Freethought & Rationalism Archive

doghouse · 02-25-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
There has been a group of people pushing the idea that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS for almost as long as AIDS has been identified. The reason is that they have an agenda..... I don't remember what it is but they're very much opposed to.... something.

Scientific evidence apparently

Corwin · 02-25-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by doghouse
Scientific evidence apparently

Not really.... It's been some time since I read about these guys, they aren't exactly anti-medicine, they're opposed to one specific branch of medical science.

I'd have to do some serious looking to find it. These guys are whacked enough that they don't get a whole lot of press.

RoddyM · 02-25-2003, 09:07 AM

Thanks pz, I'll try to answer from your quote only for now so as not to have to re-read and refute the links from NIH.

It's seems ridiculous to say that AIDS like symptoms occurred rarely before "HIV" was known. Starvation and dysentry are not new, yet we are able to diagnose people as HIV infected from a distance if they have a cough and are losing weight. Kaposi's sarcoma is not new although it was publicized as being new amongst gays in the early eighties. It was visible and could be made to be seen as something new and rampant although nowadays it is rare even amongst people with supposed HIV infection.

Keep in mind that the concept of humans posessing an immune system is still new. The immune system is not like the digestive or skeletal system. The immune system is something that exists only when we don't have it, when we are dangerously ill. I suspect that the "immune system" is an artifact.

You can "cluster" anything if you want to and have the means to do so.

Mother to infant transmission... If a mother has antibodies that trip an "HIV" antibody positive result then it is likely that her newborn will also since the infant inherits antibodies. If the child's father has been arrested for drug offences then the child will be deemed to be HIV positive and in need of antiviral drug treatment.

Increasing sensitivity in modern equipment does not necessarily translate into improved specificity. A test with 99% specificity conducted in a population of 0.1% positivity will be falsely positive 9 times out of ten.

It's never been shown that HIV attacks CD4 cells. It has never been shown that the measure of CD4 cells is an indicator of health. It has been conceded however that CD4 cells tend to be lowered by use of immunosuppresants and antivirals such as AZT. Healthy "HIV" negative populations often have low CD4 counts.

Studies done that show correlations over time are done of course on people who have been diagnosed some period of time before. They are of course the type of people who have been considered at risk all along, living in circumstances predisposing them to illness as well as the grim prognosis they have been given.

Reducing the amount of virus in the body? What virus? Where? What compartment? What count? You have to buy into the argument before you can say anything. Numbers obtained by PCR are meaningless. Even if it was a valid diagnostic and treatment tool it would be about as useful as diabetics in the old days having their blood sugar tested once a month. PCR counts count for nothing. Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize for inventing it and says that HIV is a bunch of crap.

Hairi · 02-25-2003, 09:20 AM

The good doctor has since changed his position.
and now is inline with the mainstream medical establishment
view of HIV.

MortalWombat · 02-25-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM
PCR counts count for nothing. Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize for inventing it and says that HIV is a bunch of crap.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hairi
The good doctor has since changed his position.
and now is inline with the mainstream medical establishment
view of HIV.

I hadn't heard that. But anyway, even if Mullis hasn't changed his position, just because he "invented" PCR (which is actually controversial in the scientific community in its own right, but that's another conversation) doesn't make him the authority on how it is used in HIV research, or any research for that matter. All Mullis did was come up with a neat trick to amplify DNA quickly. It's sort of like trying to claim that Alexander Graham Bell is an expert on voice communication protocols over modems because he invented the telephone.

Wyz_sub10 · 02-25-2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM
Wyz_sub10,
People go for the paradigm because it promotes what is seen as hygienic moral behaviour and provides the opportunity for parents, teachers etc to do so. The world would be a better place if people didn't stick needles in their arms and if men didn't fuck other men up the ass.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said or the links I provided on Mbeki. Did you mean to respond to me specifically?

