Over at Uncommon Descent, the blog of William Dembski and friends, a contributor has a post up discussing Peter Duesberg's aneuploidy hypothesis for cancer (which Orac discussed here for more background). The post itself is a bit confusing--it's titled "When Darwinism Hurts," and according to the author's clarification, it's about "Darwinism" leading us down the wrong path as far as cancer research goes. (Though whether cancer would be due to mutations in specific genes or in chromosomes, it's still an evolutionary process, but I digress...) To me, anyway, the more interesting portion was in the comments section, where both DaveScot and Sal Cordova imply also that HIV might not cause AIDS; more after the jump.
Now, it's been frequently mentioned on here that prominent IDers Phillip Johnson and Jon Wells have previously stated their "skepticism" of HIV as the cause of AIDS. To their credit, most IDers I know disagree with Johnson and Wells on this point. However, Scot and Cordova buy right into it. Scot:
That said it's not wholly unlikely that HIV is a symptom rather than a cause of AIDS. From my POV 23 years of considering it the cause of AIDS has not moved us any closer to a vaccine. There are two possibilities in that. The first is that the virus is just too insidious but second is that it isn't insidious it's just not the cause so no amount of effort against the virus will prevent the disease. However it does seem incredibly unlikely that AIDS isn't a transmissable disease caused by infectious element of some sort so if not HIV then what is it? The evidence is circumstantial and compelling but the lack of progress in curing AIDS is also compelling evidence that we're on the wrong track.
Incredibly likely? Because we have no vaccine? That means that more than 99% of all infectious diseases, then, aren't infectious.
Cordova, meanwhile:
Even if the dissent is wrong, it would be hard to argue those involved are crackpots. [Cites Kary Mullis, Bernard Forscher and David Rasnick]. Given how I've seen Darwinian evolution promoted and how it has created harmful medical and social practices, it's hard not to be skeptical of all sorts of accepted scientific "truths".
How many logical fallacies can we count here? Arguments from authority? Social Darwinism, therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
Is it any wonder scientists have such a problem taking ID advocates seriously?
Comments
There was some whinging from DaveScott recently at UD which was AGW-denialism. If I recall correctly, it was buying into the "there isn't a problem, it's colder now than the Middle Ages, and in any case, it's all the Sun's fault" pseudoscience.
Anyways, so besides incompetent bashing of evolution and HIV-causes-AIDS, you can add incompetent bashing of AGW. Plus, of course, the belief that "incompetent bashing" is the same as "science" and that said bashing "proves" something else (the something else notably lacking any plausible hypothesis, evidence, testing, or refutablity).
Posted by: blf | July 2, 2007 9:51 AM
Meanwhile, Davie thinks that you genetically modify plants with retroviruses, and that retroviruses are part of Gods Plan for speciation, endogenous retroviruses are Gods Plan for vaccines, etc etc etc.
Retroviruses=Magic
Posted by: ERV | July 2, 2007 9:55 AM
Someone who thinks Kary Mullis and David Rasnick aren't crackpots! Ha ha.
Posted by: Adele | July 2, 2007 10:36 AM
I've seen this vaccine argument more than once and it's so transparently illogical it amazes me anyone can actually take the time to type it out without realizing that it makes no sense. We do not have a vaccine to prevent HIV infection, therefore HIV does not cause AIDS? If there were a vaccine that effectively prevented vaccinees from becoming infected with HIV but did *not* prevent them from developing AIDS, that would be news. However, so long as we haven't made the first step, this has nothing to do with AIDS causation. Are any of the serious denialists actually making this argument, or just blog trolls and DaveScot?
Posted by: Katie | July 2, 2007 10:52 AM
What I find interesting is that IDists hardly ever offer up any alternative to what they deny, except for "goddidit". So are they suggesting here that God infected all these people with AIDS? That's quite a statement about their beliefs.
Doug
Posted by: Doug S | July 2, 2007 11:02 AM
From my POV 3,000 years of considering mycobacteria the cause of tuberculosis has not moved us any closer to a vaccine. There are two possibilities in that. The first is that the bacteria is too insidious. The second is that my head is up my ass so much that my neck has a permanent brown stain.
Now, considering that I am able to talk out my ass, which do you think it is?
Posted by: Sark Astik | July 2, 2007 11:36 AM
The ostensible "aneuploidly versus mutation" argument is an oversimplified straw man, and can only appeal to those quite ignorant of cancer biology.
I'm going to simplify a bit, too, to make my point, but in a way that is non-deceptive.
Biochemical and cell biological events that disrupt chromosome structure, typically in offsring cells during cell division, are obviously a type of mutation. It is primarily the resulting disruption of gene expression that leads to an abnormal phenotype, of course. Genes are disrupted, or removed from their regulatory environment in one chromosomal millieu and placed into an abnormal location.
