Do HIV and AIDS exist

[robinson]

Actually I was more concerned that I had the apostrophe in the wrong place.

I wondered about it as well. I did check with an up to date dictionary in your case, just to be sure. Not accepted as a word yet, so there is no clear cut way to tell if the apostrophe is correct or not. However, so you know, [sic] is used to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted original and is not a transcription error. It doesn't hurt to make sure when quoting someone. For example, in the next post, it isn't spelling, but lack of Caps that calls for a [sic].

Also look how many non germanic[sic] words you use every day. They are all wrong because english[sic] is a germanic[sic] language.

Also email and blog I guess are not real words either.

Email and blog are accepted words. Your logic is faulty. According to you, denailist is a word, because Google has listings for it. So is denilist[sic], coincidince[sic], coincidinc[sic], halocost[sic] and conshunse[sic]. It is interesting however, that Google recognizes denialist[sic], possibly due to the number of times it is used in blogs.

Why so much hate from the religious left? Robinson is only asking questions, hes not raping your mom's eye-holes

That made me laugh. Thanks.

Robinson isn't just "asking questions" either, which you'd known if you'd actually read his posts.

Oh the horror, somebody isn't reading? Such pain...such loss...how to continue under the strain ... oh the suffering, the horror .......

I think "dumbfounded" is more apt than "hate".

I'm thinking just dumb, but thats just me.

Questions are fine. Not listening to the answers...not so much.

I notice that nobody has responded to the issue of actually checking data out, rather than just believing what somebody claims. I thought skeptics didn't just accept stuff, but wanted to know, and to be able to verify. The anecdote about all the deaths in Africa wasn't questioned at all. When I pointed out the facts, as represented by official websites, nobody responded at all. Isn't that strange?

Its almost like, well, its like you don't want to know, or to deal with the issue. Like, gee, like a woo would do. Ain't that a hoot?

It's that the ability to misunderstand, misinterpret, and ignore seems to grow exponentially; creating elaborate and wondrous conspiracies from the mundane. What you see is the undercurrent of envy from those who are hampered by knowledge and rationality from joining the flights of fancy.

I'm thinking it is the ability to try and sidetrack the issue, rather than face it head on. It does seem like somebody is getting their ox gored. Or perhaps a sacred cow is being roasted. (They do make the tastiest hamburgers.)

Ah well. Nobody has been harmed in the making of this conversation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robinson, I don't like to insult people but the only way I can put this is to say you don't seem to realize how uninformed you are. Because you don't realize how uninformed you are, you don't realize how far over your head the research in HIV actually is.

It seems to be a common occurrence for people to draw all sorts of conclusions about any scientific subject from astronomy to microbiology based on the most naive level of understanding of the actual science. HIV and just about all viral research today relies heavily on genetic science. No one needs to follow a lab accident leading to an HIV infection and subsequent AIDS onset. That's something we would have been doing 25 years ago.

Today's research involves looking at the genetic and basic molecular structures of the cells and the viruses.

In the early 80s it took several years to find and confirm the identity of the AIDS virus. A couple years ago it took a couple months to find the SARS virus and track down the civet cat reservoir from which human infection was acquired.

In 1976, we crudely identified a swine flu virus that caused a small but deadly outbreak at Fort Dix. In 2005 the H5N1 "bird" flu virus is being tracked by its genome, we have already identified several strains called clades, we know which segment of the genome, which nucleotides and how many need to change (mutate) for the virus to become infectious from person to person.

The science here is way over the level you are discussing it on. As far as the microbiology, I'm an infectious disease practitioner and half of it is over my head. I'm afraid your discussion is simply naive. So here's a tiny sample of the molecular and genetic body of scientific knowledge that exists for HIV-AIDS. And I do mean tiny sample.

Soluble adhesion molecules and endothelial cell damage in HIV infected patients

Mechanism of B and T cell death during HIV infection

We and other groups have shown that T and B cells from infected subjects are primed for apoptosis. The expression of Fas and FasL (pivotal molecules in the regulation of apoptosis) is increased, indicating that this receptor-ligand pair may play a crucial role for loss of immune cells. One crucial question is the characterization of the molecular pathway leading to up-regulation of Fas and FasL during HIV infection. The expression of these molecules is increased on B and T cells in blood from the early stages of infection, already at the time of primary infection.

