AIDS (hah)

[JoeEllison]

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!

Maybe AZT it is the hip new club drug there? Oh, wait... they were all born with HIV? Or maybe the CIA did it?

So many conspiracies, so little time!

 

[JoeEllison]

Sorry, boy. Public forum.

Maybe I should claim that Dab's just the spearhead of an international conspiracy to deny the truth of my words? What are the odds?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

JoeEllison, get the hell out of this thread.

Reported

Skeptigirl, you probably think you understand science. well, your failure to understand scientific tools such as an interventionist study. Get out and make the guys with brains some coffee.

Wow, you are indeed a master of civility. I know what SG's credentials are and have been in the position to verify them. What, exactly, are yours? What makes you qualified to dismiss any of this as "bad science" or these posters not understanding it correctly?

 

[robinson]

Bad science, bad logic, bad information, bad thread

All quotes that are not linked, are mine.

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.

While I tend to ignore stuff that is so wrong, it isn't even possible to try and explain why it is wrong, this Ellison post serves as an example of the emotional, hyped up type of reasoning that can lead skeptical minds to wonder, just what the hell is wrong with some people?

And I wonder, does Joe really see that stuff, is he delusional? Or is it just rhetoric, emotional response, bad logic? Who can tell?

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.

Again, do you really think that? Are you that far removed from rality? Or is this a straw man that gets drug out of the closet when ever you can't come up with any evidence, logic, or reasonable response to ideas you find hard to understand?

In other words, I see people behaving just like any other believers in woo-woo nonsense.

Sometimes I think this has become so common here at the JREF Forums, that the skeptics either ignore it, or somehow accept it, never bothering to ask, do you have any possible evidence to show why you say that? Emotional responses, insulting mundane tripe, those are the hallmark of a religious or small mind. If you want to counter research, facts, logic, evidence that you disagree with, you are better served by explaining or showing why you disagree, than you are by just spewing nonsense.

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.

In the information SG provided, there is a small factoid that is often overlooked. It is evident in the needle stick statistics as well, and in surgical accidents. HIV infection isn't guaranteed if exposed to HIV. In fact, the amount of HIV and the number of exposures are claimed to be important in determining risk.

This is known, not because of any experimental data, but supposed, based on statistics and anecdotal evidence. We know that a needle stick or sexual exposure doesn't cause an infection, in most cases. We know this because of what has been observed. Nobody seems to know why, it is a fact assumed based on what has happened over time.

Originally, it was thought any exposure would cause transmission. This was, of course, bad science, based on no evidence at all. It was also thought that every exposure would result in death, more bad science.

It was also claimed semen could transmit the HIV through oral contact. Obviously this was also bad science. Of course no experimental evidence was provided, nor any testing done, it was just claimed. Bad science.

In 1989 I asked a leading Immunologist, the areas expert on HIV, how did he know oral sex would transmit HIV? He claimed HIV was in the seminal fluid, and could get into a sore in the mouth.

Then I asked him if HIV was in saliva? Yes. Why wouldn't kissing be a risk then? Why wouldn't HIV in food or drink be a risk?

Because the amount of HIV would be too small.

How do you know that?

His response, and I kid you not, was that we know this because it hasn't spread through food or kissing!

So you know it is transmitted through oral sex because...?

Because prostitutes have HIV, and they have unprotected oral sex!

So, all of this science is based on...? Anecdotal reports from HIV positive prostitutes. In other words, what street Ho's tell the researchers or health departments. Do these scientist actually believe what an IV drug user street Ho tells them?

You mean you don't have any actual experiments? Nothing but anecdotal evidence?

About then he said he had stuff to do....

Viruses in generally are wonderful little critters.

It's all fun and games until you get one you can't get rid of.

Now this is where some really smart person gets to slam me. You simply post links to all the studies and research that simply shows that I am wrong. That yes indeed, scientific evidence exist to show that sex spreads HIV. Oral sex, heterosexual love making, HIV spreads like that.

 

[Deetee]

Deetee. Let's see what he found.

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.
Oh great, now weed protects from AIDS, too? What will those wacky bongheads think of next?
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" ?

God what ignorance.
Firstly you haven't bothered to address any of the main points of these studies, whcih conclusively show it is acquisition of HIV that results in subsequent development of AIDS. These studies all control for the factors that you (and Duesberg) say causes "AIDS", and hey, guess what? No-one who is HIV negative, despite being sexually active gay men, popper users or other drug users or hemophiliacs, gets AIDS. Only the HIV positives do.