Constitutive expression of a gene which should be regulated, lack of expression of a regulatory gene, etc, can result.
Arguing that disruption of chromosome structure is somehow distinct from disruption ("mutation") of genes and their regulatory elements is, in essence, a confession that one does not know what genes or chromosomes are.
In lymphoma and leukemia, cancers of cells which are already circulating when normal, the resulting translocations frequently lead to the transposition of an oncogene.
This link leads to promotional material for a commercial lab, but it discusses several example translocations quite nicely.
http://www.invitrobiotec.de/pdf/chromotrans_en.pdf
With solid tissue cancers, the situation is more complex. By the time a clone of solid tissue cells has become metastatic, it has undergone an enormous number of abnormal genetic events.
Cancer is clearly analagous to evolution. A population of genetically variant cells emerges, which is free from the controls of multicellularity. The individual cells enjoy a selective advantage, relative to cells that "obey the rules" (not necessarily by dividing faster). They are able to consume a disproportionate amount of the available resources, and to some degree "take over". Eventually, the cancer cells "foolishly" destroy their own environment (in this case, the individual multicellular organism), and go extinct.
It is conceivable that chromosome structure alone might have some gene-independent effect, but there is no reason to think that this would be major.
ID jacka$$es are remarkably deficient in any idea of what they are talking about. They repeatedly show that even basic biochemistry and genetics are utterly unknown to them. They don't bother to understand what they argue against.
Posted by: harold | July 2, 2007 11:36 AM
I think you'll find that quite a few of them believe that it is, in fact, God's judgment on people who have been naughty (with collateral damage, oh my). I've heard "why would there be STDs if it wasn't God's judgment?" before. It's an idea that may seem blindingly stupid, but it's definitely out there and I would love to see an expert like Tara shred it properly.
I don't get why you think this is so shocking. The Bible definitely includes stories where God kills people for sticking their pee-pees in the wrong places. (Other times, though, He encourages it or thinks it's okay.)
Posted by: pough | July 2, 2007 11:45 AM
I am both a holocaust revisionist and a Darwin doubter. A Darwinist said that the "irrationality" of my holocaust revisionism hurts the credibility of my arguments against Darwinism. So I answered that person as follows:
Tara Smith said,
I don't see how your above statement follows from what DaveScot said.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | July 2, 2007 11:47 AM
In my on-line debates with creationists, I occasionally ask how many leprosy bacilli and syphilis spirochetes and HIV retrovirii were on board Noah's Ark, and precisely which members of Noah's family were carrying them. I haven't gotten a good answer yet...
Posted by: PaulBurnett![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 2, 2007 12:13 PM
I issue a challenge to Scot. Let's prick Scot with a needle chock full of HIV. If HIV is just a symptom of AIDS, then he should be in little danger. Right?
On a side note, I saw a PBS show a few years ago on how the bubonic plague affected a small town in England during an outbreak. The researchers found that living descendants have at least on copy of a delta-32 gene. Having two copies of the gene makes one virtually immune to plague. Surprisingly, they also found the same gene in people who seem immune to HIV. Has there been any further research on this?
Posted by: FastEddie | July 2, 2007 12:17 PM
Most seem to be closed minded in their theories and will not entertain other possibilities of the caustion of disease. For instance, every disease is treated by the germ theory of medicine and thus treated accordingly. When the person is sick or dying, at that point that may be the appropriate approach in life. However, unless the root cause or the true cause of the problem is ever addressed, then the cycle continues on, which is what is happening in medicine in this country. The doctors patch one up until the next sickness arrives by medicating and vaccinating the population, which has one of the worse longevity records on the planet. Maybe we should stop and evaluate a whole host of issues or our very concept of medicine itself and what and how to achieve perfect health.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 12:23 PM
I would think that the people who advocate that HIV doesn't produce AIDS in people, would be able to produce documented cases of people who have had AIDS and not been infected with HIV.
Unless I'm wrong, I haven't heard of a single case of AIDS that didn't start out with HIV.
Posted by: Gary | July 2, 2007 12:43 PM
Indeed. Chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is a coreceptor for HIV binding. The delta-32 allele impairs CCR5 function and has been shown to reduce likelihood for HIV infection to occur and for HIV progression.
CCR blockers are now a viable therapeutic target for HIV inhibition. Drugs like Maraviroc have been showm to drop HIV levels significantly, and are in clinical studies.
Their development gives further support to the viral-HIV-AIDS orthodox position (as if it needed any). There are now several ways to interfere with viral replication, all solid, evidence based studies showing success. These include inhibition of viral binding (CCR receptor blockers, CD4 blockers), viral fusion (T20 and similar fusion inhibitors), nucleotide and nucleoside analogues which inhibit RT, "non-nucleoside" inhibitors of RT, inhibitors of viral integration (integrase inhibitors), and inhibitors of viral assembly such as protease inhibitors.