We found that memory B cells are lost in infected patients, likely due to terminal differentiation of memory B cells to plasma cells. The effector function of B cells is also impaired during HIV infection in that we found a decline of antibodies to previously met antigens either during childhood or through vaccination. Also, a limited amount of neutralizing antibodies, aimed at controlling virus infection, is produced in HIV infected subjects who progress to AIDS.

We believe that the understanding of the mechanisms leading to cell damage during AIDS may be important to design future anti-HIV therapies and vaccines. Studies which we conduct on additional groups of immunocompromised patients may help to through light on the mechanism of T and B cell depletion during HIV infection.

Chapter title: Viral Mechanisms of Pathogenicity

# Syncytia [giant cells]

1. Big cells:
1. Syncytia multi-nucleated , giant cells formed through the fusion of host cells .
2. Syncytia get large, are unwieldy, and, ultimately, die prematurely.
2. For HIV , syncytia form because infected cells display viral adsorption proteins (i.e., envelope proteins ) on their surface. These bind to uninfected cells and cause plasma membrane fusion.

Molecular Mechanism of Hepatic Injury in Coinfection with Hepatitis C Virus and HIV

Author(s) Anuradha Balasubramanian, Margaret Koziel, Jerome E. Groopman, and Ramesh K. Ganju
Identifiers Clinical Infectious Diseases, volume 41 (2005), pages S32–S37
DOI: 10.1086/429493
PubMed ID: 16265611
Availability This site: PS | HTML | PDF (449.0k)
Copyright © 2005, the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Abstract We have previously shown that hepatocytes exposed to hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) envelope proteins undergo apoptosis. In this article, we further elucidate the signaling mechanisms that mediate this effect. We found that, in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells, HCV E2 protein and HIV glycoprotein (gp) 120 significantly up-regulated the Fas ligand (FasL) and enhanced the formation of the Fas deathndashinducing signaling complex downstream of Fas receptor activation. Moreover, after stimulation with HCV E2 and HIV gp120, enhanced expression of caspases 2 and 7 and increased caspase 3 activity were observed. In addition, we showed up-regulation of the proapoptotic molecule Bid and its association with caspase 8 after treatment with these envelope proteins. We also found that HCV E2 and HIV gp120 induced a partial translocation of Bid to the mitochondria, which resulted in the release of cytochrome C and the apoptosis-inducing factor. Thus, the results of this study suggest that FasL and Bid play an important role in HCV and HIV envelope proteinndashinduced apoptosis.

Apoptosis and AIDS

The hallmark of AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is the decline in the number of the patient's CD4+ T cells (normally about 1000 per microliter (µl) of blood). CD4+ T cells are responsible, directly or indirectly (as helper cells), for all immune responses. When their number declines below about 200 per µl, the patient is no longer able to mount effective immune responses and begins to suffer a series of dangerous infections.

What causes the disappearance of CD4+ T cells?
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) invades CD4+ T cells, and one might assume that it this infection by HIV that causes the great dying-off of these cells. However, that appears not to the main culprit. Fewer than 1 in 100,000 CD4+ T cells in the blood of AIDS patients are actually infected with the virus.

So what kills so many uninfected CD4+ cells?

The answer is clear: apoptosis.
The mechanism is not clear. There are several possibilities. One of them:

* All T cells, both infected and uninfected, express Fas.
* Expression of a HIV gene (called Nef) in a HIV-infected cell causes
o the cell to express high levels of FasL at its surface
o while preventing an interaction with its own Fas from causing it to self-destruct.
* However, when the infected T cell encounters an uninfected one (e.g. in a lymph node), the interaction of FasL with Fas on the uninfected cell kills it by apoptosis.

The Mechanism of HIV-1 VPR-mediated G2 Arrest: Roles of the Host Cell DNA Damage Signaling Pathway.

Conf Retrovir Opportunistic Infect 2004 Feb 8-11; 11: (abstract no. 375)

Zimmerman E, Walker J, Planelles V; Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

BACKGROUND: HIV-1 Vpr induces G2 cell cycle arrest in infected CD4+ cells. Vpr mediates this effect via activation of the host cell ATR-dependent DNA damage pathway. However, the mechanism of ATR activation by Vpr is poorly understood. When ATR-dependent G2 arrest is induced in response to genotoxic stress, it is known to require the participation of Rad17. We investigated this requirement for Rad17 in the context of Vpr-induced G2 arrest. If Vpr activates ATR in a classical manner, then we expect Vpr-mediated G2 arrest to require known constituents of the ATR-dependent DNA damage pathway. In addition, we have tested the potential role of ATM in contributing to the DNA damage signal initiated by Vpr.

