A reader pointed this out to me awhile back, and it's just too absurd not to mention. You may or may not be familiar with Gary Null. He's a self-proclaimed "natural living" guru, and the writer/director of the recent HIV denial documentary, AIDS Inc.:
AIDS, Inc. is a film about the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry, and how it profits from continuing fears and misconceptions about the disease....Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning? ...The film challenges the entrenched notion that AIDS or HIV is an African monkey virus that is spread sexually and can be "treated" with harmful drugs. Instead, the film considers the common underlying conditions of the epidemic, such as malnutrition, unclean water, poverty, illness, and poor lifestyle choices.
Well, we've certainly seen HIV deniers advocate a number of quack cures to replace antiretroviral drugs, including megadoses of vitamins and the aforementioned potato cure, so it probably won't come as a surprise to anyone that Null also espouses some, erm, rather "wacky" ideas regarding what makes one healthy. But some of these were new even to me; more after the jump.
Let me first note that none of these are specifically recommended for HIV. Rather, Null is anti- lots of mainstream medical science, of which HIV/AIDS is just a part. So rather than the evil drugs pushed upon unsuspecting, naive Americans, what does Null recommend for healthy living?
Magnetic pants. And magnetic bras--a bargain at only $72. If you really want to splurge, how about a king-sized magnetic mattress pad for $400 more? Or try his "new and improved!" Brainy caps, only $50 for a month's supply. And don't forget your pets!
Once again, I find it hard to believe the hypocrisy of HIV deniers, including Null himself, who decry the "profits" supposedly made by all these "unethical" HIV researchers, and yet go and make money off of scams like magnetic pants. Despicable.
Comments
hehehe The HIV Conspiracy theorist I 'debated' has $200 magic tuning forks for sale. $25 for a few ounces of magic water. $70 flu cure DAT TEH FDA TRIED TO STEALZ!
Him: *rant about how HIV is all a money scheme*
Me: I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?
Him: *silence*
Posted by: ERV | August 16, 2007 9:56 AM
I'd love to hear the theory behind the magnetic pants, etc., but I don't think I have the patience (or the stomach) to go clicking around the denialist blog underworld. Do infected cells possess some sort of magnetic quality that will allow them to be moved around, sort of like those kids' toys with the iron filings and the magnetic pen?
Maybe these results could be published in something peer-reviewed so we could all--oops, darn it, I keep forgetting that The Establishment has a bias. Maybe the Discovery Institute has space in an upcoming roll of toilet paper, er, Proceedings?
Posted by: BG | August 16, 2007 11:26 AM
Him: *rant about how HIV is all a money scheme*
Me: I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?
Him: *silence*
Heh. You'd be surprised how often you can end an argument that way. Most people outside science assume that scientists are well-paid elites. I stopped my conspiracy-theorist banker cousin in mid-sentence by telling her how much money I made.
Posted by: factician | August 16, 2007 12:48 PM
Before the advent of magnetic pants, men on a combination supplement- iron plus sildenafil citrate- were embarassed by turning to face north whenever an attractive woman showed up. The pants overcome the natural magnetic field and allow such people to seem reasonably normal.
Posted by: Joe | August 16, 2007 1:59 PM
I remember Gary Noll. I used to listen to his nationwide radio show years ago. I've always considered him to be one of the kings of pseudo-science. He's actually a very intelligent person. It's a shame he hasn't put his intelligence to better use.
Posted by: garx | August 16, 2007 8:44 PM
The biggest quack cure for hiv is AZT, prescribe a chemotherapautic drug that kills cells to treat a disease that kills cells! Makes so much sense!
Posted by: cooler | August 16, 2007 9:16 PM
I am really confused. What is Noll (and all the others) trying to do? Is this a semantic problem, where people are arguing about words? Or is this people trying to say that there can be no inter-species disease transfer?
Or, because this is now a sexually transmitted disease and one that can be transmitted maternally, that someone must have had sexual relations with a monkey or ape? Eating "bush meat" is common even in the U.S.A.
Where it began is an interesting question and important in order to figure out how it started. How to treat the disease, and hopefully cure it is very important, and we are progressing.
I read Noll's web site and the only thing I can conclude is that:
a) he's a charlatan and is profiting on other's suffering, or:
b) nope, I think that a) is correct.
Donk
Posted by: donk | August 16, 2007 10:01 PM
Maybe some of you will think that Professor Michael Ovadia, a scientist from Tel Aviv University is a nut too. His cinnamon extract, Ovadia, which comes from coumarin and cinnamon aldehyde is being tested for the Avian flu, as an alterantive to the flu vaccine, to immunize chickens embryos against Newcastle disease virus, and in the air conditioning systems in hospitals to prevent the spread of infectious disease. He has also found positive resutls against other viruses.
Even snake venom has anti-viral and analgesic properties and bee stings have helped many individuals. I wouldn't be so fast to disregard something because it is natural.
Posted by: noreen | August 17, 2007 7:32 AM
Noreen--
I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. I agree completely that many natural (i.e., plant or animal-derived) compounds hold great potential for the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, as well as contributing to our knowledge of basic biological processes. Another good example, beyond snake and bee venom, is the recent work on cone snail toxins.
But I hope you can see that there's a huge gulf between heretofore undiscovered, and potentially useful, natural products and the pure garbage that's being touted as a "cure" for HIV infection. Magnetic pants and magic water? Come on. Natural?
Posted by: BG | August 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Magnetic pants and woo water is certainly NOT natural.
Posted by: Shalini | August 18, 2007 10:02 PM
Some reliable studies:
New York College of Podiatric Medicine: In conducting a study of patients with heel pain, the results were negative. 19 patients wore a molded insole containing a magnetic foil, while 15 patients wore the same type of insole with no magnetic foil. In both groups the results were the same -- 60 percent reported improvement. These results suggest that the magnetic foil was of no benefit.
Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: A double-blind test that compared the effects of magnets and sham magnets on knee pain in 50 patients who had suffered from poliomyelitis. There were 29 people who received an active magnet and 21 who received the sham magnets. The 29 who were treated with the real magnets did report a greater reduction in pain. The test was not repeated, however, to show similar results.
Fact is, exceptionally few studies have been done, so nobody, including the little miss know-it-all blog host, knows if there is ever benefit to magnets or not.
Googling "health" and "magnets" shows about 6 million plus hits, so obviously a lot of people do seem to think, or at least believe, that they are of value for something. And perhaps some do find value and benefit, or perhaps simply placebo effect in believing in the treatment. I do not know.
But one thing seems CERTAIN! They do not seem to be harmful.
Now, all of the HIV drugs on the other hand.....
Magnets do not cause Liver failure, which is the leading cause of death in HIV positives and is highly associated with the aids drugs.
Nor do they cause any of the other effects of AIDS Drugs:
They do not cause lipodystrophy, neuropathy, calcium loss, nutropenia, Abdominal pain,
Altered taste, Anorexia (reduced apetite), Arthralgia (joint pain), Chills, Constipation, Depression, Diarrhea, Dizziness, Fatigue, Fevers, Headache, Insomnia (sleep problems), Malaise, Menstrual Irregularities, Myalgia (muscle pain), Nausea, Nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), Neurological Symptoms, Neuropathy (pain/tingling in arms arms/legs/hands/feet)Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas)Paresthesia (numbness, prickling, tingling)Rash,
Seizures,Vomiting, Anemia (low red blood/hemoglobin count), Leukopenia (low white blood cell count), Neutropenia (low neutrophil count), Thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), Elevated Alkaline Phosphatase (liver), Elevated Amylase (pancreas), Elevated Bilirubin (liver), Elevated Cholesterol, Elevated Creatinine (kidney), Elevated Liver Functions, Rash, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia, hair loss.
Now, I know one heck of a lot of dissidents, but I don't know any that have ever recommended magnets for opportunistic infections, so I really fail to understand why Tara feels the need to paint dissidents as if they are all promoting magnets and potatos.
I also certainly see no reason why anyone who wishes to try magnets, or herbs, or potatos or any thing else, even including HIV drugs for their own particular ailment should be deprived or scorned for doing so, as the seemingly wicked witch of aetiology likes to arrogantly and smuggly do on a regular basis, if any should dare to believe other than her own little smug and arrogant beliefs.
Tara, perhaps you can give us one good reason why those who wish to try magnets or potatos or herbs for some ailment they suffer from should be deprived?
I truly fail to see why Tara has such a problem with this.
But for your information, Tara, arrogance characterises pride. And your post is nothing if not arrogant. Pride looks down scornfully upon others.
They say Pride goeth before the fall. So keep on a keepin on with all of your smug arrogance and scorn for others, and we will be seeing you next fall!
Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2007 12:02 AM
Michael,
Oh, please. Give it a rest, will you? "The wicked witch of aetiology"? Who's being smug now?
I see a huge difference between Tara's objections and your complaints. Of course anyone is welcome to try magnets or rubbing vitamin E on their butt or burying a washcloth under a full moon and chanting the name of Snow White's dwarfs 13 times. If device or treatment X isn't likely to cause harm, but probably won't help (based on an objective, scientifically rigorous analysis of how device or treatment X is likely to/not to help), then of course people should try it. They have nothing to lose. The difference between that and what you're beefing about is that some of the alternative "therapies"--the magnetic pants, magic water, etc.--are being touted as effective by someone with a rather obvious vested interest in the device or treatment. (And before you launch into a diatribe about how this is exactly what big pharma does, the obvious response is what I said earlier--the published, peer-reviewed, rigorous scientific inquiry of those therapies is the difference between treatment that's likely to help, even at the expense of side effects, and just plain baloney.)
Show me the published research on magic water and I'll zip my lip.
Posted by: BG | August 19, 2007 10:47 AM
Michael,
Googling "health" and "magnets" shows about 6 million plus hits, so obviously a lot of people do seem to think, or at least believe, that they are of value for something.
Yeah googling health and cyanide has like 2,100,000 hits so obviously a third of people who like magnets also like cyanide.
health and poison gives 2,700,000 hits so it's not just cyanide people like for their health it's all poisons!
But my god if you google health and job, you find out how you can REALLY be healthy, get a job! There's 394 million hits!
So a job is even better for your health than Michael but I do admit he must be very healthy to because google health and Michael and you get 234 million hits, not bad Mr. Geiger!
Denialism and Google whatta combo!
Posted by: Adele | August 19, 2007 11:35 AM
Michael,
perhaps you want to consider not playing Tara's game.
She puts up these fluff "AIDS" posts in an attempt to put the dissidents on the defensive. It's all quite propagandistic on her part.
Posted by: Dan | August 19, 2007 1:05 PM
Give one group chimpanzees magnet therapy, give another hiv, give a third group 1200 mg of AZT...........................see who lives the longest and happiest lives.
We know HIV wont do anything, 150 chimps were injected 20 years ago, and nothing happened(one might had a low t cell count, what do you expect if you are locked in a cage for 20 years)
I doubt magnets would hurt, that group would be fine, you'd be left with the 3rd group of chimps suffering and dying with the cell killing dna terminating chemotherapy AZT, and you call us "kool aid drinkers"
Posted by: cooler | August 19, 2007 3:04 PM
We know HIV wont do anything, 150 chimps were injected 20 years ago, and nothing happened(one might had a low t cell count, what do you expect if you are locked in a cage for 20 years)
First off, back that statement up. I don't know of any study concerning 150 chimps injected with HIV. You cannot go around talking about alleged results at Sb without giving citations.
Second, I would not be surprised if *Human* Immunodeficiency Virus was significantly less pathogenic in chimps. There are physiological differences between species. What matters is the effect of HIV on humans, something which has been heavily studied.