Then you show your astounding ignorance as to what constitutes an AIDS diagnosis.
It is only cerebral toxoplasmosis - (you know the sort where one gets REACTIVATION of dormant infection and abscesses in the brain) that is AIDS-defining. Similarly, it is only recurrent salmonella, multiple attacks of pneumonia and persistent mucocutaneous herpes for more than 3 months despite treatment which are AIDS-defining.

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.

You imply liver deaths constitute a really significant part of why HIV hemophiliacs have a 10-fold higher mortality than HIV negative hemophiliacs. I'll summarise the data as you have difficulty comprehending it:

Deaths with no HIV = 0.9%
Deaths in HIV positives = 10% (mostly AIDS-defining illnesses)
Deaths after introduction of HIV therapy = 5%
(I get the idea that HIV treatment is "soooo" good from the fact that it halves the death rate, stoopid, despite being so "lethal")

Deaths from liver disease = 0.2%
Deaths from liver disease in HIV positives = 0.8% (Most of these will be due to the concurrent Hepatitis C and B infections, and only partially contributed to by HIV drugs)
6% of the mortality in HIV positives is attributable to an increase in liver deaths, not the huge proportion you imply.

What's it proving all? Well not much. Just that a lot of the science is horribly irrelevant, done badly, or done horribly wrong.

No, it proves:
(1) You can't interpret a scientific study to save your life.
(2) You are prepared to ignore whatever you find goes against your preconceptions.
(3) You haven't a clue about AIDS-defining illnesses
(4) You are prepared to lie.

However it does show:
(1) You accept there is "severely increased mortality of the HIV positive folk" (your words), so maybe there is hope for you yet. Its not due to liver disease, as the data show. So what do you think it is due to??

 

[JoeEllison]

All quotes that are not linked, are mine.

Don't sugar-coat it, tell us how you really feel!

Seriously, though, the denial of reality by various fringe groups, including the HIV/AIDS denial groups, share pretty standard traits in common. Because one of those traits is a refusal to accept any evidence or facts in conflict with the particular belief, the large amount of evidence posted in this thread (especially when compared to the almost complete lack of contrary evidence from the denial side), really doesn't make much of a difference. The belief isn't really based on evidence anyways, so no evidence will sway the belief.

Really, the psychology of the fringe groups is incredibly interesting, and I greatly enjoy the sorts of responses the threads based on fringe beliefs will generate.

 

[calebprime]

All quotes that are not linked, are mine.

The quote function didn't capture your title, which was "Bad science, bad logic, bad thread, Bad info" or words to that effect.

I suggest that you can remedy the situation differently than you have done.

You can present, in summary form, what your theory is, what your facts are.

If you've studied the situation for some time, then you have knowledge and insights that the average person lacks.

You can frame your views as either fact, theory, or speculation.



Otherwise, the thread is mainly Dabljuh the Dusberg/Mullis believer versus the regulars here--with a growing opposition consisting of people who actually know something about the scientific issues.

I wasn't sure of your point in quoting all those posts. If you don't like JoeEllison's posts, you can ignore them.

Trouble is, conspiracy theories are usually wrong, and conventional science is usually right.

Raise the quality of discourse. State your case. Give the executive summary for us busy, stupid, logic-impaired types.

 

[kellyb]

You simply post links to all the studies and research that simply shows that I am wrong. That yes indeed, scientific evidence exist to show that sex spreads HIV. Oral sex, heterosexual love making, HIV spreads like that.

Robinson...WHAT is wrong with the Africa circumcision RCTs?
When you read the fulltexts, it becomes pretty clear that prostitutes (infected with herpes, also, probably) transmit HIV pretty darn well, for a lot of reasons.

If your point is that, if you're a hererosexual in the developed world, and you meet someone hot, and have unprotected sex with them, while you might pick up some HPV virus or herpes virus or "bacterial" STI from them...the chances that you'll catch HIV from them is really comparatively pretty small...yes, I think you're right.

Is that your only point you're trying to make?

 

[JoeEllison]

You can present, in summary form, what your theory is, what your facts are.

If you've studied the situation for some time, then you have knowledge and insights that the average person lacks.

You can frame your views as either fact, theory, or speculation.**snip**
State your case. Give the executive summary for us busy, stupid, logic-impaired types.

I second that.