METHODS: We used RNA interference via either transfected siRNA duplexes or shRNAs endogenously expressed from a transfected plasmid in order to knock down ATR, Rad17, and/or ATM. HeLa cells were infected with lentiviral vectors encoding either HIV-1 Vpr or GFP. Cell cycle analysis was performed by flow cytometry. Gene knockdown was confirmed by Western blotting.

RESULTS: ATR knockdown by RNAi relieved Vpr-induced G2 arrest. ATM knockdown alone did not affect G2 arrest. Furthermore, simultaneous ATM and ATR knockdown did not relieve G2 arrest more than ATR knockdown alone. Surprisingly, Rad17 knockdown did not relieve G2 arrest to any extent.

CONCLUSIONS: ATR is necessary for HIV-1 Vpr-induced G2 arrest. Although Rad17 is known to be required for ATR-dependent G2 arrest in the face of DNA damage, it may not be required for Vpr-mediated activation of the ATR pathway. ATM is not required for Vpr-mediated G2 arrest, nor does it add to the degree of G2 arrest elicited by ATR activation. We conclude that Vpr activates very selectively the ATR dependent DNA damage sensitive pathway, and in a very unusual manner which does not require the presence of Rad17. Since Vpr is necessary for efficient viral replication future investigations about the function of Vpr may reveal novel targets for therapeutic intervention.

Dr. Badley is attempting to describe the role of a particular protein—HIV protease—in the killing process.

Dr. Badley's group has demonstrated that protease expression inside a cell can independently cause cell death. The next step is to track the molecular pathways involved in the death of those cells with an eye to constructing roadblocks on the pathways, thus preventing cell death.

"It's early days yet but we have good evidence that HIV protease can kill, and good evidence that it kills through a classical caspase-dependent pathway," says Dr. Badley. "We have some early evidence to suggest the location of the cleavage site within procaspase 8. Now we're taking that new cleavage fragment and trying to figure out how it activates the signaling pathways."

Caspases are a family of enzymes that cause cell death by essentially digesting structures within the cell's cytoplasm. Procaspase 8 is the particular caspase that interacts with protease. HIV protease controls the cleavage of proteins required to generate viral particles. The site where this occurs is called a cleavage site.

Dr. Badley's group has furthered the understanding of classical viral genetics through their discoveries.

"In studies done in other labs, mice that were induced to overproduce HIV protease in specific organs, developed tissue injury," explains Dr Badley. "We think the death process of the organ is due to the caspase 8-dependent cell death pathway."

 

[Deetee]

I notice that nobody has responded to the issue of actually checking data out, rather than just believing what somebody claims. I thought skeptics didn't just accept stuff, but wanted to know, and to be able to verify. The anecdote about all the deaths in Africa wasn't questioned at all. When I pointed out the facts, as represented by official websites, nobody responded at all. Isn't that strange?

Sorry Robinson, your posts are so schizoid and wandersome on this subject that pertinent questions you may have asked were swamped by the chaff.

I am happy to specifically respond, with supporting evidence, to any specific orthodox claim about HIV that you are challenging. Give me the Africa anecdote again and I will look at it for you. I am not however prepared to weigh into every fallacy you raise with your scatter gun approach to this issue. As they say, no time wasters please.

You are correct in many of your statements, incorrect in others. Of course not everyone exposed to an infection becomes infected, nor does everyone infected become ill. Don't be disingenuous by pretending this is what we claim.

As regards the definition or acceptance of words in modern usage, do you agree there is a word called denialism?
Are you a denialism denialist?
Or do you just think denial is just a river in Egypt?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Email and blog are accepted words. Your logic is faulty. According to you, denailist is a word, because Google has listings for it. So is denilist[sic], coincidince[sic], coincidinc[sic], halocost[sic] and conshunse[sic]. It is interesting however, that Google recognizes denialist[sic], possibly due to the number of times it is used in blogs.

And germanic is the correct spelling. As for accepted, accepted by who? Are you accepting dictionaries that just document use or try to give "proper usage"

are you saying Denailist is misspelled now? That is a different claim than being not a word.

 

[Cuddles]

Not everyone who has been exposed to HIV <influenza> has tested positive for it, and those that have, not all of them have developed AIDS <a cold>.

See where I'm going here? I would question your comprehension of germ theory and medicine, but having read previous posts of yours on homeopathy and Cayce I already know you have none.

In fact, you summed it up quite well yourself :

I'm thinking just dumb, but thats just me.

 

[fls]

I'm thinking just dumb, but thats just me.

Well, I got in trouble for saying this before, but I'm still convinced it bears repeating.

Assuming people who are have knowledge and experience within a particular field are "dumb" will almost certainly lead you astray.

I notice that nobody has responded to the issue of actually checking data out, rather than just believing what somebody claims. I thought skeptics didn't just accept stuff, but wanted to know, and to be able to verify. The anecdote about all the deaths in Africa wasn't questioned at all. When I pointed out the facts, as represented by official websites, nobody responded at all. Isn't that strange?

We have all responded to the idea of actually checking data out. We think it's a really good idea, but pointed out that you do a crappy job.

It's not strange that we didn't respond to your "facts". They did not actually contradict the anecdote - i.e. the statistics are too coarse to demonstrate what Evilbiker mentioned.

Its almost like, well, its like you don't want to know, or to deal with the issue. Like, gee, like a woo would do. Ain't that a hoot?

I admit that sometimes I am paralyzed when faced with "where do I even start?" My justification for inaction may be something like "nothing will penetrate anyway", but that's a lame excuse.

I'm thinking it is the ability to try and sidetrack the issue, rather than face it head on. It does seem like somebody is getting their ox gored. Or perhaps a sacred cow is being roasted. (They do make the tastiest hamburgers.)

Ah well. Nobody has been harmed in the making of this conversation.

What is the issue? That HIV is the cause of AIDS? Not a controversy among the informed and therefore boring - thereby making it the perfect breeding ground for pseudo-controversy. And I'd say we're facing the issue of pseudo-controversy head on.

Linda

 

[Deetee]

Can you provide any recent figures on AIDS/HIV in Malawi? Sorry, but as a skeptic, I like to know if something is true or not. Some quick checking,(I looked it up)
http://www.globalhealthreporting.or...&malIC=1247&tbIC=1248&map=1253&con=Malawi&p=1

HIV/AIDS in Malawi

12,158,924: population of Malawi (July 2005 est.)

940,000: Estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

14.1%: Estimated percentage of adults (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

500,000: Estimated number of women (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

91,000: Estimated number of children (ages 0-15) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2005

78,000: Estimated number of deaths due to AIDS during 2005

Those figures make no sense, if AIDS is wiping out the population. Especially in children.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/malawi.htm
Population children <5 years old 2,262,359 (2004)
Annual live births 545,602 (2004)
Life expectancy at birth - male 35.7 years (2001)
Life expectancy at birth - female 36.7 years (2001)

or

http://www.afro.who.int/malaria/country-profile/malawi.pdf

Total population 1990, 9,434,000
Total population 2002, 11,848,000

Annual population growth rate 1990 - 1.21
Annual population growth rate 2002 - 2.36

Pop. less than 5 years 1990- 1,821,000
Pop. less than 5 years 2002 - 2,156,000

Are the people there getting some kind of super health care that allows them to not come down with AIDS? If AIDS is killing most everybody off, how is the population rising? Malaria seems to be a constant still.

Malaria cases reported
1990 - 3,870,904
2002 - 1,362,742

Malaria deaths
1990 - 57,649
2002 - 57,649

The data doesn't seem to match the report that AIDS is "wiping out" the population.

Right - I found your bit about the Africa "anecdote".

What is it about these figures that you fail to comprehend?
That if more kids are born than people die, then the population still grows?

Birth rates are very high in Africa. Mortality rates have been rising, but are still outpaced by the capacity to have children. HIV does not significantly impact on birth rates. Life expectancy has declined.

You have fallen into the denialists' fallacy of assuming that if HIV/AIDS is prevalent in a population then de facto the overall population growth must be negative, and if it is not, then hey presto! - AIDS does not exist.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have a suggestion. Any thread robinson posts in, PM me with the number of his posts you think it will take before he calls someone "dumb", either directly or indirectly. As for prizes, the winner(s) will get the honour of putting the robinson ‘I’m a dumbo’ gif in their posts for the rest of that thread.