That's quite a list. HIV denialists have in the past come up with lame excuses as to why patients' health improves on drugs (someone came up with one study showing PIs could inhibit candida growth in vitro by way of explanation - pitiful, isn't it?), but they have no theories, even bad ones, as to why all these classes of drug are effective.
http://www.broad.mit.edu/mpg/popgen/pubs/1998_AJHG_CCR5.pdf
Posted by: DT | July 2, 2007 12:55 PM
I covered this idiocy too.
I attribute it to crank magnetism. Cranks are attracted to arguments of other cranks. This occurs for a few reasons. First and foremost, they are completely incompetent at determining good scientific arguments for obvious reasons. People who are incompetent are not capable of recognizing competence in others.
Second, they enjoy any instance in which the "orthodoxy" gets egg on its face or any perception that orthodoxy is being challenged on something big - it makes it appear as though their challenge to the "orthodoxy" is more legitimate. If people can challenge the idea that HIV causes AIDS, why not that evolution holds all of biology together?
You end up seeing, for instance in he-who-shall-not-be-named above a lot of overlap between various forms of denialism as a result. It's all due to scientific incompetence. They aren't interested in creating a single consistent worldview, and are more than happy to accept crank arguments from others that are even inconsistent with their own. They're only interested in their overvalued ideas and bigotries gaining acceptance despite the complete inability to make their views jibe with any other accepted truths.
Posted by: MarkH | July 2, 2007 1:01 PM
I was the first comment on that Uncommon Descent thread (and was shortly thereafter booted from the forum). As I see it, the ID people ally with other kinds of denial and crank science because they value the (extreme) minority point of view as such. That's why they attract (and welcome) even holocaust deniers.
Posted by: Hermagoras | July 2, 2007 1:05 PM
"noreen Martin", what in Hell are you talking about?
"Every disease" is NOT treated by the germ Theory.
Which population has "one of the worst longevity records"?
The populations with the longest life expectancies without exception use modern scientific medical care.
Medical research is all about finding root causes.
The "root cause" of AIDS is a virus, and the best way to avoid it is as follows:
Avoid promiscuous sex.
Practice safe sex.
Avoid exposure to human blood or blood products that have not been tested for HIV.
Practice universal precautions in the medical setting.
Simple, no?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 2, 2007 1:08 PM
Gary:
I'll answer this before the denialists pour in with their deliberate misinformation.
Gary, you are wrong in one sense, in that we talk of patients having AIDS if they have one of several severe opportunistic infections or tumours, AND have HIV infection. It is however possible to have a severe opportunistic infection and not have HIV - for instance someone severely malnourished or immunosuppressed with steroids or chemotherapy might get Pneumocystis (PCP) for example.
However, a clinician would not say this person had AIDS just because they had PCP; - in order to meet the (rather unhelpful) case definition for AIDS they would have to have PCP, have HIV and no other obvious cause for being immunodeficient - in other words it has to be clear that HIV is the cause of that person'e immunedeficiency.
The rather unwieldy way in which AIDS is defined gives denialists scope for sowing the seeds of confusion. What they cannot do however is give examples of severe opportunistic infections occurring in HIV negative patients in anything but very small numbers. So when they claim drug use causes AIDS, not HIV, they cannot explain why it is that 99.9% of cases of PCP in drug users come from the small pool (10%?) of drug users who also happen to have HIV. Oh, they may come up with the odd case report in the published literature, gleefully shouting "See! A case of PCP in an HIV-negative drug user!" with the irony that the case has been published specifically because of its rarity value escaping them completely. By rights, there should be hundreds of thousands of cases of PCP in drug users without HIV if the denialists hypothesis is correct. Guess what? There have been about a dozen.
Posted by: DT | July 2, 2007 1:11 PM
Pough said:
> I think you'll find that quite a few of them believe
> that it is, in fact, God's judgment on people who have
> been naughty (with collateral damage, oh my).
Believing that God is the direct cause of sickness is so 14th century! Although I can believe a fringe minority might think that, I find it hard to believe that many people (including the religious) would believe it. I can see people believing that God created HIV to punish the evil (with collateral damage), but not to personally give each AIDS sufferer the disease as a personal punishment. Which leaves me to wonder about their motivations, since clearly they don't have any alternative ideas as to why AIDS occurs.
I think their comments have more to do with their broad campaign to discredit science and scientists. Once those pesky scientists are out of the way with their human reasoning and logic, they will be free to direct the will of the people (and the country) to their liking and benefit. Sounds too much like a conspiracy theory? Perhaps, but that is the only logic I can draw from their statements on so many wide ranging issues. Any other ideas?