 

[robinson]

Now, to address the other side of the street.

Basically, I learned that everything I thought I had known about HIV/AIDS is wrong.

Blanket statements like that are dumb. But lets look at the key points.

- There is no proof HIV irreversibly destroys the immune system

There is lots of evidence (science avoids the word proof, except in mathematics), that HIV leads to decreased immune response. It doesn't destroy the immune system, it weakens certain T-cells which are vital to fighting off invasions of fungi, viruses, and bacterium. Only radiation can destroy the entire immune system, and maybe some toxic chemicals.

- HIV is not sexually transmitted, but mostly in utero

There is evidence that some kinds of sexual activity leads to transmission of HIV. Sharing needles is a sure way to transmit HIV, of this there is no doubt.

- HIV is not new, but may have been around for millennia

That is probably true, SIV is very much like HIV, and the two can be combined, and are combined, to study retroviruses in vivo.

- Africas so called "AIDS epidemic" has nothing to do with a retrovirus

Now that is just out there. There is overwhelming evidence to show HIV infection weakens immune systems already compromised by HVC, parasites and malaria, along with bad water, no food and terrible health care.

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.

Well, in some people, long term survivors, HIV is harmless. But saying HIV is harmless is death to your credibility. There is no doubt that combined with other factors, HIV leads to weakened immune response.

This is what people are trying to show you. While there are many questions about HIV, that isn't one of them.

 

[kellyb]

That is probably true, SIV is very much like HIV, and the two can be combined, and are combined, to study retroviruses in vivo.

There are old blood samples from the mid/late 50's, from the areas where HIV quickly became pretty common in Africa. The first HIV (according to old blood samples taken long before anyone knew HIV existed) probably emerged in the late 50's or early 60's.

They took blood back then to look for stuff like polio. I forget the exact date, but it really looks like HIV didn't exist (or must have been extremely rare, traveling very, very, very slowly) before then. I'll find links on that if you want. It's in the early 60's that it suddenly exploded, for reasons that aren't well understood.

 

[robinson]

Precise SA stats are available Here and Here.
They indicate that those who are now dying are young adults.

I read the report you linked to, http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/complete.pdf and it is clear you did not read it. It clearly states that the data is unreliable, and that the statistics are estimates, that they are projections, not real data. It also states that because of better attempts to actually record deaths, the entire study is not to be considered as fact.

In the last 5 years, twice as many 30 year old men are dying, and 3.5 times as many 30yr old women.

Even if you discount that this is only projection, not actual data, your statement is incorrect. If the death rate increases from 1% of the total deaths, to 2% of the total deaths, this does not mean twice as many people died. Your comment is so wrong, I would have to explain a dozen things to show you why. Not worth the effort.

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.

Your 2001 report is both out of date, and the projections in it were simply wrong.

If you simply check the latest data, http://indexmundi.com/south_africa/age_structure.html or
http://indexmundi.com/south_africa/manpower_fit_for_military_service.html
you can see for yourself why projections and hype just don't stand up to scrutiny. There was no massive loss of young people, and the population is still growing.

Statistics are based on testing done on pregnant women. If you actually read how they come up with the projections, and you understand how unreliable the HIV tests are, it isn't hard to see why the figures don't match the reality.

 

[Dabljuh]

Robinson: that's the point I'm trying to show you. If there have to be "other factors" present for HIV to have any effect, then one can formulate a realistic, testable hypothesis that does not make HIV a causal source of illness(es). You say, I discredit myself with this statement. I say that by categorically denying the possibility that despite the hints (not evidence, not proof) given at HIV's sometimes destructive effect on the immune system, HIV may be harmless and the true source of the conditions stated may be somewhere else, you would discredit yourself.

It's not me who categorically asserts something about HIV's pathology. Its you. I am merely considering the possibility, which I find realistic given the evidence. Of course it is an alternative, and minority interpretation, but as there are significant financial interests behind the majority interpretation, I do not see this state as a minority view as discreditive to the minority hypothesis. Especially since there is virtually no high quality evidence (e.g. a DB-RCT) on the subject.

And with regards to the Circumcision-HIV studies, I can give you the answer: Selective reporting. Any researcher wants his study to produce a meaningful result. Studies that do not produce results tend not to be published. If you want a particular study result, you simply do 10 studies with small, barely significant samples, increasing the chances that one of them will bear the results you want to hear (and dismiss the other 9) - Or, as with the french circumcision-HIV study, you simply design the study in a multi-staged way, and cancel it the instant you have the result you want. Its the same principle: Selective Reporting.