 

[robinson]

Right - I found your bit about the Africa "anecdote".

What is it about these figures that you fail to comprehend?
That if more kids are born than people die, then the population still grows?

Can you read? I stated clearly a few questions, based on facts. Somebody tells an anecdote, somebody else looks at the figures, then asks some questions. That is skeptical inquiry. Its not hard to understand. The author of the anecdote never replied. Small wonder. That is what happens when you question data that is anecdotal. The person making some claim runs away, rather than look at the facts, engage in an honest debate, or inquiry.

Birth rates are very high in Africa. Mortality rates have been rising, but are still outpaced by the capacity to have children. HIV does not significantly impact on birth rates. Life expectancy has declined.

Have you actually looked at the figures? You are making claims, can you base them on real facts?

Birth rates are very high in Africa. Mortality rates have been rising, but are still outpaced by the capacity to have children. HIV does not significantly impact on birth rates. Life expectancy has declined.

That doesn't address any of the questions I raised. If AIDS is wiping out vast populations, destroying entire villages in Malawi , it would be obvious from the facts. A pandemic is claimed, entire villages destroyed, and yet, the facts show a rising birth rate. After AIDS. The facts don't match the story. This is how a skeptic questions wild claims. There may be an explanation for the obvious difference between a claim and the facts. Ignoring the issue won't discover it.

You have fallen into the denialists' fallacy of assuming that if HIV/AIDS is prevalent in a population then de facto the overall population growth must be negative, and if it is not, then hey presto! - AIDS does not exist.

That is your view, not mine. I clearly stated HIV is a cause of AIDS, and provided evidence to back it up. I never said anything about there being no AIDS in Malawi, nor claimed anything about AIDS deaths. That you think so, shows your lack of understanding, not mine. Trying to slander and distort what I said, or asked, is just .... uh ......


err...






















hmmm...



















just wrong.

 

[robinson]

Sorry Robinson, your posts are so schizoid and wandersome[sic] on this subject that pertinent questions you may have asked were swamped by the chaff.

I know the feeling.

 

[robinson]

What is the issue? That HIV is the cause of AIDS? Not a controversy among the informed and therefore boring - thereby making it the perfect breeding ground for pseudo-controversy. And I'd say we're facing the issue of pseudo-controversy head on.

Well, the topic asks, "Do HIV and AIDS exist", which isn't much of a topic. Unless you count the current court case over it. You know, the one where the Prosecution Experts included Peter McDonald, John Kaldor, David Cooper, Martyn French, Dr. Dax, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Dwyer, and of course, Robert Gallo himself. All of them trying to convince a Supreme Court that AIDS exist, that HIV exist, and that HIV causes AIDS, and you transmit it from having sex.

That seems like overkill to me. Why would there be any doubt about it? You just introduce the scientific studies that show HIV exist, that it leads to AIDS, and that it is transmitted by sex. Case closed. There is no controversy.

This extensive use of experts in court is absurd. Why would all those people be needed? Insanity.

 

[fls]

Well, the topic asks, "Do HIV and AIDS exist", which isn't much of a topic. Unless you count the current court case over it. You know, the one where the Prosecution Experts included Peter McDonald, John Kaldor, David Cooper, Martyn French, Dr. Dax, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Dwyer, and of course, Robert Gallo himself. All of them trying to convince a Supreme Court that AIDS exist, that HIV exist, and that HIV causes AIDS, and you transmit it from having sex.

That seems like overkill to me. Why would there be any doubt about it? You just introduce the scientific studies that show HIV exist, that it leads to AIDS, and that it is transmitted by sex. Case closed. There is no controversy.

This extensive use of experts in court is absurd. Why would all those people be needed? Insanity.

Yeah. If you only have one or two, it gives the appearance of an equal footing to both "sides". Half and dozen and it's overkill (and you must have something to hide). How do you show strength in numbers without becoming menacing? No way to satisfy anyone, I think.

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess having my post ignored means the point I made was irrefutable.

 

[Deetee]

That doesn't address any of the questions I raised. If AIDS is wiping out vast populations, destroying entire villages in Malawi , it would be obvious from the facts. A pandemic is claimed, entire villages destroyed, and yet, the facts show a rising birth rate. After AIDS. The facts don't match the story. This is how a skeptic questions wild claims. There may be an explanation for the obvious difference between a claim and the facts. Ignoring the issue won't discover it.

OK, lets recap. I see now it was actually Evilbiker who stated-

I'm not saying that AIDS is NOT a problem out here, it's a huge problem. I went up to Malawi and Botswana last year - there are areas that used to contain thriving village populations 15 years ago, now all gone. The extent of depopulation is staggering, and it's all due to AIDS.

So I will humbly apologise - I realise you were responding to this, rather than making claims of your own about AIDS mortality. I agree - his was an anecdotal comment ....... So is there any objective evidence for this and other similar claims?

No-one should doubt that it is a major health issue in some parts of the world, where it has had a major socio-demographic and economic impact because it mainly affects younger, economically active adults.

There are always stories of "villages being wiped out" but these are usually exaggerations of the underlying truth. As usual, the media, fond as always of stories of apocalypse, are only too glad to whip up these tales. (HIV denialists usually like to put the counterargument – “It is said HIV has decimated entire villages– Yet I now hear that only 10% have died – that means that a massive 90% are still alive, and that means HIV does not exist!”)

So what is the truth? Firstly, lets look at the UN report you referred to. These give estimates of HIV's impact in Malawi. The full report is found here:
http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/Annex2_Data_en.xls
You looked at these and said

"Those figures make no sense" ..... "Are the people there getting some kind of super health care that allows them to not come down with AIDS?"

It is your interpretation of these figures that puzzles me, since you seem to think they represent some indication that Malawians are some kind of super fit immortals.

14% of young adults have HIV/AIDS, and you think they are "not coming down with AIDS"? In women just between ages of 15 and 24 the percentage is 9.6%. Do you think these girls are all healthy individuals who will go on to live until they are 75 year old matriarchs?
There are already 550 thousand children orphaned by AIDS (up from 440k in 2003).

Perhaps you should read the Avert report on Malawi and AIDS.

By this point, though [1994], AIDS had already damaged Malawi’s social and economic infrastructure. Farmers could not provide food, children could not attend school and workers could not support their families, either because they were infected with HIV or because they were caring for someone who was. In 2002, Malawi suffered its worst food crisis for over fifty years, with HIV recognised as one of the factors that contributed most significantly to the famine. A report suggested that 70% of hospital deaths at the time were AIDS related.7

The situation has improved in some ways since implementation of a national plan in 1999

The national HIV prevalence has stabilised between 12% and 17% since the mid-Nineties,8 and prevalence amongst women attending antenatal clinics has fallen slightly. Several urban areas, such as the capital Lilongwe, have witnessed a decline in HIV prevalence, although some rural areas have seen prevalence increase.9

You seem to think that that population "growth" somehow equates to a thriving, healthy society. It is little use to a country if it has a very high birth rate which is coupled with a high infant and young adult mortality rate which will drive down life expectany. EvilBiker mentioned Botswana. Here the life expectancy has declined from 65years in 1990 to 35. This is because young people and kids are dying. Birth rates have not declined, but infant mortality has doubled. In Malawi, birth rates are 43/1000 - one of the world's highest. They are not rising as you claim, but if anything slightly declining. Death rates are 21/1000 - also one of the world's highest, but there is still overall population growth, of course (the difference between births and deaths – 22/1000 or 2.2%). Each woman in Malawi has 6 children on average, and population is anticipated to double by 2050, despite the impact of HIV/AIDS. (see rankings)

To be fair, there seem to be conflicting predictions as to what will happen in countries in Sub Saharan Africa, and no-one seems sure whether overall population will grow or fall. This is neatly demonstrated here for Botswana (But the problems inherent in making population estimates are obvious when you see that even for a country like Canada there are varying estimates as to whether there will be an increase in population of 2 million or 13 million by 2050).

Do us all a favour and stop being so cryptic with all your posts. If you query a particular statement or claim - fine, that's what we would all encourage. But people can only respond to you if you are very specific with your criticism or comment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I guess having my post ignored means the point I made was irrefutable.

Possibly, I never got a good answer as to why he accepts herbal medicine and acupuncture but rejects trepanation out of hand.

