AIDS (hah)

[Deetee]

Gimme the money.

Sorry, Duesberg got there first! (See above - he didn't get the money either)

Providing EMs of HIV won't satisfy the denialists either - they just claim they see "microvesicles", not virions.

 

[Taffer]

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?

Do you have any evidence that any of the things you've mentioned above should be worried about?

 

[Dabljuh]

Please provide evidence that this is the case.

No. I consider it self-evident that bleeding detrimental to an infant's health. In addition: You are asking for "Evidence" but then you are satisfied by papers. Evidence looks different, papers are just reports and opinions of other people.

Secondly, all infants, even ones that ultimately are HIV negative, have blood samples taken.

I read the study that only the kids of HIV positive mothers had blood samples taken.

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.

Yes you have posted the section of the paper. It said the hospitals records were used. If there were no records, they used their own guy, who would never use "AIDS" as a diagnosis, to interview the doctors.

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.

That is about I judge you to judge yourself. Of course you wouldn't do any deliberate misinterpretation, neither would I, would I?

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.

As robinson has said earlier. There's a couple things very odd with this study. I'm not going to accept this study easily or without much scrutiny.

 

[Dabljuh]

Do you have any evidence that any of the things you've mentioned above should be worried about?

Not really, it's just very odd. PCR is viewed as the "gold standard" of HIV tests. They tested the Mothers, once, with double-ELISA (and in the case of discordant results, a western blot), and then they test the kids - repeatedly - with PCR. Would you do it that way? Wouldn't it make more sense, since you appear to have access to a vast number of PCR tests, to test everyone with the same test? Why would they do it the way they did? It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

 

[Belz...]

That has never happened. You are speculating here.You haven't read most of the thread, have you? Basically the argument is that in africa, "AIDS" is just an umbrella for diseases which happened already a lot before the HIV scare.

They wouldn't die quite so often of those diseases if their immune system worked, would they ?

 

[Dabljuh]

They wouldn't die quite so often of those diseases if their immune system worked, would they ?

Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?

 

[Belz...]

Sexually transmitted diseases such as syphillis usually transmit about once per ~3-4 or so unprotected acts. HIV transmits, at the very best, once in 1000-2000 unprotected acts.

Huh ?

Is it my imagination, W, or do you simply hand-wave every evidence that exists by simply stating that it could be wrong ?

Why are you so invested in this theory of yours ?

 

[Belz...]

Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?

Answer the question, W. Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?

 

[Taffer]

No. I consider it self-evident that bleeding detrimental to an infant's health.

How much blood is taken?

In addition: You are asking for "Evidence" but then you are satisfied by papers. Evidence looks different, papers are just reports and opinions of other people.

Peer-review journal articles are descriptions of the evidence. That's what the "results" section is for, W. Only the "Discussion" section is the opinion of the authors.

If you do not accept peer-review articles, then what do you accept?

I read the study that only the kids of HIV positive mothers had blood samples taken.

Even if it was only the kids of HIV positive mothers who had blood samples taken, the difference between the mortality rate of those with HIV and those without HIV within this group is just as telling as comparing the mortality rate to infants born of non-HIV positive mothers.

Yes you have posted the section of the paper. It said the hospitals records were used. If there were no records, they used their own guy, who would never use "AIDS" as a diagnosis, to interview the doctors.

Um, no. Spoken reports were used, yes, but it never said it was "by their own guy". All causes of death were given by independant parties.

That is about I judge you to judge yourself. Of course you wouldn't do any deliberate misinterpretation, neither would I, would I?

I don't know. I'm not calling you a liar, am I? I'm asking for you to provide your proof.

As robinson has said earlier. There's a couple things very odd with this study. I'm not going to accept this study easily or without much scrutiny.

Of course you're not. You do not want to accept it, because then it destroys your silly little world view you hold.

 

[Taffer]

Not really, it's just very odd. PCR is viewed as the "gold standard" of HIV tests. They tested the Mothers, once, with double-ELISA (and in the case of discordant results, a western blot), and then they test the kids - repeatedly - with PCR. Would you do it that way? Wouldn't it make more sense, since you appear to have access to a vast number of PCR tests, to test everyone with the same test? Why would they do it the way they did? It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Of course, I forgot that only things that make sense to you are acceptable as evidence.

I don't know, why don't you ask the authors of the paper?

 

[Taffer]

Or if they had food... Sanitation... Medical supplies... right?

The study we have just been discussing clearly shows that HIV is a huge factor in infant mortality.

Or are you suggesting that these results have been falsified as well?

Where are your studies which show the huge effect that all these other factors play in infant mortality of HIV positive infants?

 

[Dabljuh]

Answer the question, W. Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?

Answer the question, do you believe the immune system works when you're starving and living in a world of feces without access to medical supplies?

 

[Taffer]

Answer the question, do you believe the immune system works when you're starving and living in a world of feces without access to medical supplies?

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals who die live in situations like this?

 

[Dabljuh]

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals who die live in situations like this?

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals that do not live in conditions such as these, also die?