Doug
Posted by: Doug S | July 2, 2007 1:12 PM
Its not that suprising that many scientists question HIV considering 99.9% of animals injected dont get hiv and that its only in a small fraction of tcells, according to Gallo in 1990 it's only in 1 of 10,000 Tcells.
Not only that but most viruses cause most of their damage before antibody production, and not after.
But then again all viruses dont work by the same rules.........so how do you prove your pet barely detectable virus with no reliable animal model causes disease?
YOu follow 2 groups of hiv positive and negative people that are matched for everything else, AZT, Drug use, coinfections and catastrophic stress and you see if HIV is really the culprit. The studies on AIDS truth dont match and control for confounding factors, because they were never designed to test the hiv hypothesis, the studies assumed it to be true.
A study like this would not be dangerous, for if the HIV positive people truly did have their tcells drop to around 200 then they could start ARV's if they wanted to. It's much more dangerous to tell people that there is a 100% chance of death, Like montagnier said that alone could kill them.
Anyways, some of you people need help. There are other microbes out there that are more likely to cause disease, Like Shyh ching LO's/ montagnier's mycoplasma incognitus WHY?
BEcause this microbe sickens and kills every animal injected with it, as LO showed. It's being found by PCR in many illnesses like CFS, you cant look for antibodies, the monkeys injected with it showed weak antibody reponse only when near death.
This is undergraduate microbiology, if a microbe sickens and kills every animal and there is also a correlation in humans and is detected with electron microscopy VS. a microbe that doesnt kill most every animal, is barely detactable more likely microbe A is more dangerous to humans than microbe B. And if you want to prove microbe B is really a killer, you'd better have some matched studies designed to prove it. Use your brain.
You people condescendingly dismiss any theory that's not supported by a drug company or the CDC, so I'm not going to get into an argument with the same robots. Ive posted references for everything I've said before, I suggest some of some of you more open minded people here read www.projectdaylily.com and learn more about how the mycoplasma was part of the biowarfare program.
Posted by: cooler | July 2, 2007 2:01 PM
"99.9% of animals dont get AIDS" I mean
Posted by: cooler | July 2, 2007 2:03 PM
You're both right. In the United States alot of fundies believe AIDS was sent by God to punish gays and drug users. These people think collateral damage is fair because WE like EVERYONE deserves it because we don't kill all gays and drug users which would be the Christian thing to do. OK not nearly all Christians think this but some do. The same kinds who think the world is 6000 years old and Jews are greedy Christ-killers who planned 9/11 and they think its wrong to do science because that's like the Tower of Babel. People trying to be like God which is a no no.
They believe HIV is a gift from god AND scientists are evil. They also think the government has to come down. The Aetiology troll BillyBipBip from the other HIV threads who also calls himself cooler and frummy and Thomas Paine calls people "unamerican" if they don't agree with him is one of this kind I think.
Posted by: Adele | July 2, 2007 2:03 PM
By "you're both right" I meant Pough and Doug of course. Not the troll I just commented at the same time as. Interesting mindset though. Yeah, let's just do a placebo study on human beings when we have drugs to keep them alive and let's let their immune systems fall apart because we can always bring em back from the brink when they start to die. That would be ethical, wouldn't it?
That's the fundie mindset. Anti-government all the way until they get in power and then people would really find out what death is.
Posted by: Adele | July 2, 2007 2:10 PM
If its isnt lying adele again!
Adele youve repeatdly stated that youre a scientist, a PCR tech, to be exact, yet I found a link at Utah state University of an "adele" and "Dale" (2 frequent posters here) and this Adele is no scientist at all, just the wife of one. If it's not you do you have any proof youre a scientist?
http://www.usu.edu/fchd/cdlab_youngs.cfm
Posted by: cooler | July 2, 2007 2:10 PM
cooler, you keep posting the same comments--that's spamming, not discussion even by the loosest sense of the term. Keep it up and they're going to start getting junked.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 2, 2007 2:13 PM
Interestingly, DaveScot seems to have changed his tune re HIV/AIDS since 2005. In this amusing (for lots of reasons) thread at UD, DS opines: "Everyone dies. Get used to it. The Holocaust was a man-made purposeful attempt to slaughter a group of many millions of people based upon a perceived inferiority. AIDs is a terminal disease brought on by a naturally occuring virus. Moreover it's an an almost wholly avoidable disease if one makes a reasonable effort to curb hedonistic desires."
Note that this quote will also be amusing when DS slides inexorably into Holocaust denial, a prediction that others have made before me. I think that the crank magnetism hypothesis, as noted by MarkH above, explains this prediction pretty well
Posted by: Albatrossity | July 2, 2007 2:14 PM
re: noreen Martin
WTF?
Posted by: John Marley | July 2, 2007 2:15 PM
Youre not supposed to start ARV's till around 200 tcells anyways, Miss PCR tech, youre a scientist right, you should know! LOL
Posted by: cooler | July 2, 2007 2:19 PM
I'd just like to include cooler in my above statement.
Posted by: John Marley | July 2, 2007 2:25 PM
Considering the same attacks are made over and over, the same rebutalls are made, anyways I'm done "spamming." Im home with a broken rib and should be out of the house in a few days/weeks.
Posted by: cooler | July 2, 2007 2:25 PM
HAART kills virus replicating and it helps bring back T-cells. That's clear. When to start HAART has been controversial since it came out. It's a debate with ten different sides not two. And evidence for everyone. Lots of it. You can read all of it and still not know what's best. Doctors and patients have to make these decisions together. There's no one answer for everyone and every drug combo.
Here's a paper that says early HAART is best.
Gras L et al, J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Jun 1;45(2):183-92 CD4 cell counts of 800 cells/mm3 or greater after 7 years of highly active antiretroviral therapy are feasible in most patients starting with 350 cells/mm3 or greater.
You can find other papers that say only below 350. Or nearer 200.
But you NEVER play around with people's health just to have a inert placebo when you've already shown something works better. That only happens in Billy's fantasy land where he's taken freshman biology and he writes like Thomas Paine.
Posted by: Adele | July 2, 2007 2:35 PM
I believe that the verdict is still out on whether HIV truly causes AIDS. Some of you may not be aware that benzene will cause AIDS, which has nothing to do with HIV or sex. I was referring to our low longevity rates compared to other civilized populations on the planet. While we're at it, check out our infant mortality rates too.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 2:42 PM
The current recommendations can be found on the NIH site as a pdf. I just glanced at them a while ago. IIRC, the current SOC is HAART at 350 CD4s, 200 for sure, or if the patient is showing symptoms consistent with immunodeficiency. CD4 cell counts of 800 after 7 years is pretty good and consistent with a normal state of health.
For the HIV- denialists, this is a mere hobby to fill up some empty hours. For HIV+ denialists, it is a choice between a long life or a shorter one. My reading is that about 20% refuse HAART. Most of them die within a few years. Not all refusers are denialists. Some just can't be bothered or don't care.
Posted by: raven | July 2, 2007 3:15 PM
Experiments could be done on rats to help prove and disprove theories without harm to humans. Let's expose different control groups to benzene, HIV, mycoplasmas, HHV6A, parasites, denatured foods, and other harmful entities. Let's see how each group fairs and then let's give some of the sick rodents antiretrovirals, some antiretrovirals and natural foods and supplements and some only treated with natrual foods and supplements. Let us see who fares the best and lives the longest and on what protocol.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 3:17 PM
Raven, there is the last category, which is we cannot get the mainstream's views to add up. HIV-Positive persons have to weight much information and make a decision based on which side out-weights the other to them. Personally, I have found flaws with both sides but nevertheless, have made my decision and contiune to be just fine. There again, my views about medicine are differnt than mosts and my treatment approach too, but it is working for me!
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 3:27 PM
....or not supported by science or research or repeatable experiments or evidence...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2007 3:48 PM
Larry,
"So you are saying that if -- hypothetically -- you agreed with my views about the holocaust, you would then conclude that I am a "rational" person and would therefore automatically agree with -- or at least be more inclined to agree with -- my views against Darwinism? Or vice-versa? Why shouldn't your argument cut both ways?"
Credibility and validity are quite different things. If I do something that makes my opinion seem uninformed it hurts any other statement I make. However, having a believable statement does not make me any more valid, it just means some people might question it less, or put more effort into proving it wrong.
Posted by: apy | July 2, 2007 4:02 PM
*amused*
Do you only eat raw foods (raw soybeans, raw eggs, raw meat)? After you consume these 'natured' proteins, how exactly, do you, personally, absorb the proteins in your foods without denaturing them?
Inquiring minds want to know. Linky.
lol-- Digestion Deniers
Posted by: ERV | July 2, 2007 4:13 PM
I was thinking the same thing ERV. I'm glad someone was less lazy than I and pointed it out.
Unless there is some new definition of denatured that I am unaware of. I suspect noreen just doesn't know what she is talking about.
Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2007 4:28 PM
Raven said: My reading is that about 20% refuse HAART. Most of them die within a few years.
My bullshit meter is blinking off the scale. Care to post a link to ANY REFERENCE that supports your outlandish claim that most people who refuse HAART die within two years. Current time from infection to AIDS is 10 years and up.
People who blindly trust the medical system and take their HAART to heart die of liver failure, stevens johnson syndrome, and cardiomyopathy. If they live, they have a hideous distortion of the face called lipodystrophy reminiscent of the Phantom of the Opera.
One thing is plain as day. Those people who took AZT died of AZT toxicity within two years. Why should anyone trust Raven, and Raven's toxic drugs after the AZT fiasco, and after the Dr. Ho "Hit em Early and Hit em Hard" Fiasco. Even your idol, John Moore admits the mistake. The issue is trust in the institutions of the medical system. After these mistakes which killed hundreds of thousands in a pattern called iatrogenic genocide, the trust is gone. Once gone it is difficult to regain.
for more information see reviewing aids DOT com
Posted by: Patriot Games | July 2, 2007 4:46 PM
I won't even waste my time on commenting on the last remark. I do know how to live without toxic drugs but I guess that some of you would prefer all of us HIV-Positves not have that choice or I guess that some won't recognize that is can be done; this places a great flaw in the current theory. Many are doing the same as I am in contact with them. They too realized, that these toxic drugs are not necessary for their existance.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 4:47 PM
I suspect, noreen, that many people, including myself, are happy to give you the choice to live without drugs but would feel better about it if it were clear that you were making an informed choice, a choice based on a clear understanding of the science rather than on your misconceptions.
Posted by: Dale | July 2, 2007 5:01 PM
I'm down for a review of the unanswered question -
what is the gold standard? The purified, particulate reference standard?
Anyone?
That's one. Two is,
most of the children here say that they only believe in science that is falsifiable, and that is testable.
HIV causes anything has been 'falsified', that is, proven to be a fig bucking lie, a thousand times.
When do we get our candy?
Evolutionary theory is not testable. So, when do we get our candy?
Just wondering, fig puckers.
Hey fasteddie, you grabass, listen, what is a needle 'chock with hiv"? What test are you using, jackass? What test, what's the stucking fandard?
Answer the question nwat-toes.
Thanks,
SENsOR Senses ALL
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:05 PM
Hey Tara, you sloppy amateur,
don't tell anybody that posting the same garbage over and over again is 'spamming', unless you're planning to take your whole unholy site down, you toad.
Thanks, look forward to your response, you infected pustule,
love,
SENSOR
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:09 PM
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, the message there was that you post the same stinking garbage all the time, and yet you think it smells like chocolate.
We smell what's coming out of your head, Tara, and it's shasty nit.
SenSoR SenSes ALL
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:11 PM
I don't understand why you wouldn't comment on it. Can you describe what you mean by denatured foods? It is brought up that the statement is questionable and all you do is say you won't waste you time and start discussing toxic drugs and your, and other people's knowledge of living without them. I'm not terribly convinced about what you say and I don't really see where you have shown that what you know is correct. In these comments you've made a number of statements but I haven't seen much in the way of evidence.
"The doctors patch one up until the next sickness arrives by medicating and vaccinating the population, which has one of the worse longevity records on the planet."
As was mentioned this is just wrong. I see you answered this question but still haven't shown any evidence, and what you say still appears to be wrong. Countries like the US do have a high infant mortality rate but can you show some evidence that this is due to anything you are concerned about? Looking at the countries doing much better I see plenty of countries with heath care, while possibly socialized, that is practiced in basically the same way.
"Some of you may not be aware that benzene will cause AIDS, which has nothing to do with HIV or sex."
If you are going to make a statement like this please back it up.
Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2007 5:14 PM
Dale, regardless of what my conceptions are base upon, they work for me and many others. Why don't one of you highly, esteemed scientist (that's a compliment) follow me and others? Surely, we must have something to contibute to this issue. I suspect though that it would be very difficult to get anyone interested because most do not want us to burst a hole in their drug theories.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 5:16 PM
Travis,
please look up Benzyne and immune suppresson and T Cell and anything else you want to, doofus, stop being a priss.
Travis,
what is the standard used as the particulate reference for """"HIV Tests"""""?????
Thanks,
Noreen's Pal
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:18 PM
Well, that's certainly convinced me that y'all have a point to your arguments, "sensor." Bravo.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 2, 2007 5:21 PM
"Countries like the US do have a high infant mortality rate but can you show some evidence that this is due to anything you are concerned about?"
I want to reword this, it's not really what I meant but I missed it when rereading. Countries like the US do indeed have much better infant mortality rates and higher life spans. I object to my sentence using "countries like".
It should be more like:
Are you refering to the high US infant mortality rate? Can you show some evidence that this is due to anything you are concerned about?
Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2007 5:21 PM
CHRIST! I almost missed it!
These idiots are AFRAID! You see, the two groups that threaten their relgion the most are getting together, and it makes them quiver in their livers!
Duh. How funny. I mean it's gotta suck knowing that the more you try to convince the majority of the nation that sex and weather will kill them, and that their lives are meaningless accidental horsesh**, caused by genetic drift with no plan or direction except by Richard Dawnkin's hairless ballios, the less they believe a fingle sucking word you jackholes say.
And now they're getting together. Funny SH**!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHASHA HAHAHAHA
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:25 PM
TARA,
What is the purified particulate reference standard for HIV tests?
SENSOR Senses All
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:27 PM
Sensor, I am glad that you agree with some of my points, however, a little more respect for others wouldn't hurt. Travis, I did not respond before because some are not interesing in learning and just want to argue. To answer your question, denatured means not it its natural state. It is food that has been over-processed, inferior ingredients, heated, soaked in water, peeled, etc. and has lost its life-giving ingredients such as mineral salts, vitamins, enzymes, etc., which are so necessary to health.
I do believe that most doctors only patch the patient up and never try to get to the root cause of the patient's problem. Prevention is necessary if we are going to win this country's health care crisis. Diet and the patient's health habits are critical to one's health.
There are many references on google to benzene and AIDS. The Alberta Reappraisers has an article and an attorney in Nevado also has refernce to this.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 5:37 PM
Posted by: ERV | July 2, 2007 5:39 PM
I would not recommend using the word denatured for that. I think it will just confuse people with the biochemical definition of denatured.
Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2007 5:50 PM
Norreen,
you're a sweetheart, but don't worry about the nazis in the aids shark tank, they don't have feelings, and they'd be happier if you and everybody else who ever tested poz was dead or on the drugs. So, f-em.
Trav, you didn't answer my queston, that Tara also didn't answer,
but I got it answered over here on the other blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_de.php#comment-486338
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 5:53 PM
Though I suppose the word does, at least considering the base, apply to other things. I know that when you mentioned denatured foods I immediately thought you were refering to the proteins in it becoming denatured.
Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2007 5:53 PM
"Denatured" is a very old term to eliminate any confusion I will refer to it as unnatural, which makes better sense because it is no longer in its natural state.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 5:56 PM
Don't miss it, the Denialists (tara and gang) admitted there's no purified particulate reference standard for tests.
That means there's no purified particle, they sent a list care of nazi Noble over and so have a look.
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_de.php#comment-486338
see if you can find the purified reference particle here, I see the word assembled and inferred and fragment in every line.
Where's the particle, assholes? Where's teh particle that causes your wetdreams? You sick lying """falsified"" pucks. You oughtta be rounded up and fed Aids drugs till it hurts.
You all ought to be tested with "HIGHLY SENSITIVE" "DETUNED" Elisas until they get the result they "SUSPECT" is "ACCURATE"
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
Yeah, I"m sure you'd show them your "COULDN't POSSIBLY BE ME WHO HAS """AID""" CARD", and get yourself a "FALSE POSITIVE"
HHAHAHAHAHAHAH
SUCH BULLS**
You people are low low lowdown. I pity the fools that believe youre voodoo.
SenSoR SenSes ALL
Posted by: Sensor | July 2, 2007 6:02 PM
but don't worry about the nazis in the aids shark tank, they don't have feelings, and they'd be happier if you and everybody else who ever tested poz was dead or on the drugs
Well, you've got to admit...it would make their job much easier.
But, don't fret, they've still got the "good old days" to look back upon...Rock Hudson, Ryan White, Kimberly Bergalis...ahhhh...the happy memories for AIDS promoters.
Posted by: Dan | July 2, 2007 6:04 PM
Holy crap, talk about opening up a can-o'-worms!
Well, if you want to get your AIDS info from the likes of Sensor, then be my guest. Whatever...
Re: Benzene - Small n noreen, it's well known that Benzene is toxic to bone marrow and causes aplastic anemia, which can cause immunosuppression, and many of the same effects as HIV infection.
Carbon Tetrachloride can cause acute hepatitis. Are you going to tell me that there is no such thing as Hep A, B and C viral hepatitis?
My brother underwent bone marrow transplant for malignant lymphoma (doing well 3 years post-treatment BTW) and developed PCP pneumonia as a complication. Did he have AIDS? I'd really like to know. Thanx.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 2, 2007 7:02 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot...
How not to get AIDS:
Don't shoot drugs.
If you have to shoot drugs, use new needles and syringes (don't share them).
If you can't do that, then clean them thoroughly with bleach before you shoot.
Got it?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 2, 2007 7:19 PM
Many conditions have more than one cause but what is really amazing is that most readily accept that HIV can be the only cause of AIDS.
Those undergoing certain treatments such as heart transplants have to take immune-suppresive drugs so that their body won't reject the new organ. However, I wonder what their CD4's are while in this state? Certainly, they must be lower than the healthy public. Does anyone have any statistics about this?
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 7:23 PM
The shocking infant mortality rate of the USA is very easy to explain: In the USA you don't have universal healthcare. You have tens of millions of people who have no health insurance whatsoever. That's unique in the so-called First World.
