AIDS-related emphysema may be due, in part, to direct infection by HIV-1 of, primarily, alveolar macrophages, and concomitant up-regulation of MMP expression in the neighboring, noninfected cells.

Dabljuh, when you can intelligently discuss why these scientists are wrong, don't know what they are researching, or how it is you understand this subject well enough to know better, get back to us. Mullis and Douchebag couldn't convince the scientific community so they decided to sell their unsupported theories to an uneducated public. Easy prey, sells books, gets attention. The thing about science is when you go against the mainstream, time will eventually prove you correct if you are. Science is based on evidence and the evidence is there for all to see. It's been a decade since the main HIV deniers began dreaming of proving everyone who hurt their feelings wrong. Since that time the evidence, there for all to see, turned out that HIV did and does cause AIDS. All the ignorance in the world just can't change that fact.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, this is why people use the term "HIV disease." A couple of decades have passed since the OP has paid much attention.
 
Why can't you kill HIV with anti-retrovirals? Is it magically immune to them?
HIV integrates into the host DNA, nothing can kill it there, unless you kill the host cell (which is what the immune system does btw and leads to CD4 reduction). Anti-retrovirals interfere with viral replication.
 
HIV integrates into the host DNA, nothing can kill it there, unless you kill the host cell (which is what the immune system does btw and leads to CD4 reduction). Anti-retrovirals interfere with viral replication.

Integration does make it difficult, agreed. Don't current drugs target the virus after transcription has been initiated of the viral genes, though?
 
That would be dumb. Evidence based decisions are better than making stuff up, or worse, just saying "everybody knows it is true".

Try looking at the facts. You might change your opinion and stuff.
I'm looking at a whole slew of facts.(Thanks, skeptigirl!)

Against those facts, I see a couple of people complaining that there's a worldwide conspiracy, that everything that the scientific community is doing is a lie, and that only a few special people are able to see through the gigantic charade. I see those people resisting the idea of any evidence. In fact, I see a viewpoint that isn't based on evidence at all, just like any other foolish and delusional conspiracy theory.

In other words, I see people behaving just like any other believers in woo-woo nonsense. Creationists behave in the exact same manner, as do UFO abduction wackos, 9-11 conspiracists, and anti-global warming weirdos. It is all the same thing, based in some sort of mental dysfunction.
 
Integration does make it difficult, agreed. Don't current drugs target the virus after transcription has been initiated of the viral genes, though?
Yes. There are reverse transcriptase inhibitors which inhibit the virus transcribing it RNA into DNA before integration and protease inhibitors which inhibit viral assembly after integration.

If you knew when you got infected with HIV (such as a needle stick injury) and took the RT inhibitor soon afterwards then it may be possible to prevent integration.
 
Yes. There are reverse transcriptase inhibitors which inhibit the virus transcribing it RNA into DNA before integration and protease inhibitors which inhibit viral assembly after integration.

If you knew when you got infected with HIV (such as a needle stick injury) and took the RT inhibitor soon afterwards then it may be possible to prevent integration.

That's what I was thinking.

Viruses in generally are wonderful little critters. It's a shame I wasn't able to fit virology into my study timetable.
 
Basically, the antiretrovirals don't kill retroviruses, what they actually do is they slow down cell mitosis, slow down transcription of RNA->DNA and stuff like that. Even if they would work, they wouldn't cure or help much, they'd only slow down the suspected immunological degression that HIV causes. Duesberg of course says, since they slow down cell mitosis, they actually damage the immune system severely, which depends on fast mitosis during an infection. Which is sound to me. Human cells also use reverse transcriptase for various purposes, sabotaging this enzyme may be unhelpful after all.
 
JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread. From page one, I haven't seen you post a single useful item, instead it was just troll post after troll post.