 

[Capsid]

Not really, it's just very odd. PCR is viewed as the "gold standard" of HIV tests. They tested the Mothers, once, with double-ELISA (and in the case of discordant results, a western blot), and then they test the kids - repeatedly - with PCR. Would you do it that way? Wouldn't it make more sense, since you appear to have access to a vast number of PCR tests, to test everyone with the same test? Why would they do it the way they did? It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

It may be that neonates do not mount a good antibody response to HIV and the antibody tests (which are very reliable these days) would not be appropriate; therfore a PCR test is necessary (but more expensive so not used for the mothers) to confirm the HIV+ status.

 

[Taffer]

Evidence that all HIV positive individuals that do not live in conditions such as these, also die?

The study we have been discussing. Unless you wish to postulate that all infants who died lived in said conditions, and you would have to provide evidence of this, then given the number of of deaths, and the statistical evaluation of said deaths, it is clear that HIV infection affects mortality rate.

If you wish to claim otherwise, either find objection with the paper, or provide counter evidence. I'm more then a little tired of your hand-waving and unsupported claims.

 

[Dabljuh]

The study we have been discussing. Unless you wish to postulate that all infants who died lived in said conditions, and you would have to provide evidence of this, then given the number of of deaths, and the statistical evaluation of said deaths, it is clear that HIV infection affects mortality rate.

If you wish to claim otherwise, either find objection with the paper, or provide counter evidence. I'm more then a little tired of your hand-waving and unsupported claims.

You keep claiming the infant mortality paper (which I have still not reviewed in full) would show evidence for a causal link between HIV infection status and mortality, which is simply not the case. All that's shown is an apparently strong correlation.

I can instantly show you a strong correlation: People in 3rd world countries die more easily than in first world countries, regardless of their HIV status. Now your argument, in support of the HIV-AIDS theory would be that HIV is more prevalent in the third world and thus causes those increased mortality rates. But here's my real question: WHY is there an increased HIV prevalence in the third world?

 

[Dabljuh]

It may be that neonates do not mount a good antibody response to HIV and the antibody tests (which are very reliable these days) would not be appropriate; therfore a PCR test is necessary (but more expensive so not used for the mothers) to confirm the HIV+ status.

Good enough for me (But still odd)

 

[Dabljuh]

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.

I'd say it has to do with a certain, esoteric world view. "Esoteric" can be translated to mean "Knowledge only available to the inner circle" - It's basically a reverse conspiracy theory. In addition, new age fuzzies who believe in Yin and Chi and all that crap have an easier time to believe in homeopathy's "magical properties" than in materialism, which is represented by the establishment of medical science, or some people would even say: materialistic reductionism.

But what's the HIV thing about???

The same thing probably, discordance with the basic world view. In my case for example, I have come to become extremely sceptical of all medical sciences, you could call it "medical paranoia" - I don't think homeopathy is anything more than a placebo, but I also am not convinced of several treatments the pharmaceutical establishment offers. Edit: What basically made me like this was my study of the practice of circumcision. I simply came across too many bullpoop papers and studies to equate anything published in a peer reviewed medical journal with "Evidence"...

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?

Nah, I don't care about the common man. I'm about scientific integrity. If you review the scientific interview on HIV, you learn that so much that was considered general knowledge, stuff that was taught in sex ed classes etc, is completely wrong. I don't know about you, but a short while back when I, the first time, looked at the definition of what AIDS is, I realized there's something definitely wrong with the whole story.

Basically, and euphemistically in your view no doubt, I would say this is about scientific integrity. I don't want to believe and act in accordance with crap that's not true.

I have always asserted that I believe there is a realistic possibility that HIV is detrimental to *some* infected people's health, but even if so, the danger that HIV may actually pose is in no relation with the sort of PR it gets. And this sort of PR has also prevented the "science establishment" from making realistic assessments of HIV's actual danger. If you just look at the studies that investigate sexual transmission of HIV, you realize it's hilarious to call this a "sexually transmitted disease"

But this has more ramifications. If it's not really an STD, why did almost only the gay guys get it? If the other studies are false and it is an STD, why didn't it spread into the general population? Or did it? And then we have "african HIV" which supposedly acts completely different from "first-world-HIV"?

Eventually you realize the shocking truth: The virus is in fact a miniature clone of Fred Phelps, hating the gays and the blacks. Or something. I mean eventually you build up a theory when you try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

 

[Taffer]

You keep claiming the infant mortality paper (which I have still not reviewed in full) would show evidence for a causal link between HIV infection status and mortality, which is simply not the case. All that's shown is an apparently strong correlation.

The causal link would be, in my mind, the fact that HIV damages the immune system.

Also, often in science all we ever get are strong correlations.

I can instantly show you a strong correlation: People in 3rd world countries die more easily than in first world countries, regardless of their HIV status. Now your argument, in support of the HIV-AIDS theory would be that HIV is more prevalent in the third world and thus causes those increased mortality rates. But here's my real question: WHY is there an increased HIV prevalence in the third world?

This has nothing to do with the paper. The paper shows a correlation between infant mortality within a third world country. It does not compare the mortality rate to first world countries, as you seem to be implying here. It is simply relative of other people, all within the same socio-economic status, who do not have HIV. It shows a clear link between HIV infection and infant mortality.