Incidentally, there's an obvious reason for why AIDS isn't being researched in lab mice: rodents can't be infected with HIV. Only chimps and humans can be, and only in humans does it lead to a full-blown disease. Hey, compare smallpox and cowpox. Only humans can get smallpox.
And Sensor, if you giggle like a madman, people will assume you're a madman, and won't waste their time talking to you.
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 2, 2007 7:26 PM
Bruce, you are wrong, not all who have AIDS shoot drugs as you put it. Why is it hard to accept that many factor contribute to good health and by the same token many negative influences will pile up and eventually lead to AIDS? Why does most of our diseases have to have some mysterious virus or other bug as the cause. I think that a lot of this is just hipe, have you heard about the bird flu lately?
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 7:28 PM
It is hard to accept that these factors pile up to lead to AIDS because this doesn't appear to be the case. Lots of unhealthy factors might lead to poor health, hell, I guess it's possible they could lead to similar symptoms as AIDS but that is different than leading to AIDS.
I object to your use of the term mysterious. It makes it seems like they are some sort of strange and unknown thing but they are not. We are able to understand a lot about them.
I don't understand your comment about bird flu. I heard a story about it last night while listening to the radio. Yes, some people may have overhiped bird flu, SARS etc. but I don't see how that applies here. The fact that the risk of something has been overhiped doesn't change that they are caused by a virus.
Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2007 8:02 PM
I was making the point that when we first heard about bird flu, it was blown way out of proportion and immediately placed fear into the general public. When in fact, unless one had some close ties with birds there isn't any cause for alarm. At that time, all we heard is that it will mutate and we will all be doomed. Well, I guess a comet, etc. could hit the Earth and cause catastrophic damage but I don't think that we should alarm the public unless it is a real possibility.
How do you know that malnutrition, stress, radiation, other diseases and treatments plus the person's bad health habits will not lead to AIDS. You cannot base AIDS on bogus HIV Tests or viral load tests, which have not been validated and both come with disclaimers right inside the box.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 8:13 PM
Small n: If you will check my earlier comment (july 2, 1:08PM) you will see that I am merely adding some stuff I forgot to what I previously recommended.
Yes, not looking after your health will lead to all sorts of diseases. However, Helper T-cell deficiency resulting in immunodeficiency is extremely rare except for:
1. immunosuppression by a toxic agent, such as chemotherapy, benzene (I guess) and so forth.
2. chronic infection by HIV, which happens to result in the disease called AIDS.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Anyway, I am still waiting for your answers to my questions (comment July 2, 07:19PM)
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 2, 2007 8:26 PM
whoops, correction: previous comment, at 7:02PM.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 2, 2007 8:28 PM
In regards to your brother, did he have AIDS? According to the CDC's definition, it would depend upon what his CD4's were, which I am sure they would not have tested him unless he was HIV-Positive. You see when HIV-Negative persons have low CD4's, a fact that my doctors verified when questioned and when it was found that HIV-Negative persons have had high, viral loads, The CDC now does not want doctors to test HIV-Negative persons because it doesn't look good for the current hypothesis.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 8:35 PM
Noreen,
How long have you had a low tcell count 200 or less w/o meds?
Posted by: Cooler | July 2, 2007 8:39 PM
Incidentally, there's an obvious reason for why AIDS isn't being researched in lab mice: rodents can't be infected with HIV.
That's not completely correct. There is a mouse model.
The SCID-hu mouse as a model for HIV-1 infection.
You take SCID mice and implant them with human fetal liver and thymus tissue. They then produce human CD4+ cells which HIV can and does infect.
Posted by: Chris Noble | July 2, 2007 8:53 PM
Wow, I will have to guess without researching into my medical records. Since I have been off the meds for 17 months now and most of this time, I'd say at least over a year, they have been below 200.
As stated before one reason I don't place much stock in a CD4 count is when I was sick and dying and prior to the meds, they were 78. About 5 months ago, they dipped to 86, yet there was nothing wrong with me. At last count, they had climbed to 131. The key to all of this is symptoms and not a number, which goes up and down like a yo-yo. Even while on the antiretroviral medications, they would fall.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 8:54 PM
It seems you have made a choice after looking at the evidence on both sides, and it is working out well, congrats,
Posted by: cooler | July 2, 2007 8:59 PM
I feel that this is the right decision for me. However, I realize that many people look to what I do and if my health turned for the worse or if I ever had to take the meds again, I would be the first to let others know. I am a tough cookie but an honest one.
Posted by: noreen Martin | July 2, 2007 9:03 PM
noreen,
What role, if any, would you say the writings of Harvey Bialy and D. David Steele have played in your decision to discontinue taking antiretrovirals?