AIDS (hah)

[Dabljuh]

all within the same socio-economic status, who do not have HIV.

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

 

[Hellbound]

Capsid:

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.

 

[Hellbound]

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

Wow, you really are that ignorant.

Try reading what he wrote again, turn off your bias, and think about it for a second. Because your question makes no sense in light of what he's stated (or of how the study was done).

 

[Dabljuh]

Wow, you really are that ignorant.

Try reading what he wrote again, turn off your bias, and think about it for a second. Because your question makes no sense in light of what he's stated (or of how the study was done).

I think I have understood, and I think my question makes sense. You apparently don't understand why I asked what I asked.

 

[Hellbound]

I think I have understood, and I think my question makes sense. You apparently don't understand why I asked what I asked.

I understand exactly why you asked.

I don't understand how your answer would be relevent to a study in which ALL the participants were HIV positive...unless you want to argue that the HIV-negative babies somehow had a higher socio-ecomonic class than their HIV-positive mothers? Did Junior go out and get a job flipping burgers at 3 months? Or finish a college degree and become an executive?

Seriously, reading comprehension is a good skill to have.

 

[Dabljuh]

I understand exactly why you asked.

I don't understand how your answer would be relevent to a study in which ALL the participants were HIV positive...unless you want to argue that the HIV-negative babies somehow had a higher socio-ecomonic class than their HIV-positive mothers? Did Junior go out and get a job flipping burgers at 3 months? Or finish a college degree and become an executive?

Seriously, reading comprehension is a good skill to have.

Haha @ Reading comprehension. Not all participants of the study were HIV infected.

Methods: Children enrolled in the ZVITAMBO trial were divided into 5 groups: those born to HIV-negative mothers (NE, n = 9510), those born to HIV-positive mothers but noninfected (NI, n = 3135), those infected in utero (IU, n = 381), those infected intrapartum (IP, n = 508), and those infected postnatally (PN, n = 258). Their mortality was estimated.

Which raises the question: Is there a correlation between socio-economic status and HIV infection? Between socio-economic status and mortality? Were these factors taken into consideration?

Here's the actual study (Giving Vitamin A (???) to Mother-child pairs) Link Another Link. Ohh look, the HIV+ folks were given Antiretrovirals, too?

I think I just pwnt that study.

 

[Capsid]

Capsid:

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.

That's excellent! The PCR has to be done on the infants because they may be scored HIV+ by the HIV specific maternal antibodies.

 

[Taffer]

To be fair, Huntsman, the paper does compare the mortality rate of HIV negative infants born of HIV negative mothers to both HIV negative infants born of HIV positive mothers, and HIV positive infants born of HIV positive infants.

However, his question is still pointless:

Please provide "evidence" to show that HIV positive folks are socio-economically identical to HIV negative folks. Within the study, or in the country, or in general.

In addition: Answer the question.

Firstly, is there any reason to believe they wouldn't be of the same socio-economic status?

Secondly, even if you are right and all the HIV negative mothers have higher standards of living, it doesn't matter. A statistically significant increase in mortality between HIV negative and HIV positive infants born of HIV positive mothers is shown in the study.

You will need another explanation.

 

[Taffer]

Capsid:

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.

This is an excellent point.

Anymore hand-waving, W?

 

[Hellbound]

Haha @ Reading comprehension. Not all participants of the study were HIV infected. Which raises the question: Is there a correlation between socio-economic status and HIV infection? Between socio-economic status and mortality? Were these factors taken into consideration?

Here's the actual study (Giving Vitamin A (???) to Mother-child pairs) Link

But, again, it makes no difference. There was a vast difference in the study between HIV- babies born to HIV+ mothers, and HIV+ babies born to HIV+ mothers. The idea that HIV+'s are in a differing socio-economic class would explain exactly nothing in regards to this result. The clear indication here (without counter-evidence or a lot of post hoc rationalization, as you're engaging in), is that HIV+ status increases mortality.

 

[Hellbound]

Taffer:

Yes, but we're specifically discussing the difference in mortality rates between HIV+ and HIV- children born to HIV+ mothers. That's the significant difference here (IMHO).

 

[Dabljuh]

I think you guys missed the part where they gave antiretrovirals to the HIV+ infants and mothers. Since it is part of my hypothesis that antiretrovirals cause more harm than good, any difference in mortality can be explained within the drug-aids hypothesis. Or in other words: PWNT!

 

[Father Dagon]

That has never happened. You are speculating here.

It hasn't happended beacuse it's hard and expensive to create and maintain such an environment. And the hiv-positive might prefer to live for 10 years, rather than be a test tube-object for 15 years.

Humans live in a symbiotic relation with the bacterii in the digestive tract. And different people carries different "bacterii soups" in their systems. If you think that it's irrelevant, consider the risks of anallingus and the indians who died of smallpox...

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. People die to these diseases because of malnutrition, lack of education, lack of medical supplies, lack of sanitation, well, basically, these people die of poverty-related disease. But its much better if they die of AIDS because then a huge number of people make huge amounts of money off these people dying.

You haven't understood what hiv/AIDS is about, have you? No informed person is claiming that AIDS is a disease in it's own right, only a partial or total lack of defenses against contagious diseases.