As to your point, I'm going to assume that you are saying people "support" the HIV theory because it validates their prejudice. I would agree that people with prejudice are always looking for validation, but the same is true if you link AIDS with malnutrition specifically - it creates a reason that people can seize upon for their own gains. Mbeki's politcal and economic claims, for example.

Quote:

I didn't propose a theory or statement. I do not have a theory for the non-existence of HIV. I do not say that the earth is flat as a response to the assertion that the earth is spherical. I do not say that God does not exist in reply the the assertion that he does. It is up to those that make grandiose claims to prove them if they expect people to act on them. That the earth is spherical I do not consider grandiose. That a God exists I do.

Okay. I never implied otherwise, seeing as I've never engaged you in discussion before.

Quote:

Malnutrition in some cases in some parts of the world may well be fairly blamed on American Imperialism. The protest by some African leaders is based on their reluctance to submit to American propaganda. The propaganda that says "Take our gifts. It is to your advantage."

This is non-sequitur. Malunutrition *may* be blamed on imperialism (although I can't see why you would say American imperialism), but what does this have to do with linking AIDS to malnutrition?

If African leaders want to protest Amercian propaganda, so be it. Again, what does this have to do with HIV and AIDS?

Are you suggesting Mbeki thinks American propaganda causes AIDS? Are you suggesting that only medical community that links HIV to AIDS is American? Are you suggesting that AIDS only exists in areas of poverty, or is contracted only by the malnourished?

The last two points are easily demonstratively false, so what does this have to do with alleged American propaganda in Africa?

MortalWombat · 02-25-2003, 10:53 AM

Here is a link to a commentary on the Durban Declaration from the journal Nature, in 2000.

Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

The declaration on these two pages was stimulated by the current controversy in South Africa about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS (see, for example, Nature 404, 911; 2000 and Nature 405, 105; 2000). This has caused massive consternation among all scientists, doctors and many others in the international community who treat AIDS patients or who work on AIDS in other ways. There is widespread anxiety that denying or doubting the cause of AIDS will cost countless lives if blood screening, use of condoms, and methods to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus are not implemented or, worse, even abandoned.

The declaration has been signed by over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners, directors of leading research institutions, scientific academies and medical societies, notably the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Institute of Medicine, Max Planck institutes, the European Molecular Biology Organization, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Royal Society of London, the AIDS Society of India and the National Institute of Virology in South Africa. In addition, thousands of individual scientists and doctors have signed, including many from the countries bearing the greatest burden of the epidemic. Signatories are of MD, PhD level or equivalent, although scientists working for commercial companies were asked not to sign.

The Durban Declaration has an organizing committee of over 250 members from over 50 countries. The list of signatories up to 29 June can be found on Nature's website as Supplementary Information (http://www.nature.com), and an up-to-date list can be found at http://www.durbandeclaration.org .

HIV causes AIDS. Curbing the spread of this virus must remain the first step towards eliminating this devastating disease.

doghouse · 02-25-2003, 11:10 AM

I would really like to understand how some people don�t think HIV causes AIDS. Specifically, what is the evidence against this?

With that in mind, let�s go step by step. Koch�s postulates are generally accepted as proof that an agent causes a particular disease. Agree? If so, continue. If not, why not?

1. HIV is detected in patients with AIDS. Agree or not.

2. HIV can be isolated from and propagated outside the patient. Agree or not.

3. When HIV is administered appropriately to healthy people or animals, the inoculated subject develops the disease. Agree or not.

4. HIV can be isolated from the infected, diseased animal. Agree of not.

Thanks.

MortalWombat · 02-25-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by doghouse
I would really like to understand how some people don�t think HIV causes AIDS. Specifically, what is the evidence against this?

With that in mind, let�s go step by step. Koch�s postulates are generally accepted as proof that an agent causes a particular disease. Agree? If so, continue. If not, why not?

1. HIV is detected in patients with AIDS. Agree or not.

2. HIV can be isolated from and propagated outside the patient. Agree or not.

3. When HIV is administered appropriately to healthy people or animals, the inoculated subject develops the disease. Agree or not.