You are not allowed to be incivil to those who disagree with you, nor are you allowed to determine who may or may not post in a thread. Keep to the membership agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson


Skeptigirl, you probably think you understand science.
Another tripe answer like a molecular analysis of the immune response to a vaccine wasn't "double blinded" will only demonstrate further your complete ignorance of this subject.
Because two different groups reacted differently to two different treatments is proof of... well, your failure to understand scientific tools such as an interventionist study. Get out and make the guys with brains some coffee.
Mechanism of HIV spread from lymphocytes to epithelia. said:
Wow, HIV infects skin cells, too?
Molecular pathway involved in HIV-1-induced CNS pathology: role of viral regulatory protein said:
Hey we found an inane and obscure way of how HIV could cause dementia. We have absolutely no proof but watch how we inject gallons of poo into these mices' brains!
CD4 lymphocytes in the blood of HIV+ individuals migrate rapidly to lymph nodes and bone marrow: support for homing theory of CD4 cell depletion said:
"The mechanism(s) by which human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes depletion of CD4 lymphocytes remains unknown."
MECHANISM OF HIV TRANSMISSION ACROSS FEMALE GENITAL EPITHELIUM IN AN EX-VIVO MODEL said:
Look, HIV can enter your Vagina!! (Never mind that we never found HIV in sperm)
Correlation of HIV-1 Detection and Histology in AIDS-Associated Emphysema. said:
Wow, HIV is just where infections are. Could it be, because HIV sits in cells of the immune system? We don't know but we have a quota of 1 paper per trimester and this pays our bills

And then we have the master brainiac, Deetee. Let's see what he found.
Does drug use cause AIDS? said:
Here in a rigorously controlled epidemiological study, none out of 367 (0%)HIV negative gay men developed AIDS compared to 204 out of 400 (51%) HIV positive gay men matched for recreational drug use.
You Fail. This issue is one that I have explained countless times already. You bringing it up is either proof of my disability to communicate, or your inability to read.
The lack of association of marijuana and other recreational drugs with progression to AIDS in the San Francisco Men's Health Study. said:
(This would seem highly interesting... if I hadn't caught this reading the abstract) Marijuana use was associated with a decreased rate of progression to AIDS in the univariate analysis
Oh great, now weed protects from AIDS, too? What will those wacky bongheads think of next?
HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS. said:
In 715 homosexual men followed for a median of 8.6 years, all 136 AIDS cases occurred in the 365 individuals with pre-existing HIV-1 antibody. Most men negative for HIV-1 antibody reported risk behaviours but none developed any AIDS illnesses.
Now this is an interesting study, since at first it appears to differ between "AIDS" and "Aids illnesses"... But wait, 350 high-risk, homosexual men, over almost 9 years, and *no* case of:
- Herpes Simplex
- Pneumonia
- Salmonella
- Toxoplasmosis (Estimated 1/3 of the world's population is infected, 15-25% in the US)
- Or any other "AIDS defining Diseases" ?

I call superbullpoop deluxe on this study. (oh noes I reject "evidence" whenever I find it to be statistically impossible and unsound, that's how unscientific I am)
Or how about hemophiliacs instead of gays? said:
Duesberg himself debunks this one: Link! Sabin et al claim that HIV causes AIDS because all of their haemophilic patients had antibodies against the virus. But HIV cannot be enough for AIDS because six of their 17 HIV positive patients (table 2) remained healthy for 10 years. Likewise 12000 out of 15000 HIV positive American haemophilic patients have remained AIDS free since 1985.
(The one that is supposedly proving that the medications help) said:
Without HIV annual liver disease mortality remained below 0.2% throughout 1985-1999, but with HIV it was 0.2% during 1985-1990, 0.8% during 1991-1996, and 0.8% during 1997-1999.
The temporal data is very important. Liver failure is not caused by HIV, but by antiretroviral therapy, which was introduced in the early 90ies. Meaning the severely increased mortality of the HIV-seropositive folks can, at least partially, be explained with toxic treatment rather than HIV or hepatitis itself. Don't know where you still get "But treatment's sooo good" from.

What's it proving all? Well not much. Just that a lot of the science is horribly irrelevant, done badly, or done horribly wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re Malawi:
Are the people there getting some kind of super health care that allows them to not come down with AIDS? If AIDS is killing most everybody off, how is the population rising? Malaria seems to be a constant still.