Let's say that USA abolishes its armed forces and liquidiate all their assets. Let's also say that Canada and Mexico turn into dictatorships. (No war between democracies, you know.) In the Canadian-occupied parts of USA, people are forced to enjoy ice hockey. In the Mexican-occupied parts of USA, people are forced to enjoy salsa dance.

Barring the freudian implications of hockey and salsa (showing off in order to find a mate) they have nothing in common. And those parts first invaded by the two states was already more or less influenced by it's neighbour.

But could anyone say that the reasons to the occupations are particular and that they have nothing to do with the abolishment of the armed forces?

And regarding the diseases in Africa, it would be very strange if people with AIDS got "unknown" diseases. Even more strange than if an unarmed USA was invaded by Lichtenstein...

 

[Taffer]

Taffer:

Yes, but we're specifically discussing the difference in mortality rates between HIV+ and HIV- children born to HIV+ mothers. That's the significant difference here (IMHO).

Oh, I know that. I was just being as accurate as possible.

 

[Dabljuh]

Taffer, just out of interest:

Are the antiretrovirals mentioned anywhere in the fulltext article? If so, why have you failed to mention this *interesting* little tidbit? Or have you just overlooked them?

 

[Hellbound]

I think you guys missed the part where they gave antiretrovirals to the HIV+ infants and mothers. Since it is part of my hypothesis that antiretrovirals cause more harm than good, any difference in mortality can be explained within the drug-aids hypothesis. Or in other words: PWNT!

Or in other words: You're using one unsupported hyptohesis as proof of another unsupported hypothesis?

Just out of curiosity, which is larger: 0.5 * 0.5, or 0.5 + 0.4? You seem to believe the former.

The more post hoc rationalizations you throw, the less likely your theory is...not more.

Support your claims on antiretrovirals before using that as a basis for argument...so far, all the evidence shows that antiretrovirals work wonders at prolonging lifespan in HIV+ patients.

 

[Taffer]

I think you guys missed the part where they gave antiretrovirals to the HIV+ infants and mothers. Since it is part of my hypothesis that antiretrovirals cause more harm than good, any difference in mortality can be explained within the drug-aids hypothesis. Or in other words: PWNT!

Um... no they weren't.

And the correct past tense of "pwn" is "pwned".

Taffer, just out of interest:

Are the antiretrovirals mentioned anywhere in the fulltext article? If so, why have you failed to mention this *interesting* little tidbit? Or have you just overlooked them?

Yes, it is mentioned. Why haven't I mentioned it? Because none of the individuals in the study were given antiretroviral treatment, as far as I am aware. I just double checked the study, and the only mention of any antiretrovirals were in the context of "we should be giving these people antiretrovirals to stop infant deaths".

I have no idea why you thought they were given ART as part of the study.

 

[Hellbound]

By the way, Dbljuh, you need to read the full article before showing your ignorance:

Indeed, mortality was even higher among the infected infants in ZVITAMBO compared with the pooled analysis (50% vs 35% at 12 months and 63% vs 53% at 24 months), no doubt because IU and IP infants made up 77% of the infected infants in ZVITAMBO compared with 39% in the pooled analysis, which included 3 trials providing ARV prophylaxis primarily targeting IP transmission

ZVITAMBO was only one of the trials used (although it provided the majority of the data), and that trial, as stated here, did NOT provide ARV to the HIV+ participants.

Just to add to this, it also showed a CLEAR increase in mortality among those NOT recieving ARV therapy, thus blowing away the second part of your "hypothesis" as well.

What was that you said? Oh yes...

PWNT!

ETA: Now I have to explain to my wife why I spent $27 today...

 

[Thabiguy]

It's also a possibilioty that the baby (especially soon after birth) would contain antibodies it had recieved from the mother, and thus an antibody test would have the possibility of leading to many false positives in the infants.

This is indeed the case (source):

The interpretation of HIV-1 antibody results in infants who are born to HIV-infected mothers may be difficult because maternal immunoglobulin G (IgG) crosses the placenta. These maternal antibodies can persist for as long as 15 months.[2,9] For this reason, virtually all infants born to ELISA/WB-positive mothers are also ELISA/WB positive.[9] In this situation, other tests are required to determine HIV status. Recommended tests include serial HIV antibody testing of infants up to 15 months of age, p24 antigen testing, and PCR testing.[2,9] PCR is considered the most useful test for determining HIV status in newborns.[10-14] The PCR test itself, when done at 1 month of age or after, has a sensitivity of 95% to 97% and a specificity of 98.6% to 100%.[4,10,12,14]

I underlined the important stuff. I also saw the very same thing (about false seropositivity in HIV- infants born to HIV+ mothers) at several general webpages about antibody tests.

Not only is using PCR (as opposed to cheaper ELISA/WB) for newborns not odd, it is necessary. Also, this speaks volumes about the level of knowledge and insight into the matter of someone who finds this practice "odd" and their qualification to question the validity of HIV studies.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Yes, it does, because the immune system doesn't stop working when you're hungry or cold.

Now, why do you so stubbornly refuse to answer my question ?

Do you think you've got a better chance of survival if your immune system works when you get a disease ?

A simple yes or no will do.