4. HIV can be isolated from the infected, diseased animal. Agree of not.

Thanks.

This is covered in the link I provided directly above:

Quote:

The data fulfil exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, such as polio, measles and smallpox:

-Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV.

-If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5�10 years. HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections.

-People who receive HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who receive untainted or screened blood do not.

-Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV-infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected.

-In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS.

-Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%.

-Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS

pz · 02-25-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
I hadn't heard that. But anyway, even if Mullis hasn't changed his position, just because he "invented" PCR (which is actually controversial in the scientific community in its own right, but that's another conversation) doesn't make him the authority on how it is used in HIV research, or any research for that matter. All Mullis did was come up with a neat trick to amplify DNA quickly. It's sort of like trying to claim that Alexander Graham Bell is an expert on voice communication protocols over modems because he invented the telephone.

Try reading Mullis's memoir. If nothing else, it will convince you that drugs are bad, because that man's brains are totally fried.

02-25-2003, 09:20 AM	#14
Hairi Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 5	Karry Mullis The good doctor has since changed his position. and now is inline with the mainstream medical establishment view of HIV.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2003, 09:07 AM	#13
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	Thanks pz, I'll try to answer from your quote only for now so as not to have to re-read and refute the links from NIH. It's seems ridiculous to say that AIDS like symptoms occurred rarely before "HIV" was known. Starvation and dysentry are not new, yet we are able to diagnose people as HIV infected from a distance if they have a cough and are losing weight. Kaposi's sarcoma is not new although it was publicized as being new amongst gays in the early eighties. It was visible and could be made to be seen as something new and rampant although nowadays it is rare even amongst people with supposed HIV infection. Keep in mind that the concept of humans posessing an immune system is still new. The immune system is not like the digestive or skeletal system. The immune system is something that exists only when we don't have it, when we are dangerously ill. I suspect that the "immune system" is an artifact. You can "cluster" anything if you want to and have the means to do so. Mother to infant transmission... If a mother has antibodies that trip an "HIV" antibody positive result then it is likely that her newborn will also since the infant inherits antibodies. If the child's father has been arrested for drug offences then the child will be deemed to be HIV positive and in need of antiviral drug treatment. Increasing sensitivity in modern equipment does not necessarily translate into improved specificity. A test with 99% specificity conducted in a population of 0.1% positivity will be falsely positive 9 times out of ten. It's never been shown that HIV attacks CD4 cells. It has never been shown that the measure of CD4 cells is an indicator of health. It has been conceded however that CD4 cells tend to be lowered by use of immunosuppresants and antivirals such as AZT. Healthy "HIV" negative populations often have low CD4 counts. Studies done that show correlations over time are done of course on people who have been diagnosed some period of time before. They are of course the type of people who have been considered at risk all along, living in circumstances predisposing them to illness as well as the grim prognosis they have been given. Reducing the amount of virus in the body? What virus? Where? What compartment? What count? You have to buy into the argument before you can say anything. Numbers obtained by PCR are meaningless. Even if it was a valid diagnostic and treatment tool it would be about as useful as diabetics in the old days having their blood sugar tested once a month. PCR counts count for nothing. Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize for inventing it and says that HIV is a bunch of crap.

02-25-2003, 11:10 AM	#18
doghouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Standin in the rain, talkin to myself Posts: 4,025	I would really like to understand how some people don�t think HIV causes AIDS. Specifically, what is the evidence against this? With that in mind, let�s go step by step. Koch�s postulates are generally accepted as proof that an agent causes a particular disease. Agree? If so, continue. If not, why not? 1. HIV is detected in patients with AIDS. Agree or not. 2. HIV can be isolated from and propagated outside the patient. Agree or not. 3. When HIV is administered appropriately to healthy people or animals, the inoculated subject develops the disease. Agree or not. 4. HIV can be isolated from the infected, diseased animal. Agree of not. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.