I'm not going to do all the legwork, but it is obvious that the claims about the deaths are crap. Even if you include Malaria as AIDS, it is crap.
Robinson, Robinson..... Where shall I start?
So much misinformation, and so little time for me to refute it all....

African stats are prone to inaccuracies, true, but incorrect estimates made on the basis of incomplete or incorrect data do not negate the devastation the HIV epidemic has had there. Denialists like to point to inconsistencies between "official" estimates from National agencies and estimates from WHO or UNAIDS, and wrongly conclude that there is therefore no HIV problem whatsoever.

Whenever HIV estimates are changed on the basis of new or updated information (the proper scientific way to go about things) the denialists scream "See! They don't know what they are talking about! HIV doesn't exist!" It is very dispiriting to argue against this type of denialism, since the denialists herald every advance in knowledge as a “major setback for the HIV?AIDS paradigm”. Please don't join their camp - you are too intelligent to fall for their brand of thinking.
The denialists are champions at failing to recognise that:
(1). Prevalence does not equal incidence.
These are often conflated when it seems to suit the denialists. For instance lifetime predictions of the likelihood of developing AIDS or dying are deliberately confused with snapshot incidence rates for these conditions, which are obviously lower.
(2). Population Growth does not mean there is no increase in deaths from AIDS.
The overall population growth is a mix of birth rate and death rates. If high fertility is sustained, birth rates are sustained and population growth will occur, even with a rise in mortality rate, and AIDS deaths constitute only a part of this picture (typically only 20-25% of deaths are due to AIDS).
This is commonly lied about by denialists, who twist the population stats to pretend +ve population growth = no deaths from AIDS. You are falling into the same trap.

Population pyramid analysis in Africa shows a marked change in recent years. Previously most deaths occurred in the old (and infants) - now deaths are maximal in the young-middle aged population. Why do you think this is? As you say, malaria rates and other diseases have remained more or less constant, but figures from S Africa show a huge leap in deaths from infections related to immune deficiency - TB rates soaring, pneumonias, intestinal infections. And these have jumped, not in old people, but in the very populations in which HIV prevalence is highest - the younger adults.

You quoted life expectancy data for Malawi. This has reduced in recent years to 39 years. Why do you think this has happened? I agree, AIDS is not “wiping out” the population, however it is having a significant impact on the countries affected as any in depth look at economic or demographic data will show. Emotive language like “devastating populations”, or “wiping out villages” is sometimes used by people to impress on others what the gravity of the situation is. View these claims, if they exist, with a degree of healthy scepticism but not with an air of automatic and unthinking denial.

Let us look at the SA data that Rian Malan scorns if you wish. It is true that UN figures for SA, as for many countries, have overestimated the problem. (You will find that more recent UNAIDS estimates and local estimates concur more closely).
The UN had previously predicted appx 125000 deaths annually, I believe, but more precise data showed "only" half that number had died from probable AIDS. Only 65 000 - Wow! An indication that HIV is clearly not a problem in SA?

Precise SA stats are available Here and Here.
They indicate that those who are now dying are young adults. In the last 5 years, twice as many 30 year old men are dying, and 3.5 times as many 30yr old women. This is not because of increases in natural or external deaths (eg violence), but because of soaring rates of infection. Death rates in the elderly have not changed.

Now I wonder what could affect young (sexually active, non-drug using) adults’ immune systems so badly that they succumb to these infections? Gee! – What a puzzle, hey?

Duesberg says its malnutrition (which usually afflicts the elderly and the infants) or because someone is surruptitiously feeding them all chemicals like poppers or AZT.
A very unbelievable theory indeed, but as Amy Wilson says - It's true! :)
 
JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread. From page one, I haven't seen you post a single useful item, instead it was just troll post after troll post.

Awwwww... I'll have to try harder, won't I? Again, though, what I see is you rejecting all the accepted scientific evidence, in favor of some pretty silly conspiracy theories and nonsense claims. The reason for this doesn't seem to be the evidence itself, since you've shown no sign of having examined or understood the evidence.

So, my hunch is that your objections to reality have some basis that is NOT tied into reason or logic or facts. I find that to be endlessly intriguing.
 

Back
Top Bottom