Or do you really believe circumcision protects from HIV? I don't buy it.

Oh, and Deetee: Liver Failure by Hepatitis is caused, as we have learned earlier in this thread, by the immune system slaughtering the infected liver cells. If the HIV destroys the immune system, we would see *less* liver failure in the HIV patients.

In addition, I from now on shall reject any study that claims something like "X died of AIDS" - "AIDS" is not good enough for me, it is unscientific. I want to know *what* they died of.

 

[kellyb]

And with regards to the Circumcision-HIV studies, I can give you the answer: Selective reporting. Any researcher wants his study to produce a meaningful result. Studies that do not produce results tend not to be published. If you want a particular study result, you simply do 10 studies with small, barely significant samples, increasing the chances that one of them will bear the results you want to hear (and dismiss the other 9) - Or, as with the french circumcision-HIV study, you simply design the study in a multi-staged way, and cancel it the instant you have the result you want. Its the same principle: Selective Reporting.

They were two...the ONLY two RTCs ever done on the issue, and they were sponsored by the NIAID. The NIAID doesn't do the publication bias thing. They CAN'T like that. Not with this. These trials were highly publicised from the moment they were thought up. It's not some obscure little group of researchers. The whole world has been watching and waiting for the results. It was controversial from the moment it was proposed.

Or do you really believe circumcision protects from HIV? I don't buy it.

That's because you refuse to believe things you don't like. Hell, you won't even look at facts that conflict with your worldview. You won't even attempt to debunk them. You just make up weak-a$$ed excuses to make them go away in your head.

And apparently, when no one falls for it, the old "Well that's because they're just too stupid to understand" can show up and save the day in your reality-detached world.

 

[robinson]

There are old blood samples from the mid/late 50's, from the areas where HIV quickly became pretty common in Africa. The first HIV (according to old blood samples taken long before anyone knew HIV existed) probably emerged in the late 50's or early 60's.

That brings up an opportunity to ask, how can you test for HIV if somebody is long dead? How can you test for it in old blood or tissue samples? If the strains are easy to trace, why can't it be traced by genome, back to the source?

They took blood back then to look for stuff like polio. I forget the exact date, but it really looks like HIV didn't exist (or must have been extremely rare, traveling very, very, very slowly) before then. I'll find links on that if you want. It's in the early 60's that it suddenly exploded, for reasons that aren't well understood.

Which is a huge issue. According to consensus, it is easily spread by sex, yet it never spread until the sixties, and then spread worldwide in a matter of years. And somehow showed up in isolated tribes of people, on different continents. All at the same time.

So we are expected to accept, without question, that a sexually transmitted disease suddenly spread worldwide, even to remote villages and outpost in the most primitive and backward parts of the world, in a decade or so, and this was by sex.

While at the same time, virulent easy to transmit STDs, like, Genital Herpes, which ravaged populations who were obviously having a lot of sex, those diseases did not show up in the same populations, that suddenly had a Pandemic of HIV.

No herpes, no syph, no Clap, no Hep C, but suddenly HIV, everywhere, every country, all at once. Millions of people.

All because of that wild sex everybody was having, and apparently flying to remote areas and having it as well.

Lots of crazy sex addicts, everywhere, having sex, spreading HIV. Not any other STDs, ust HIV.

How stupid can people be? Very. Because if you buy that story, you will believe anything.

Is there a real good way to acquire HIV? Pretty much a foolproof way?
Sure is. Would it be easy to spread it using this method? Sure.

Was there any vector for HIV that was going everywhere, even to remote villages and stuff? And that pretty much nailed everybody in the village? All in a short period of time? Sure was.

But, but, that would mean ....


no no no, it was monkeys man, Africans had sex with monkeys and then flew all over spreading it through gay sex and drug use. yeah, yeah, thats the ticket. Bushmeat maybe, cause you know, in the last 100,000 years nobody ever ate a monkey or had sex in Africa, that started in the sixties.

Yeah, thats it.

Yeah, and nobody EVER did any research on retroviruses and cancer in the sixties man. And they NEVER would use SIV or SV40 to test stuff on, or think of using chimps and monkeys to test them on, and no lab worker in the moneky wing ever had a needle stick, and they never gave blood, and there is just NO chance at all it came from ..... don't even say it man.

 

[JoeEllison]

State your case. Give the executive summary for us busy, stupid, logic-impaired types.

I have a feeling we'll be waiting a LONG time.

 

[kellyb]

That brings up an opportunity to ask, how can you test for HIV if somebody is long dead? How can you test for it in old blood or tissue samples? If the strains are easy to trace, why can't it be traced by genome, back to the source?

I think they tested the blood by PCR, but I'm not 100% on that. They have tried to trace the genomics. One study said they think the virus might have emerged as early as the late 1930's. All I know about that stuff is that a virologist I know said he doesn't think tracing a virus like HIV backwards through more than 10 years is going to be terribly accurate without loads of samples to crossreference with. So...I dunno...I might get curious enough eventually to look into it and see if I can figure out what the deal is there.
I honestly don't really understand that stuff well enough to have an opinion either way.

Which is a huge issue. According to consensus, it is easily spread by sex, yet it never spread until the sixties, and then spread worldwide in a matter of years. And somehow showed up in isolated tribes of people, on different continents. All at the same time.

Well, it wasn't exactly at the same time. There was apparently a 15 year lag between the emergence in Africa and the emergence in the US. But yeah...it's mysterious. I think all it would take would be a few blood transfusions, though, and maybe it "works"? I can see in my head a few possibilities that aren't too "out there". But it's definitely interesting to think about.

So we are expected to accept, without question, that a sexually transmitted disease suddenly spread worldwide, even to remote villages and outpost in the most primitive and backward parts of the world, in a decade or so, and this was by sex.

No...not just via "normal, heterosexual sex". The WHO wasn't very hard-core about hygienic needle practices back then, for one thing. And African sexual practices are different from Western ones, in the US we have different things going on, etc. It's complicated.

no no no, it was monkeys man, Africans had sex with monkeys and then flew all over spreading it through gay sex and drug use. yeah, yeah, thats the ticket. Bushmeat maybe, cause you know, in the last 100,000 years nobody ever ate a monkey or had sex in Africa, that started in the sixties.

I'm personally not a fan of the "cut hunter, end of story" scenario.
Exactly what happened, I don't know. Could be a lot of things. I think it was probably a combination of a lot of things.

 

[Dabljuh]

robinson, your post appears to imply you buy into the "Weapons lab" HIV theory? Explain yourself. Here's my tidbit:

Seriously: We have a fairly accurate number of 1 million HIV-seropositive hosts in the US right now. All over the country, spread relatively evenly over the population at a prevalence of about 0.35% without preference to gender or sexual orientation.

But wait, AIDS in the US only hits a few thousand gay men each year... Hmm...

 

[kellyb]

Seriously: We have a fairly accurate number of 1 million HIV-seropositive hosts in the US right now. All over the country, spread relatively evenly over the population at a prevalence of about 0.35% without preference to gender or sexual orientation.

Blablabla...


http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/F...Epidemic-in-the-United-States-2005-Update.pdf

 

[robinson]

robinson, your post appears to imply you buy into the "Weapons lab" HIV theory? Explain yourself.

I don't even know what the "weapons lab" theory is. Based on the scant evidence, and believe me, you might think "evidence" is available to all, but nothing is further from the truth, when it comes to both biological weapons, and bio-engineered organisms, but based on the very limited evidence available, it is obvious that research into retroviruses and cancer, as well as research in many fields, it involved monkeys and chimps. Monkeys and chimps that we now know, carry retroviruses that they are quite immune to.

We also know that before the discovery of HIV, as well as SIV, SV40, HIV-2, HIV-3, HIV-4, etc, etc, nobody thought twice about using infected blood and organs for research, treatment, and vaccines.

We know that one sure fire vector for HIV transmission, is blood or organs from a seropositive HIV carrier. We also know that infected needles are a good carrier.

You can make up your on mind.

Going back to Cuba again, they destroyed all blood and organs when they knew there was something that could be transferred by blood. Before there was a test, before there was a name for it, they knew something was infecting people, and they knew it was from needles or blood. No other country did this. In fact, because of the huge financial loss, and hardship it would cause, even after they knew there was something in the blood supply, they didn't destroy it. Once again, Cuba is the only country that doesn't have an AIDS epidemic, much less a Pandemic.

Obviously in Cuba, Castro just told people to donate blood again after the HIV test came out. This was not done by most everyone else.

But I digress.

What is the weapons lab theory?