I like to keep an open mind and consider other viewpoints. However, my support goes towards the body of research with the greatest explanatory power, and the AIDS/HIV research is quite convincing. You may disagree, but do try to restrict yourself to purely scientific debate (no ad hominems or other logical fallacies).
Posted by: JP | August 20, 2007 3:06 AM
Quick question!! How does
Another puzzling tidbit I found interesting- According to the CDC, around 40,000 become HIV+ or diagnosed with AIDS (doesn't differentiate between the 2) while some 16000 die. (suicide generally has a rate double this but that's beside the point) Anyhow, I could not find reliable stats on HIV+ that take medication but I've heard around the 400,000 mark while CDC has been saying for years that 1 million are infected with HIV. So isn't it a bit odd that 40% is the magic number in both equations? Coincidence? ...or maybe I'm missing something? Maybe someone could help out. I noticed certain mathematicians are in or among discussion on this site but it doesn't take much more than an 8th graders arithmetic to begin questioning HIV/AIDS stats. Who needs denialism when you have the CDC and UNAIDS begging the questions?
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2007 9:33 AM
Bob, you are right. Go further and check out the top STD's in this country, which are many thousands. AIDS does not fit the standard there either, meaning not in the sex, age group, race or locations of the country that has the most STD's but we rethinkers are suppose to overlook this too. When things don't add up, we ask questions, then we are ridiculed for asking poignant questions. I would love to see the statastics on those of us who don't take the meds, it probably would be an eye-opener to some.
Posted by: noreen | August 20, 2007 10:11 AM
Bob,
The CDC does differentiate between HIV infections and AIDS diagnoses.
HIV infections, estimate 40,000
AIDS diagnoses, about 45 or 46 thousand a year.
AIDS deaths were highest in 1995, over 51,000. It went down after HAART was given to 16 or 17 thousand now. Part of that decrease is because of HAART some of it because new infections we call that incidence went down in the late eighties.
About estimated 160,000 people were getting infected a year at the worst part of the spread around mid eighties. Incidence goes down late eighties until you have about 40,000 new infections a year now.
I guess your question is, if 160,000 people got infected 1985 why didn't they all die in 1995?
First AIDS doesn't work like a clock everybody's immune system is different HIV can kill some people in three years, a few people might die of old age. If you say people develop AIDS x years after infection and die y years after that doesn't mean everybody just automatically dies y years from infection.
Second alot happened in science between 1985 and 1995 and doctors were catching HIV and AIDS sooner and looking for OIs treating them.
Third antivirals, yes even AZT was helping until resistance, were helping people still before HAART.
Fourth this is part of 2 and 3 people with HIV were getting better educated about the virus and disease and promoting their own health.
So people with HIV are living longer and people with AIDS are living longer too. So fortunately you didn't have 160,000 people dying in 1995 or whenever.
The 40% is wrong. Does anyone know how many people take HAART? But see you don't go on HAART as soon as you find out your positive! Alot of people with HIV don't need to be on HAART. And also we talked about prevalence so many times. Are you really new here Bob or are you just bringing up stuff that got refuted already and you think you'll put it in again with a new name?
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 10:17 AM
Noreen,
No one is ridiculed for asking "poignant questions"
But sometimes people are asking a question, getting a answer with references and statistics and then a few weeks later ignoring it coming back and saying the same refuted thing again.
We talked about your STI stuff weeks ago. I showed you how you were wrong about it. You ignored me and now your saying again HIV doesn't spread like other STIs.
Why not respond to those points I made? If you're right you should have a good response.
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 10:28 AM
Some how, the first question of my post got truncated.
Quick question!! How does
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2007 12:21 PM
ah I think I know why now... sorry for the extras
Quick question!! How does less than 4% of the US population make up 68% of HIV/AIDS cases? I mean the whole sexually transmitted, everyone at risk, viral theory of AIDS seems quite plausible to the layperson but these numbers from the CDC seem to hint more towards what was said 20 years ago-- life style. This is where I'm normally directed to the epidemic in Africa. However according to UNAIDS and WHO, Africa can't be used as a viable part of any explanation since they flat out tell you in bold their numbers are assumptions and estimates in a section duly titled "Methods and assumptions for estimates". You'd figure with the sheer number of heteros and as much collective anal as heteros have, Oprah would have been right about 1990.
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2007 12:23 PM
"However, the establishment of an animal model of AIDS by HTLV-III-LAV injection has not been successful. Gajdusek, D.C., et al., Lancet I, 1415 (1984). The chimpanzee is the only primate other than man found to be susceptible to infection by HTLV-III/LAV. However, overt AIDS manifested by the development of opportunistic infections and/or unusual malignancies has not yet been seen, despite evidence for persistent infection and/or viremia in experiments on this species. Gajdusek, D.C., et al. Lancet I, 55 (1985). Thus, the human retroviruses have not fulfilled Koch's postulates, i.e., producing transmissible AIDS-like diseases in experimental animals"
From Dr. Shyh Ching lo's work (Cheif of the armed forces of pathology", no chimp has died of aids after 20 years.........hundreds infected
You should see the film hiv fact or fraud to see duesbergs and his collegues problems with the hiv hypothesis,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916
Dr. shyh ching Lo md Phd had serious doubts about the hiv hypothesis as well, he discovered a microbe called mycoplasma incognitus that is being found by pcr in CFS/aids gulf war illness, unlike hiv, this microbe killed every animal injected.
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html
Posted by: cooler | August 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Glad you figured out the HTML. Don't use arrows unless your doing html commands or things get cut.
Sounds like you were watching too much Oprah or been reading to many denialist books!
"less than four percent of the population"? What are you talking about? "68 percent of HIV/AIDS cases" What? Obviously what you're saying Bob is AIDS is a "gay disease". Not so cool.
Also not true. Less than half of new AIDS cases every year are from male to male sexual contact. Not 68%.
Look at it another way. 100% of people have mothers and 100% of AIDS patients have mothers. So 100% of the population provides 100% of AIDS cases. Or another way, if 0.5% of the population has HIV so 0.5% of the population contributes 100% of AIDS deaths.
Play with the numbers to your antigay hearts content Bob, people are still getting HIV and dying of AIDS some of them gay some of them hetero.
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 1:12 PM
cooler would you mind giving us the link one more time? I didn't think there was anything to it but now you've said it three hundred times so you must be right.
Did you know the secret Zionist conspiracy, I'm a part of it thanks thats how i know! held its yearly meeting in Shanksville pennsylvania exactly 666 days before 911 and planted all that evidence?
Your a trip cooler!
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 1:16 PM
JP asked for it, evidence that hiv didnt induce disease in animals, I gave it to him, and for a good review of what dissidents have to say.
Please stop lying and saying youre a PCR tech with a Masters, you post on this site 24/7, youre a laughing stock, go out and do something contsructive, instead of pretending to be a scientist.
Posted by: cooler | August 20, 2007 1:22 PM
Noreen,
Since you said again after I corrected you, HIV is not sexually transmitted, I guess you didn't get to read my comments on the Introduction thread. Hhere is what I said before,
What's your basis when you say 40,000 is too low for a std? Every std has a different transmission chance. Gonorrhea is high. Maybe more than 50% chance for one sex act. There's estimated 800,000 infections, USA, every year.
Do you know how much syphilis there is? 70,000 new infections in USA last year. Syphilis is less infectious than gonorrhea maybe a 5 percent chance per act?? but its more than HIV except sometimes when someone has a very high HIV viral load like acute phase. Then syphilis and HIV can be similar and its true alot of people are infected by someone in acute phase.
So,
800,000 gonorrhea
70,000 syphilis
40,000 HIV
It's interesting these numbers correspond so nice with the diseases' average transmission chances. And also interesting HIV is down this far from alot higher in the eighties (160,000 pre year) because of education and treatment.
HIV is different from gonorrhea because its not always AS infectious but that doesn't mean its NOT infectious.
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 1:29 PM
Adele, maybe you should check out the CDC's STd stats. First, most STD are in the 14 to 24 years olds, this does not hold up to AIDS. Secondly, most STD's are in the south, there too the top ten locations in the states are not predominantly in the south, Third, most of the AIDS case are in the male population but most STD's are in the female population. Let us not forget Dr. Padian who could not find ONE conversion to HIV Positive.
Posted by: noreen | August 20, 2007 1:42 PM
Cooler,
Give one group chimpanzees magnet therapy, give another hiv, give a third group 1200 mg of AZT...........................see who lives the longest and happiest lives.
First, pick a virus appropriate for the host species. SIV strains can cause AIDS like immunodefficiency, if they cross species boundaries (important detail, I'll get back to it). So use SIVagm (African Green Monkey strain) in Rhesus Macaques.
Next up, pick an appropriate dose of a drug for the host species. You can't just pick a human dose and assume it doesn't need to be adjusted for the animal model. It takes time and experience to come up with a workable experimental design, which is why you can't just toss some random variables together and assume that the setup will work.
As for magnet therapy... There is no scientific mechanism as to why they would do anything health wise. Magnets are neat, they have some useful properties and applications, but they aren't magic. Quite simply, without a reasonable justification as to why magnets might possibly be useful, your experiment is a waste of research primates and research funds.
----------
Why is it important that SIV strains can cause AIDS like syndromes in different species of primates naive to the virus? Because we are a different species from chimpanzees. SIVcpz (from chimpanzees) is the SIV most closely related to HIV-1, while SIVsm (from Sooty Mangabeys) is most closely related to HIV-2. Since the current hypothesis on the origin of HIV-1 and HIV-2 is that it crossed the species boundary during bush meat butchering, it is new to humans and can cause AIDS in the new species (us).
This doesn't always work. Sometimes the new species has some resistance factor, and the virus has trouble taking hold. In the case of HIV-1, there is enough difference between humans and chimps that most chimps are resistant to the worst that the infection has to offer. Likely, at some point over the millions of years since human and chimp lineages split, chimps either developed, or we lost, the important resistance factor.
Chimpanzees are resistant to their own virus, but we aren't. Give us a few hundred generations, and our uncommon resistance factors may become the norm and HIV-1 and 2 won't be a threat to humans. Perhaps our new SIV, call it SIVhs for Homo sapiens, will be a serious infection for chimpanzees but not humans.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | August 20, 2007 1:43 PM
Noreen you said,
First, most STD are in the 14 to 24 years olds, this does not hold up to AIDS
"Most" is two thirds. That's true. But it doesn't mean all STDs are in that group or no STDS are more in other groups. Highest syphilis cases for example are in 30-40 year olds.
Secondly, most STD's are in the south, there too the top ten locations in the states are not predominantly in the south,
STDS are where people are. HIV is where people are! Eastern seaboard, south, west coast, chicago area.
Third, most of the AIDS case are in the male population but most STD's are in the female population.
Right from the CDC, syphilis cases is highest in 30-40 year old men.
Let us not forget Dr. Padian who could not find ONE conversion to HIV Positive.
Dr. Padian's found alot of conversion in her career, in one study where the GOAL was preventing transmission she was successful and there weren't transmissions in her group.
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 2:16 PM
Dr. Padian's found alot of conversion in her career, in one study where the GOAL was preventing transmission she was successful and there weren't transmissions in her group.
Pew! Jeanne, you're quite the turd polisher!
So Padian found a lot of conversion in her career? Is this some sort of joke? It must be, because it made me laugh. Nancy's good for that.
So, Padian's "goal" was preventing transmission? Yes, somehow she did an extraordinary job at that in her study, because there were no "seroconversions"...whether condoms were used or not. Got to wonder what she did to prevent "transmission" when condoms weren't used. Let's ponder that. Or not, as it's entirely absurd.
I think you need a little more coffee this morning, Jeanne, Adele, whoever. You need to grease the propaganda wheels a bit better than this one. If I'm laughing, you're not doing so well.
Posted by: Dan | August 20, 2007 2:59 PM
Got to wonder what she did to prevent "transmission" when condoms weren't used. Let's ponder that. Or not, as it's entirely absurd.
Condoms were used and their use increased over time. and significantly. Here's what Padian said Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed.
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 3:18 PM
Keep polishing, Adele.
Posted by: Dan | August 20, 2007 3:21 PM
Poor Nancy.
Never sure how to feel about her dilemma.
If she had any integrity, she'd be a dissident.
Perhaps the power of the AIDS establishment is just too strong for her to resist.
Is she a victim? A sellout? A pawn? We may never know.
Posted by: Dan | August 20, 2007 3:27 PM
Give one group chimpanzees magnet therapy, give another hiv, give a third group 1200 mg of AZT...........................see who lives the longest and happiest lives.
Robster spends how many paragraphs avoiding the simple point Cooler was trying to make? A point even a third-grader would understand.
The simple point that Cooler was trying to make (I believe) is that the AZT therapy is more harmful than magnet therapy or infection with an allegedly pathological retrovirus. Am I correct, Cooler?
Posted by: Dan | August 20, 2007 4:04 PM
Not sure how to feel about Nancy Padian?
Maybe you should try reading one or two of her papers. She's got more than a hundred on HIV transmission.
If you don't like Nancy Padian and I know its fun to pretend you know people youve never met then I say, read a paper by someone else who study transmission.
Again and again on here there's comments about scientists by people who never read their papers. Yes you know exactly what Amy Justice says and exactly what Anna Coutsoudis discovers and exactly what Nancy Padian thinks. And then it turns out you never read one of Justice's papers or Coutsoudis papers or even one Padian paper. And of course you never met these people or know anything about them.
Posted by: Adele | August 20, 2007 4:07 PM
She's got more than a hundred on HIV transmission.
That's just super!
Got to keep busy, I suppose. I noticed a few healthy gay men in the Castro last week. I wonder if their health is a direct result of her studies.
God bless her for her efforts to save humanity from a fearsome retrovirus, or something.
Posted by: Dan | August 20, 2007 4:38 PM
Bob, The CDC does differentiate between HIV infections and AIDS diagnoses. HIV infections, estimate 40,000 AIDS diagnoses, about 45 or 46 thousand a year.
NO it does not. One of us is ocularly challenged. I'll help other posters distinguish which one of us it is.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
"In 2005, 37,331 cases of HIV/AIDS in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting"
"*The term HIV/AIDS refers to 3 categories of diagnoses *****collectively*****: (1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), (2) a diagnosis of HIV infection with a later diagnosis of AIDS, and (3) concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS." [emphasis mine]
AIDS deaths were highest in 1995, over 51,000. It went down after HAART was given to 16 or 17 thousand now. Part of that decrease is because of HAART some of it because new infections we call that incidence went down in the late eighties.
My question was about the relationship between the 2005 CDC report of 37,331 cases of HIV/AIDS and 16,316 deaths compared to the total vs. anecdotal reports of people who took medication. Please cite the reference to the number that took medication. I want to see a number correlation with your claim.
About estimated 160,000 people were getting infected a year at the worst part of the spread around mid eighties. Incidence goes down late eighties until you have about 40,000 new infections a year now.
Another tidbit NOT relevant to my questions. But, How exactly to you suppose the incidence rate went down?
I guess your question is, if 160,000 people got infected 1985 why didn't they all die in 1995?
You guessed incorrect. Dont EVER take words out of my mouth then answer with your holier than thou attitude. Id slap you in real life.
So people with HIV are living longer and people with AIDS are living longer too. So fortunately you didn't have 160,000 people dying in 1995 or whenever. The 40% is wrong. Does anyone know how many people take HAART? But see you don't go on HAART as soon as you find out your positive! Alot of people with HIV don't need to be on HAART. And also we talked about prevalence so many times.
If you would have read my question, you would have CLEARLY seen the part where I stated "I could not find reliable stats on HIV+ that take medication". What part of this did you ignore or flat out fail to read???? I do NOT care how many times you have discussed a certain topic. This is my first time asking and you WILL respect it as such or you're simply dismissed as a flame baiting troll.
Are you really new here Bob or are you just bringing up stuff that got refuted already and you think you'll put it in again with a new name?
Yes I am a new poster here. However I have read over discussions before. How stuck up your own ass are you exactly? I mean you are seriously one stuck up person. With your condescending attitude, it wouldn't matter who I said I was or how genuine I actually am. Of course I can give my cell# if you wish further evidence. Who did you think was where you obviously thought I had been refuted? Who the fuck do you even think you are to have any authority to question my identity?
Glad you figured out the HTML. Don't use arrows unless your doing html commands or things get cut.
Glad you troll long enough to know that this is only a problem on this site. Most any other site recognizes open tags and do not cut half a post.
Sounds like you were watching too much Oprah or been reading to many denialist books!
No it didnt. Sounds like you like to talk out of your ass and love the vibration. I have never watched a full episode of Oprah nor have I ever read any books on HIV/AIDS. Its common knowledge however that Oprah said- By 1990 one in five heterosexuals will be dead of AIDS. Your ignorance is no excuse though. You need a lesson in manners and humility. I'm sure you are fond of the anonymity the
net offers. I promise you wouldnt speak to me in person like this.
"less than four percent of the population"? What are you talking about? "68 percent of HIV/AIDS cases" What? Obviously what you're saying Bob is AIDS is a "gay disease". Not so cool.
I didnt say this- this is what I came up with from the CDC stats. Homosexuals account for 2-3% of the population according to what I've read and possibly upwards of 10% according to Kinsey. IV drug users account for less than 1%. You can pick you own stats but the population of homosexuals + IV drug users does NOT exceed 12% of the US population no matter how you wanna spin it. If you know of a reputable source for the homosexual and IV population, I'd like to see it.
Less than half of new AIDS cases every year are from male to male sexual contact. Not 68%.
Where did you get your numbers? I got mine from the 2005 stats on the CDC.
Look at it another way. 100% of people have mothers and 100% of AIDS patients have mothers. So 100% of the population provides 100% of AIDS cases. Or another way, if 0.5% of the population has HIV so 0.5% of the population contributes 100% of AIDS deaths.
I do not need your ignorant, irrelevant analogy. Thanks though!
Play with the numbers to your antigay hearts content Bob, people are still getting HIV and dying of AIDS some of them gay some of them hetero.
Ad hominem. You know this word so well I'm sure. But, heres how I "played" with the numbers. Unless you have death certificates, you have no idea how anyone died other than to spout off what stats someone told you. According to the CDC, 37,331 were living with HIV/AIDS per CDC definition. As the pie chart shows: 67% of males (27,455) were homosexual, 13% were IV drug users, another 5% was homo+IV drugs. Of females, 15% were IV drugs. Now 67% of 27,455 males is 18,395. 13% is 3,569. 5% is 1372. Now 19% of the 9,708 women are IV drugs which is 1845. So counting up all homosexuals and IV drug users, you get a grand total of 25,181. Can you guess what % 25,181 is of 37,331 reported cases is? Heres some help since Im not so sure you can pull it off without help
http://www.math.com/everyone/calculators/calc_source/percent.htm
Now PLEASE tell me how this is anti-gay for pointing out numbers on the CDC website?
Might wanna stay off your steed of yours... for it ran you into a tree.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2007 4:38 PM
You are absolutely correct Dan, magnets wont kill/harm you like the dna chain terminating cell killing drug AZT would, and that hiv acts as the harmless passenger virus it probably is in chimps.
people should read http://www.projectdaylily.com/
to find out about the mycoplasma biowarfare program, now this microbe kills every animal injected.
Posted by: cooler | August 20, 2007 5:12 PM
Dan,
Robster spends how many paragraphs avoiding the simple point Cooler was trying to make?
The point was based on bad reasoning, ignorance of experimental design, and is a meaningless rhetorical dichotomy. Sorry you couldn't follow my response.
Cooler has constantly been harping on how chimpanzees almost never get AIDS from HIV. HIV-1 rarely has serious effects on chimps because it evolved in chimps, and chimps evolved to resist it. If this concept was so easy to get, it wouldn't be such a sticking point for him. Hell, I had to do some reading on SIV before I knew it, or I would have pointed it out earlier.
And how dare you suggest that cooler is only on a third grade level. I have it from good sources that he got his GED, and is happily living in his mom's basement. (I kid, I kid)
The simple point that cooler was trying to make (I believe) is that the AZT therapy is more harmful than magnet therapy or infection with an allegedly pathological retrovirus.
Cooler wholeheartedly believes that the experiments that he comes up with are valid and would work with no changes. He gets credit for trying, at least. The problem is that magnets will have no side effects compared with any drug, but no positive effects either.
Do the experiment in an appropriate animal model under appropriate circumstances, and the results can easily be predicted.
We know that Rhesus Macaques develop an AIDS like syndrome when infected with SIVsm. The infected macaques treated with anti retrovirals (ARV) (AZT or others) will survive longer than the untreated or magnet treated animals.
We know from the scientific literature, regardless of how often it is denied, that HIV+ people statistically live longer when they receive ARVs. Yes, there are LTNP people, often with known genetic resistance markers. Since magnets are no better than any other kind of magic trinket, they will do no harm, but no good either.
All drugs have side effects and toxicities. ARVs have side effects, but they extend life for people with AIDS.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | August 20, 2007 5:57 PM
Bob,
You are partially correct, of course, in the sense that you have successfully pulled some numbers from the CDC website.
Adele is also correct, as you may have noticed had you examined the CDC information more closely. I get the sense that she was referring to the CDC estimates for the entire United States, not just the 33 states covered by the estimates you presented.
When the CDC refers to "HIV/AIDS," this is not a confusion of the former with the latter. You may consider this to be a strange term, and I might even agree with you on that, since AIDS by definition involves HIV. However, mere use of the term "HIV/AIDS" does not change the fact that the CDC does keep separate statistics on new HIV infections and new AIDS cases.
Exactly what proportion of AIDS cases are found in the gay community or among IDU depends greatly upon the time period one choses for examination. For example, should we include all AIDS cases from the beginning of the pandemic, we would get a very different answer than if we viewed only cases newly diagnosed in the last year. While HIV in the United States was first found predominantly among homosexual males and IDU (or, to use your words, "homo + IV drugs"), HIV has since moved into other segments of society...until, as another commenter correctly noted, fewer than half of the newly-diagnosed AIDS cases in 2005 were in MSM.
HIV in the United States began its spread in a relatively small portion of the population. With each passing year, that initial compartmentalization becomes less stark and will eventually resemble the distribution found in some geographically distinct areas. If this somehow implies that HIV does not exist, or that HIV does not cause AIDS, I would be grateful for any enlightenment as to how this is so, Bob.
Posted by: ElkMountainMan | August 20, 2007 6:13 PM
Robster,
please...
Cooler confirmed that he was only trying to make a simple point. You can either agree with it or disagree. But, you choose to run with it, turning it into something extraordinarily complex just to avoid the simple fact that AZT probably isn't the best thing to put inside a body.
Posted by: Dan | August 20, 2007 6:18 PM
ElkMountainMan, what part of "2005" and "CDC" statistics did you miss??? Heres the link incase you missed it.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
"The term HIV/AIDS refers to 3 categories of diagnoses collectively: (1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), (2) a diagnosis of HIV infection with a later diagnosis of AIDS, and (3) concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS"
Reread if if you didnt understand the first time. I could have a transcontinental trip, if I were to attach some of you to a car, the way some of you spin (or atleast in a circle).
Now for the "homo" thing, lets drop the PC'ness here and now because I give a handfull of shit about how one interprets that. We both know "homo" mean same. Adele already tried to paint me a gay hater when I said nothing of the sort. What ever works though huh? I mean gosh, the CDC has FUCKIN PIE CHARTS that show God or nature one- hate gays, blacks, and junkies(lesbians are OK though). Either the CDC charts ar misleading (which someone should have pointed out why the charts are an error) or I did infact read them correctly. Either way the CDC looks bad.
I really dont understand it sites attitude. Some hold like a personal vendetta to destroy the dissident movement. Whats the point??? Most every layperson is oblivious to anything except what they were taught in 6th grade sex ed.
Anyhow, you should jump on the opportunity to hopefully correct someones misintepretation if infact they have been misguided. You do NOT get that here. You can't ask a question without the condescending attitude and labeled a gay bashing troll. This isnt about whos right or wrong though-- its a pissing contest between 2 sides of the scientific debate. Of course the orthodox wont even aknowledge its a "scientific" debate-- but a quite few sure do spend an awful lot of time an energy thwarting the dissident opposition.
So since the CDC page is inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise misinterpreted, someone please direct me to the statistics that show whats really going on.
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2007 7:00 PM
I couldnt help but reread the CDC and I was wondering exactly what the other 17 states numbers would yield, had they been collected.
"CDC has estimated that approximately 40,000 persons in the United States become infected with HIV each year."
So is the aforementioned sentence fair to say or can I not read or what? Where are the real numbers I need to review instead? Do you need a special decorder ring or join some club on here? I mean seriously, if I cant go to the CDC website for clear, accurate information, you think IM going to believe any of you? Get real.
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2007 7:20 PM
The simple answer is that, despite the fantasies of Duesberg, STIs do not spread randomly.
Sexual networks are not random at all.
If you really are curious then you should look at the statistics for syphilis for the same year.
2003 Syphilis Surveillance Annual Report
The male-to-female ratio for syphilis is 5.2:1 which is higher than the 2.7:1 for HIV. If you look at the individual states then you can see that San Francisco had a male-to-female ratio for syphilis of 106:1.
STIs do not spread randomly.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 20, 2007 7:58 PM
Bob,
You suggested that either you or Adele is ocularly challenged:
And to help us distinguish which of you is "ocularly challenged", you directed us to a CDC fact sheet: A Glance at the HIV/AIDS Epidemic, from which you quoted:
Well, I've gone through a lot of the HIV/AIDS statistical pages at the CDC Web site, and I'm not sure that either of you is "ocularly challenged". Rather, it seems that either, like Dr. Maniotis, you "really don't understand what is going on," or (also like Dr. Maniotis) you simply choose to take information out of context and hope no one notices.
The Fact Sheet to which you directed us is divided into two parts. The first (from which you quoted) is subtitled "HIV/AIDS Diagnoses," and presents statistics on cases of HIV infection whether or not the patients have progressed to AIDS.
The second part (which you ignored) is subtitled "TRENDS IN AIDS DIAGNOSES AND DEATHS," and presents statistics limited to cases of AIDS, not simply HIV infection.
So even in the very web page to which you directed our attention, the CDC differentiates between HIV infection and AIDS diagnoses.
In typical Denialist fashion, you pick a quote out of context that you believe supports your argument, but you make no effort to understand the data being presented, and seem to hope that no one else will actually read the source that you cite.
Perhaps if you start at the beginning, the CDC HIV/AIDS page called "Basic Statistics."
Among other things, this page defines the some of the terms used in the other statistical postings (including the fact sheet from which you quoted):
It seems the Maniotis Mantra applies to more than one of the Denialists:
I really don't understand what is going on.
Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. July 6, 2007
Posted by: franklin | August 20, 2007 9:27 PM
Dan,
Cooler confirmed that he was only trying to make a simple point.
A point based in ignorance and wrapped in a logical fallacy. Not worth that much, really.
You can either agree with it or disagree.
So the range of opinions I can have is determined by you? For any drug, there are desirable effects and undesirable effects. This was never considered within cooler's false dichotomy.
But, you choose to run with it, turning it into something extraordinarily complex just to avoid the simple fact that AZT probably isn't the best thing to put inside a body.
Again, sorry you couldn't follow it, but biology and experimental design are often very complex.
For example, your statement that "AZT probably isn't the best thing to put inside a body" appears simple, except when you consider the exceptions. First, for the HIV- majority, the side effects outweigh the positives (zero, as they lack the condition AZT is indicated for). Second, for HIV+ people with AIDS, while solo AZT is better than no treatment, combination treatments are available with much better positive effect/ side effect profiles.
So we come down to two groups. Group one, HIV- or HIV+ pre AIDS, AZT is not needed, so it isn't "the best thing to put inside a body." Group two, HIV+ with AIDS, there are better treatments available now, so again, AZT isn't "the best thing to put inside a body."
However, for a period of time during the 80s, AZT was the best ARV available. AZT was the best thing to "put inside" the bodies of a limited patient population.
Is AZT going to be in the next batch of multivitamins? Of course not, but since magnets have no effects, positive or otherwise, they have no use as a medication whatsoever.
AZT isn't the best thing to "put inside" a body, except when it was for some.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | August 20, 2007 10:55 PM
Ever heard of the 20/80 rule?
It's a small world, after all
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 21, 2007 12:00 AM
On the surface, your argument seems plausible but I have little faith in comparing such low overall prevalence.
"The overall increase in primary and secondary (P&S)syphilis cases during 2000-2005 was observed primarily among men. During 2004-2005, P&S syphilis reported to CDC increased among men (from 6,722 to 7,383 cases) and women (from 1,255 to 1,339 cases)."
For the sake of every produce section in American grocery stores, lets keep the apples with the apples shall we? At least, lets compare it with other sexually transmitted viral infections. Or do they not illustrate your argument very well?
Heres what the CDC says about HSV-2-
"Herpes is more common in women than men, infecting approximately one out of four women, versus one out of five men. This difference in gender may be because male-to-female transmission is more efficient than transmission from females to males."
heres what is says about HPV-
"Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year."
I understand how sexual networking would play a role in any STI but what can we conclude by comparing syphilis to HIV to HSV to HPV? Well that a number of different opinions an observations can be drawn depending on point of view. I fail to see exactly how this explains why HIV is still viewed as a gay disease among the general population. Chris, can you imagine if you suddenly became the new host of Family Feud and ask 100 people "What's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear HIV or AIDS?" What will the survey say? You know the answers to this and the CDC numbers only confirm it. Dr Bob on the Body tried to tell me that there were epidemiological, biological, and social reason why HIV looks like a gay disease. He didnt actually tell me the reasons though. Id like to understand why HSV and HPV behave similar as viral infection among the general population where HIV, as you say, looks more like syphilis.
Posted by: Bob | August 21, 2007 1:32 AM
In the Eureka Alert, Tara has stated that we denialists are dangerous and misinformation may lead to serious consequences, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/plos-hds081707.php
I find this statement ridiculous because if she really felt this way, then she would stop posting all of her threads about HIV, which she creates in the first place. She won't because she knows that her audience would stop if she did. She also failed to tell that many DO NOT take the meds or why we don't believe that the mainstream is right. Maybe, we should stop posting and then see how well her blog does.
Posted by: noreen | August 21, 2007 7:41 AM
Tara is moderating posts, thusly I've stopped posting here.
Posted by: CARTER | August 21, 2007 10:31 AM
Bob I'm sorry if you are not a homophobe and I called you one. It's just that, usually when you see someone trying to "blame the victim" that persons also a religious conservative or another kind of conservative or even a "liberal" homophobe. When the first thing you say on here is HIV is a gay disease what am I supposed to think?
I can also say sorry if I'm too arrogant. Maybe I am. Just that, the last few weeks it's like everything I read on here from people like Noreen and Julianna KEnny and Carter and Dairn Brown is wrong. And if I correct it they just ignore it don't even bother to dfend themself. Just one exeption, Noreen finally admitted Bill Clinton didn't pardon Bob Gallo. A good start one out of a hundred isn't bad for denialists.
So when you Bob showed up with your stats and your questions like you never been here before I thought you were wrong too. And like Elkman said you weren't really wrong about some of it. But I wasn't wrong either you were looking at the "at a Glance" page. I was looking at the full report see TAble 3
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table3.htm
Where their giving AIDS not HIV/AIDS estimates for 2005. I thought too you were talking about only gay men since you didn't specify and ive heard bigger percentages for total gay population than 4. So for gay people yes its under 50% of new AIDS cases if your saying gay people and injecting drug users then its closer to your number.
You can also find statistics and information at avert dot org.
But anyway i won't argue anymore about if gay people are 3 or 5 percent of the population or if homosexuals and IDU are 68% or 66% or whatever of new AIDS cases.
I just want to ask what's your point? What if one percent of the population gives 70% of AIDS cases? What does that mean to you Bob?
Posted by: Adele | August 21, 2007 11:31 AM
Tara is moderating posts, thusly I've stopped posting here. says carter two minutes before he says something on the other thread.
Maybe, we should stop posting and then see how well her blog does. says Noreen when she calls Tara hypacrite.
Before you go noreen please please help me out with something if you can.
You said HIV couldn't be a STD because 40,000 new infections a year is too low for STD. Then you said it couldn't be a STD because AIDS cases are more in men than women.
But that's just like syphilis! So do you say syphilis doesn't exist either and its not a STD? If not why do you say HIV isn't a STD and doesn't cause AIDS? I want to understand this and how your thinking about it.
Posted by: Adele | August 21, 2007 11:37 AM
Better to shine the light on the ignorance of darkness than to ignore it.
I think you're badly mistaken in assuming she's after mere raw numbers. No-one is stopping you from leaving as far as I can tell. By all means, there's the door, go for it. I've read this blog from its inception on Day 1 (when denialism posts were few and far between), and it was perfectly pleasant informative and well hit place then as now, occasional rantings of denialists aside.
It's no Pharyngula I'm sure, but then again, few blogs are.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 21, 2007 1:05 PM
Before you go noreen please please help me out with something if you can.
Such a "sincere", impassioned plea.
You're utterly transparent, Jeanne, Adele, whoever.
So is Tara and her goon squad of AIDS propagandists.
Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2007 1:26 PM
No Dan I am sincere I want to know how can Noreen see stuff like this so selectively. Does syphilis exist does it cause disease or does only HIV get disqualified as a STD in her thinking?
And if you wanna talk about goon squads maybe you should talk to your friend Michael who said he might want to to slit Franklins throat and he hoped someone in Franklins family got AIDS or talk to this new gal or guy here, Bob, who says Id slap you in real life and then
You need a lesson in manners and humility. I'm sure you are fond of the anonymity the net offers. I promise you wouldnt speak to me in person like this and curses me out.
I can't remember last time there was this kinda poor behavior threats of violence really goonish stuff from anyone except the denialists here.
If you have something intelligent to say DAn please say it but if not theres alot of places better than a science blog you can be sarcastic and talk about "turd polishing" and things.
Posted by: Adele | August 21, 2007 2:16 PM
If you have something intelligent to say DAn please say it but if not theres alot of places better than a science blog you can be sarcastic and talk about "turd polishing" and things.
Adele-Jeanne,
this is hardly a "science blog". It's Tara's AIDS propaganda blog, peppered with a few respectable non-AIDS articles to give the appearance of something other than an AIDS propaganda blog.
You, Tara, Chris, and your lovely friends are here to at least try and prop up the fatally-flawed HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It requires much turd-polishing. I can think of no better crew for that task.
Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2007 2:29 PM
to at least try and prop up the fatally-flawed HIV/AIDS hypothesis. For a hypothesis that you consider to be 'fatally-flawed' Dan, H