• 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)

Capsid said:
It's unethical to use large numbers of primates for such studies, 6 is sufficient to answer the question.
Lymphadenopathy is not just swollen lymph nodes but a disease of the lymph nodes indicative of AIDS.
I thought you said CD4 decline was not a good marker for HIV/AIDS?
The macaques are held in very clean conditons so there is limited exposure to other pathogens to trigger opportunistic diseases.
No need to use controls, what would they be anyway? Naive uninfected animals? The question is does this virus preparation infect macaques and cause AIDS-like symptoms, why the need to control for that?
Click to expand...
... you are seriously asking "Why do we need a big sample?" ... You are seriously asking "Why do we need controls?" ... Because swollen lymph nodes might be a common condition in lab monkeys? Because swollen lymph nodes is not an AIDS defining disease? Because with such a small sample, and without controls, we must dismiss any "knowledge" gained from the experiment as not posessing any [Whats the word?]
 
W said:
No, Status means just that: The kid is HIV infected or not.
Click to expand...
Please read it!
from the abstract said:
HIV causes substantial mortality among African children but there is limited data on how this is influenced by maternal or infant infection status and timing
Click to expand...
And then....

HIV-positive mothers with more advanced disease are not only more likely to infect their infants, but their infants are more likely to die, whether infected or not:
Click to expand...

W said:
Nope
Click to expand...
Obviously.

You mean Immunoincompetent?
Click to expand...
No. I mean immunocompetent. As in "the way newborns have survived for millions of years".

You mean that the mother would become a virus-spoting infectionmachine, which would severely weaken the child. I think far more realistic is to assume that a severely sick mother has more problems caring for her child, and the lack of care (such as nutritional and emotional) increase the predisposition of the child to develop diseases.
Click to expand...

That could have a lot to do with it, too. It's probably very complex.
 
Dabljuh said:
No, at first glance, this looks pretty good at showing the link between a depressed immune system and KS. But...
- It does not disprove any link between poppers and KS
- It does not prove a supposed link between HIV and KS (which is discredited)
- What about other, so called "opportunistic diseases" such as PCP in transplant patients?
Click to expand...

But it does (basically) "prove" that it is HHV8 that is the primary cause of KS, right?
All human herpes viruses can either be active or latent. The go dormant for long periods of time, and re-emerge when people have suppressed immune systems (for whatever reason...old age, other infections, immunosupressive drugs, etc.)

Do you or do not agree that HHV8 causes KS? Like "chickenpox (varicella) causes shingles"? Or would you also throw a fit over the chickenpox virus causing shingles?
 
Antiquehunter said:
Just curious. Has any HIV/AIDS denialist volunteered to be infected with the HIV virus to prove their point?
Click to expand...

This is from memory, but I believe the challenge was to Gallo himself. The deal was simple. I will inject myself with HIV, extracted from an AIDS patient, if you will take AZT for the rest of your life. We will compare who gets sick, how fast, and document what happens. Gallo declined, and the issue of HIV from an infected patient was a problem, because it is impossible to extract enough HIV from a person to be meaningful. You can't just isloate HIV from an infected person, you have to grow it in a lab, using chemicals that cause HIV to replicate, and T-cells for it to grow in.

A HIV infected person is full of antibodies, and the amount of HIV is so small, nobody has ever isloated it from serum or tissue.

HIV test either test for antibodies, or they amplify the amount of HIV through artificial means, until you get enough of it to analyze.

Dabljuh said:
Indeed yes, Duesberg volunteered to have himself infected with HIV, but nobody's taken him up on that.
Click to expand...

Several people offered, the same problem comes up. There is no way to actually extract HIV from a person. So it is impossible to just transfer pure HIV from an infected person to a non infected person.

Deetee said:
Duesberg did indeed make this offer about 10 years ago. he quickly withdrew it when someone offere to call his bluff, saying that no-one could guarantee that the HIV preparation he would be given was pure enough by his criteria to mean there was no possible contamination with any other substance.
Click to expand...

That is close to the truth. As I said, the problem was nobody can isolate HIV from an infected person. You wouldn't be able to get enough to make it worth your while to try and infect somebody.

Devil's Advocate: "Anybody that can isolate pure HIV from human tissue, they are eligible for a 10,000 Pound prize. So far, nobody has claimed the money, instead insisting isolating live, infectious HIV from human tissue is a waste of time."
http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/46.html

Devil's Advocate: "Furthermore, if you can isolate HIV, and show a test that works for detecting actual HIV, you win another 25,000$ dollars."
http://whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/award.html

Actually, you don't even have to do anything, just show us the study that was done. Where HIV was isolated from an infected person, photographed with an Electron Microscope. You know, like every other virus in the known Universe.
:wackywink:
 
kellyb said:
All babies having the same amount of blood taken.
Mortality in babies not infected, but with HIV positive mothers: 9.2%
Babies infected in the womb or during labor: 67.5% - 65.1%

Why the difference, W?
Coincidence again?
Click to expand...

There is something odd about that study. Before I start in on it, does anybody else notice this?
 
Ummmm... they isolated the virus back in 1983. Two groups, independently.

robinson, you're spreading lies. You've been bamboozled.
 
robinson said:
There is something odd about that study. Before I start in on it, does anybody else notice this?
Click to expand...
There's several things very odd with this study. For example that they perform double-elisa + western blot on the parents, but PCR on the kids, or the extremely high mortality on not just the "HIV-seropositive" infants, but all infants, but what do you mean? Do you have a hunch?
 
Last edited:
Dabljuh said:
... you are seriously asking "Why do we need a big sample?" ... You are seriously asking "Why do we need controls?" ... Because swollen lymph nodes might be a common condition in lab monkeys? Because swollen lymph nodes is not an AIDS defining disease? Because with such a small sample, and without controls, we must dismiss any "knowledge" gained from the experiment as not posessing any [Whats the word?]
Click to expand...
So you don't think this was looked at before? Looking for lymphadenopathy in macaques that already have it, whoa those crazy scientists!
 
robinson said:
Several people offered, the same problem comes up. There is no way to actually extract HIV from a person. So it is impossible to just transfer pure HIV from an infected person to a non infected person.
Click to expand...
From memory, I believe it is estimated that you require at least 100 virions to infect someone successfully. (Wouldn't it be easier to just transfer CD4 cells and macrophages which produce roughly 100 virions each per day to cause an infection?)
 
Dabljuh said:
From memory, I believe it is estimated that you require at least 100 virions to infect someone successfully. (Wouldn't it be easier to just transfer CD4 cells and macrophages which produce roughly 100 virions each per day to cause an infection?)
Click to expand...

Devil's Advocate: "Macrophages don't produce HIV unless chemically stimulated. An infected T-Cell has antibodies locking up the HIV particles. So you would be injecting all kinds of stuff, not just pure HIV."

If that isn't true, I'm sure somebody smarter than I am will correct that damn Devil.

More debunking.
http://www.aids.org/atn/a-277-07.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVm3moZo_g
http://www.skepticfiles.org/skmag/32harris.htm

Remember, there are many people with HIV over 20 years now, with no symptoms of AIDS. Injecting yourself with HIV doesn't mean you will ever get AIDS. That myth is long debunked.

While dire predictions about death from a needlestick, or sex, have been pretty much abandoned, sex ed still teaches AIDS is a huge risk.

And for the record, all these sites that keep saying "HIV deaths" really need a clue. HIV does not kill you. AIDS, a description of a cluster of symptoms, does not kill you. Some bacteria, fungi, vanver or virus kills you. Or liver failure, starvation or respiratory failure kills you.

Nobody has ever died from HIV. You die when your immune system can't win.













Or you get hit by a truck or something.
 
This is an interesting MO you've developed in this thread as of late, robinson.
:)

Devil's Advocate: "Macrophages don't produce HIV unless chemically stimulated. An infected T-Cell has antibodies locking up the HIV particles. So you would be injecting all kinds of stuff, not just pure HIV."
Click to expand...

I think you're mixing up macrophages and lymphocytes there...
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
Sorry, if you read the text, it is obvious that was from a culture, not isolated from serum or tissue. Even then, it took a lot of effort to get the HIV to reproduce.
Click to expand...

It says "a sample from a lymph node biopsy taken from a patient with generalized lymphadenopathy"

As far as "a lot of effort" goes...it always takes additional cells for the viruses to infect to grow a virus. That's totally standard. You're not going to get anything better for any other virus culture for anything out there. It's just the way it works.
 
robinson said:
Devil's Advocate: "Macrophages don't produce HIV unless chemically stimulated. An infected T-Cell has antibodies locking up the HIV particles. So you would be injecting all kinds of stuff, not just pure HIV."
Click to expand...
Devil's Advocate: "
Where did you get that from? B cells make antibodies not T cells."
 
Robinson & Dabljuh: Are you saying that people can have all of the unprotected sex they want with an HIV+ person because: 1) HIV does not cause AIDS and 2) HIV is not an STD.
This is what I'm hearing from your arguments. Please let me know if I misuderstood.

Reading about AIDS always reminds me of the Van Halen video for Right Now. One shot is of a condom and the text says: Right now nothing is more expensive than regret.

Kore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom