• 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)

If I am saying something, you would have no doubt about what I am saying. The evidence shows that HIV is not transmitted like any other STD, and even if you are infected, it doesn't mean you will get AIDS.

As to having unprotected sex with somebody who is HIV+, no thank you.
 
It's sexually transmitted quite a bit like HepB. HepB's not a "normal, highly infectious" STI, either, though. But it's still (technically) an STD/STI.
 
Well, technically HIV is transmitted by sex. But female to female transmission is almost unheard of. Is that true for HBV? I will be the first to admit I don't know much about STDs, or the risk of getting them.
 
Last edited:
Compare and contrast:

http://depts.washington.edu/wswstd/lesbian_health_information.htm

HepB
Hepatitis B is not spread by food, water or casual contact. Transmission between female partners has not been studied, but has occurred. *Hepatitis B is preventable by vaccination: ask your health provider



HIV
Transmission WTW: while there is little research or documentation on this topic, the medical literature does have case reports of WTW sexual transmission of HIV. The most likely sources for transmission are menstrual blood, vaginal discharge when there is vaginitis (there are more white blood cells containing HIV present then), and traumatic sex practices. However, more research is urgently needed in this area; none of these mechanisms, or their relative risk, have been directly studied yet.

Looks like with both...can happen, has happened, still quite rare.
Lesbians are one of the most "protected" groups when it comes to STDs. None of the ST pathogens have really evolved in a way that "works" with lesbian sex. Herpes viruses might be the exception, in addition to a few bacteria.
 
Last edited:
Skeptigirl, at least now I understand your bias. You work in the field, you have given out advice to actually sick people, and you have given death sentences to healthy people. If that all would turn out to be wrong, could you live with yourself? Could you live with the parents of the kid you told was "HIV positive" and killed himself afterwards, knocking on your door and asking for an apology? I mean, you even believe yourself HIV is a death sentence, when the data is fairly clear that there is a significant number of people who live happily ever after being HIV positive. You even believe HIV would be an STD, and display problems coping with evidence to the contrary.
My only bias is toward an evidence based view of the world. You have an absurd rationalization as to why you are choosing to ignore the evidence. You need to ask yourself why it is you are attracted to an unsupported (by evidence) version of reality. You have chosen to accept a reality based purely on your established beliefs. The trouble with that is your evidence then is merely your imagination.

Take your version of my reality. What kids with HIV committing suicide are you talking about? I don't personally know a single HIV infected person who has committed suicide. And I would be ecstatic to be able to tell someone with HIV we were wrong. Your version of reality is purely an imaginary one you have built for yourself.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you would continue twisting the facts to fit your reality. I'm not quite sure what you gain from living in your fantasy world. I wonder if you are just stuck there or if it serves some purpose for you.

We all have a slightly different version of reality, each of our brains interprets the world around us in an individual way. For some people, that interpretation is completely distorted. Those would be people we consider psychotic. For others the interpretation is distorted but not enough to actually leave reality altogether. That would be people like you.

For whatever reason, you are unable to distinguish between valid evidence and your imaginary version of the evidence. That differs considerably from people who merely lack education. For those people, if they are shown what evidence they have missed and why the evidence they were relying on was wrong, they are capable of interpreting the new evidence.

But in your case you simply take whatever evidence there is and twist it into your conspiracy theory. For most of us, we fit the evidence into our own versions of the world, but those versions are close enough to the actual world that we make sense to each other, we function with the same basic world view and it reinforces the fact we are interpreting the evidence with a high degree of accuracy.

You are taking the evidence which is all around you and making it fit into your fantasy version of reality. That evidence, when studies are repeated by researchers from all over the world and from all walks of life, is consistently reproduceable. The vast majority of the scientific community comes to the same conclusions. But you ignore that fact. You imagine every single person who draws a different conclusion than you do has some conspired motive to do so. Accordingly, only you and a handful of people do not have these conspired motives.

The evidence is what proves the case. Doucheberg and Mullis have had more than a decade now and they have been proved wrong, not the other way around. You are stuck in the past. At a minimum, you need to bring your science up to date. But before you can do that you need to recognize how far fetched your conspiracy is just looking at the scale you imagine it on. It is virtually impossible for such a conspiracy to exist. It would literally have to involve millions of people in every country all over the world. Every doctor, nurse, lab tech, university student, and researcher who has anything to do with HIV in every country in the world would have to be in on the conspiracy.