 

[Deetee]

Lancet study that shows Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for the treatment of HIV infection did nothing to increase lifespan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16890831

Are you implying that HAART is ineffective?
If so you have failed to understand the paper and its context.
The era before HAART (pre 1995) was characterised by gradual improvements in HIV survival with treatment, but because treatment was usually restricted to 2 agents, (both reverse transcriptase inhibitors) resistance to the drugs supervened and deterioration recurred.
In 1995, the introduction of protease inhibitors as part of a now 3 drug regimen dramatically improved survival since the treatment was durable and not very prone to select resistance.

Since 1995, further survival gains have been modest. Toxicities have also become more relevant, since people are living long enought to suffer long term metabolic complications of this.
The Lancet paper demonstrates that outcome in those treated in 2002-3 is no better or worse than for those treated in 1995-6 (AFTER the major jump in survival), that is all. More patients in recent treatment cohorts had other illnesses like Tuberculosis and conditions that would act towards reducing survival. This paper is not evidence that HAART does not work, only evidence that those on HAART in 2003 do no better than those on HAART in 1996.

Perhaps you would like to compare your Lancet cite to this recent one, which shows how HAART correlates with a 35 year anticipated survival with HIV. Considering that in the 80s, patients died within 2 years on average, I'd say medical science is on the right track.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Building a bit on Deetee's post,

....
How interesting.


Lancet study that shows Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for the treatment of HIV infection did nothing to increase lifespan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16890831

There are a lot of questions, based on scientific studies, about HIV and AIDS. I don't have time to look at this right now. But most interesting.

Then let me help you with this one.

"endpoints were the hazard ratios for AIDS and for death from all causes in the first year of HAART"

See your problem? Didn't think so so let me help you. This study's conclusion is based on the outcome at one year. Drugs were started when CD4 counts dropped below a certain threshold.

AIDS onset is considered to occur when the CD4 counts drop below a certain threshold or when the first opportunistic infection is diagnosed or when certain HIV syndromes are diagnosed in the case of HIV encephalitis. From the time a person experiences AIDS onset until death is typically 2 years. Unless they look at the outcome at 2 years or more, you wouldn't expect to see a big difference in deaths.

Also, during the time this study was in progress, there have been advances in treating opportunistic infections as well. You'd have to compare what that variable's effect was on outcomes at the beginning of the comparison. In other words, you could be looking at 3-4 years out from starting HAART in order to determine whether you were extending lives or not. In my opinion, the authors should have put a little more emphasis on the limitations of their conclusions.

 

[blutoski]

It does seem to be a real world, given denialist turns up over a hundred thousand google hits, while framantic turns up 0.

So going by useage it seems to be a real word.

And within the skeptical community, it is a common and well-understood modifier, used to describe an individual making a claim about nonexistence that contradicts the preponderance of evidence.

eg: holocaust denialists. psychiatry denialists.

I've been reading about hiv/aids denialists in the literature since the '80s. That's what they're called.

 

[blutoski]

Hmm, didn't know that. Who coined the term then?


I was specifically addressing your statement "And even if you get HIV, there is no evidence to show you will develop AIDS." Isn't the lab worker infection evidence? Or perhaps you meant that getting HIV does not always result in AIDS. There are individuals with a mutation in the gene for the CCR5 co-receptor who do not appear to get infected.

Labworker data is excellent evidence. Ergo, the tendency among denialists to completely ignore it.

However, there's always the Duesburg Out: there's some hidden infectious agent that hangs out with HIV, yet undiscovered.

To put this another way: Duesburg et al are cryptozoologists who can't see the HIV forest for their chimeraic tree.

 

[Deetee]

Labworker data is excellent evidence. Ergo, the tendency among denialists to completely ignore it.

However, there's always the Duesburg Out: there's some hidden infectious agent that hangs out with HIV, yet undiscovered.

To put this another way: Duesburg et al are cryptozoologists who can't see the HIV forest for their chimeraic tree.

Duesberg has been consistent in his description of AIDS as a chemical disease - always due to drugs of some description (either recreational drugs like poppers, heroin, cocaine etc, or due to the HIV drugs or antibiotics).
He accepts the existence of HIV and even at one time tried to claim a $10 000 prize that was offered by some denialists for evidence that HIV exists. He just believes it is a harmless passenger, a surrogate of a degenerate lifestyle.