Tell me everyone and how many people are running this scam? I assume you think some of them are doing it unconsciously. So how many know it is a scam and how many people are just in denial? How is it every single HIV researcher can't see their bias? Why would only a handful of people call this scam a scam? All that research out there looking at HIV and the immune system from a molecular and genetic level and these guys are what? Afraid of the unemployment line?

You need to think about the scale of this conspiracy you have imagined. It is impossible.
 
Last edited:
...
Looks like with both...can happen, has happened, still quite rare.
Lesbians are one of the most "protected" groups when it comes to STDs. None of the ST pathogens have really evolved in a way that "works" with lesbian sex. Herpes viruses might be the exception, in addition to a few bacteria.
You have to consider also that the sexual contacts of this group are much more limited than hetero and especially male homo sex. The gay male community were having hundreds of casual partners when HIV pandemic took off. Aside from gay female IVD users and/or prostitutes, most gay women are not exposed to hundreds of different partners nor are their partners exposed to hundreds of partners. So just on chance encounters alone, they are fewer.

Then you have less exchange of body fluids when there is no semen. That leaves oral exposure are being the biggest risk and it also has less risk when semen isn't swallowed. So there is still some body fluid exchanged but many fewer specific risk factors in this group.
 
Well, technically HIV is transmitted by sex. But female to female transmission is almost unheard of. Is that true for HBV? I will be the first to admit I don't know much about STDs, or the risk of getting them.
Hepatitis B isn't frequently transmitted by regular sex but it does occur. The most frequent means of transmission in the US is via IVD use and anal intercourse. In areas of the world where the disease is more frequent, contaminated needles such as used in tattoo parlors and body piercing, contaminated medical equipment (big problem reusing disposable needles), unsafe blood products, and from mother to infant are the most common means of transmission.
 
Well put, Skeptigirl.

ETA:
Referring to post 425 there. :)
Thanks, maybe a little preachy but I thought it time to get to the actual issue here. Just pointing out the evidence wasn't making any difference. Not that my post will either but at least it is addressing the real issue. The real issue isn't a debate about the evidence. That debate was over long ago. The real issue in this thread is about false beliefs and conspiracy fantasies.
 
Last edited:
You have to consider also that the sexual contacts of this group are much more limited than hetero and especially male homo sex. The gay male community were having hundreds of casual partners when HIV pandemic took off. Aside from gay female IVD users and/or prostitutes, most gay women are not exposed to hundreds of different partners nor are their partners exposed to hundreds of partners. So just on chance encounters alone, they are fewer.

Then you have less exchange of body fluids when there is no semen. That leaves oral exposure are being the biggest risk and it also has less risk when semen isn't swallowed. So there is still some body fluid exchanged but many fewer specific risk factors in this group.


What really trips me out is how certain religious group use the rate of STDs in male homosexuals as verification that Gawd Awlmighty hates it.

God must really love lesbians then, huh?

:p
 
Thanks, maybe a little preachy but I thought it time to get to the actual issue here. Just pointing out the evidence wasn't making any difference. Not that my post will either but at least it is addressing the real issue. The real issue isn't a debate about the evidence. That debate was over long ago. The real issue in this thread is about false beliefs and conspiracy fantasies.


I just want to know why?
I can understand belief in homeopathy. It gives people a sense of power over life and death and illness, and a sense that there's a deeper, mysterious rhyme and reason at work in the world.
Ghosts go with the afterlife, which would be nifty. Same with OBE's and NDE's.

But what's the HIV thing about???

Just the ego boost from feeling like you're in on some big secret the "common man" is too simple minded and gullible to see? The repeated accusations of "junk science" leads me to believe it might be it. I guess?

It's perplexing.
 
If I am saying something, you would have no doubt about what I am saying. The evidence shows that HIV is not transmitted like any other STD, and even if you are infected, it doesn't mean you will get AIDS.

As to having unprotected sex with somebody who is HIV+, no thank you.
You are contradicting yourself here. If it isn't transmitted like any other STD, what specifically are the differences? Because HIV is indeed transmitted like any other STD. I believe you are confused about the degree of contagiousness vs means of transmission.

TB is not very contagious. You have to breathe in a lot of bacilli for enough of them to make it into the alveoli of your lung to begin to grow. Yet TB has infected somewhere between a third and a quarter of the human population. Only 10% of those infected develop disease.

Hepatitis B is extremely infectious. It has been suggested a single virus is enough to infect a person. Only ~5% of people infected will experience acute hepatitis. It is extremely severe and ~1% will die. Of the rest, ~10% become carriers usually without experiencing acute hepatitis. 85% of those infected will clear the virus without symptoms and without becoming a carrier or having an increased risk of liver cancer in the future.

This is just how infectious diseases work. There is nothing mysterious about HIV. Perhaps you also need to bring your science up to date. It sounds like you are operating on information you heard in the 80s.
 
Correlation does not imply causality, regardless of the amount of assertion provided.
No but if you keep doing the research you can determine if it is a correlation or a cause. That research has been done, repeated, and predictions tested.

The evidence is overwhelming. Douchberg and Mullis have had more than enough time to prove their theories. They haven't been able to. Remember it is the evidence which cannot be silenced. It eventually resolves the debates. It has resolved this one. You can believe your fantasy but the rest of the world has moved on.
 
....
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:
Gimme the money.

HIV escaping a helper T cell from Scientific American
tcells-hiv.jpg


Figure 11 Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) – Electron microscopy offers the advantage to study HIV in great detail. It is often used to study the life cycle of this special lentivirus, the pathway of viral entry, assembly of the vision, and variations caused by gene mutations. This EM image shows a group of HIV visions, and a viral budding at the cell surface.
Fig-11-HIV.jpg


Or try this link, the images were too large. Above: HIV in tissue culture, bold arrow indicates viral budding; Below: An individual viron; note the dense core particle.

Visualization of retrovirus budding with correlated light and electron microscopy

That HIV deniers web page is a propaganda scam. I'm sure they have the same excuses as our resident HIV denier, 'W'. Just the claim alone is bogus. There is nothing about an in vivo image of HIV (which is the Google search I used to find these images) which proves any more than all the other evidence. There is no $25,000. Those folks are not offering a real debunking the debunkers reward like Randi's. They are twisted thinkers and nothing more.
 
I just want to know why?
I can understand belief in homeopathy. It gives people a sense of power over life and death and illness, and a sense that there's a deeper, mysterious rhyme and reason at work in the world.
Ghosts go with the afterlife, which would be nifty. Same with OBE's and NDE's.

But what's the HIV thing about???

Just the ego boost from feeling like you're in on some big secret the "common man" is too simple minded and gullible to see? The repeated accusations of "junk science" leads me to believe it might be it. I guess?

It's perplexing.
I should probably re-read Shermer's book on why people believe weird things now that I have seen so many of these groups. This one falls into the conspiracy theorists category. Or maybe they all have components of CTs along with some other underlying false premises. Don't the homeopathy people believe in the Big Pharma conspiracies?
 
I just want to know why?
I can understand belief in homeopathy. It gives people a sense of power over life and death and illness, and a sense that there's a deeper, mysterious rhyme and reason at work in the world.
Ghosts go with the afterlife, which would be nifty. Same with OBE's and NDE's.

But what's the HIV thing about???

Just the ego boost from feeling like you're in on some big secret the "common man" is too simple minded and gullible to see? The repeated accusations of "junk science" leads me to believe it might be it. I guess?

It's perplexing.

Perhaps his Mom has flu when she was pregnant;)
 
So... the children of HIV-positive mothers had basically blood taken from them every opportunity. I don't think that the practice of taking blood samples from newborns is particularly healthy to them, and I hypothesize this may falsify the results.

Please provide evidence that this is the case.

Secondly, all infants, even ones that ultimately are HIV negative, have blood samples taken. HIV positive infants have a significantly higher mortality rate then HIV negative infants born of HIV positive parents. Thus, HIV still greatly effects the mortality rate of infants, even if there is an underlying "positive bias" because of them taking blood samples. Of course, you need to prove that taking blood samples of infants leads to a mortalilty increase anyway.

Different standards. African Hospitals may just tag "Uh, AIDS" on the report when kids die, making the entire study worthless.

Listen to what I am saying, W. The infants were NEVER given "AIDS" as a cause of death! I have already posted the section of the paper which talks about this. This study deals with HIV, not AIDS.

As a general rule, I don't trust anybody. Not even myself. In this particular case, the problem is not of trust but I can't study the study without access to the fulltext article.

I have posted most of the relevent sections which answer your objections.

Just as an aside, I would never mis-quote, deliberately quote-mine or make up results and pretend they are from the paper. I am morally objected to such behaviour when it comes to science. I think a few others on these boards would back up my statement, and there are others on these boards who will have access to the same papers.

The ultimate problem is, you just don't want to believe this study.

This study shows that being born of an HIV positive mother effects mortality rate, and being HIV positive greatly effects mortality rate. The statistical association is so strong, that nothing short of another, tested, hypothesis would discount this paper.
 
One thing I just noticed reading the abstract of the study again:
Translates to: HIV causes substantial mortality amongst african children, though we have no clue if the kids actually need to be infected with HIV for it to work its destructive magic:

It is obvious: The HI-Virus is so evil it even kills people it doesn't infect.

No, that's not true at all. They measured both mortality of HIV negative infants who were born of HIV positive mothers, and HIV positive infants. The mortality increase is marked in the former case, and greatly higher even then that in the latter case.
 
Correlation does not imply causality, regardless of the amount of assertion provided.

You need to read up on your statistics.

Correlation is used everywhere. Sure, it never proves causality, but given that science never "proves" anything anyway, this isn't a problem. Correlation without statistical tests means nothing. Correlation with statistical tests means everything.

I do genetics. Large swaths of genes are found using correlation and statistical tests.
 
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


Paradoxically, the ultimate devil's advocate concerning HIV isolation was Duesberg himself. :D
In 1996 he tried to claim the money offered for providing evidence that HIV has been isolated. (The first award above - variously known as the "Papadopoulos-Lanka" award or the Continuum award and upped to $25k)
He said:
I will argue that HIV exists, and has been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that (i) it has been isolated - even from its own virion structure - in the form of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and (ii) that HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in uninfected human cells. In view of this I can base my claim for the isolation of HIV on the most rigorous method available to date, i.e. molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNA
Since infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected human cells that is free of HIV's own proteins and RNA as well as from all cellular macromolecules, HIV isolation has passed the most vigorous standards available today.
But because only 1 in 100 T-cells are ever infected in humans, virtually all such studies use Kary Mullis' polymerase chain reaction, a technique that is designed to amplify a DNA-needle into a DNA-haystack. Such efforts have confirmed the existence of HIV-specific DNA in most (not all) antibody-positive persons with and without AIDS - but not in the DNA of antibody-negative people. For example Jackson et al have tested blood of 409 antibody-posuitives including 144 AIDS patients and 265 healthy people. In addition 131 antibody-negatives were tested. HIV-specific DNA subsets - defined in size and sequence by HIV-specific primers (start signals for the selective amplification) - were found in 403 of the 409 antibody-positives, but in none of the 131 antibody-negative people
In Conclusion
HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer. An infectious DNA of 9.15 kilo bases (kb) has been cloned from the cells of HIV-antibody-positive persons, that - upon transfection - induces the synthesis of an unique retrovirus. This DNA "isolates" HIV from all cellular molecules, even from viral proteins and RNA. Having cloned infectious DNA of HIV is as much isolation of HIV as one could possibly get. The retrovirus encoded by this infectious DNA reacts with the same antibodies that cross-react with Montagnier's global HIV standard, produced by immortal cell lines in many labs and companies around the world for the HIV-test. This confirms the existence of the retrovirus HIV.
The uniqueness of HIV is confirmed by the detection of HIV-specific DNA sequences in the DNA of most antibody positive people. The same DNA is not found in uninfected humans, and the probability to find such a sequence in any DNA sample is 1 in 4E9500 - which is much less likely than to encounter the same water molecule twice by swimming in the Pacific ocean every day of your life.
The existence of an unique retrovirus HIV provides a plausible explanation for the good (not perfect) correlation between the existence of HIV DNA and antibodies against it in thousands of people that have been subjected to both tests. The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge fails to explain this correlation.
Ergo: The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge is rejected. HIV exists and has been isolated. *

Despite providing the evidence, Duesberg could not persuade them to pay him the money. As with all denialist offers, the goalposts just kept moving to render any claim unacceptable.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom