Check out this AWESOME anti-science movie!
- Outdated, discredited, or simply flat-out scientifically wrong hypotheses presented as real scientific controversies!
- Pro-outdated-discredited-wrong 'scientists' persecuted, ostracized by TEH MAN! World cant handle the philosophical implications of their brilliant ideas!
- SUPER AWESOME cellular animations!
- Real scientists interviewed under false pretenses! Quotemined!
- Pissed off scientists shows up at movie screening and all hell breaks loose!
Am I talking about EXPELLED II: Dembskis vs the Baylor Lunch Lady?
No!
Im talking about EXPELLED-except-with-HIV-Denial movie, House of Numbers:
DIRP!
Awesomely, one of the misled real scientists, Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, took a page from the PZ/Dawkins handbook and improved on it. Instead of just showing up at a local screening, Kuritzkes hosted a post-screening panel discussion. A panel of scientists. No Deniers. Deniers in the audience were blindsided, and lulz ensued.
You all just need to go read the whole article. 'Fans' of EXPELLED will get a kick out of it-- Creationists, HIV Deniers, anti-vax-- its all the same thing.
- Log in to post comments
What's next? Antivax? Hollow Earth?
Ooh, hollow earth would be awesome. Is Neal Adams still kicking around here?
Awesome! I love a good movie that I can shout at for gross retardation! I shall have to pirate it post haste! But seriously, who actually goes in for this kind of thing and why do these films always have budgets for such fancy film making? Is the retard lobby really that rich? Perhaps what we need is a documentary film studio to make movies that systematically refute these lunacies before Joe Average really starts taking this stuff seriously. Maybe even erase some of the lies and misconceptions invented by such steaming piles as What the Bleep. Man that movie irks me.
So all the friends I watched die from AIDS related complications weren't HIV positive? Are these people serious?
The article was interesting. The comments, however, were a Comstock Lode of free-milling stupid.
The poll on the linked page is priceless! :o)
@Ktesibios #5
I completely agree! Unfortunately you have to have an account to leave a message there and I wasn't about to do that. Seriously though, when will people learn that having an opinion doesn't mean anything if it is proven false? Flaming horse apples, what people wrote there.
Anyway, thanks for the info Abbie! I had no idea these nutters actually existed before this, which means I have something new to complain about!
What the heck?! Where did these people come from? And the comments on the linked article... I am flabbergasted! We know hiv - we know the way it works - we can sequence it and tell one strain from another. What do the people that made this film "think"? Do they think there is a massive conspiracy that involves thousands of scientists all over the world? Do they think we made up the gene sequence?!
This film is just totally irresponsible. I was upset at Expelled because I don't like science education being ruined by religious dopes. But this is far worse. If this film convinces someone that is asymptomatic HIV+ that they don't have a disease or tell their partners, other people will die. It will encourage people to forego doctors and actual treatment that could give thema few more years, for what?! Who is gaining anything by denying the existence of a pathogen? Would they deny the existence of Marburg, Ebola, Hanta virii too?
What is wrong with science education? Are there really this many stupid people in the world?
Ah, innocence. This stuff is tame; for the real full-on crazy you should check out MHA. Warning: John "whaleto" Scudamore is actually a moderate.
There is a lot of money to be made farming rivers in Egypt.
As a matter of fact, they do. There's quite a bit of germ theory denialism out there in Wooville. It's synergistic with certain religious views, too -- much easier to push "sin as the basis for bad health" if you don't accept a scientific explanation of biological phenomena.
Next controversy: does the Moon generate its own light?
AIDS Denialism is alive and well, even when after leaders like Christine Maggiore die of AIDS. This small group of destructive conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists are attracting a growing following of people who distrust science-based medicine. A new book titled Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy explores the psychological and social phenomenon of AIDS denialism. All royalties from the book are donated to buy HIV medications in Africa.
Visit http://denyingaids.blogspot.com for more information.
Background on the boy who made the film:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/news/press1.html
"...
âEmerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola Accident or Intentional?" (Tetrahedron,
LLC Press, 1997;1-888-508-4787; http://www.tetrahedron.org/), wherein
several potentially explosive NCI reports are reprinted, is currently in
production by Nashville independent film producer Brent Leung.
..."
http://www.devvy.com/aids_20001206.html
"...
Independent film producer, Brent Leung is heading up the Nashville film
crew. According to Graves' publicist, Joel Bales, "'STATE ORIGIN' will be
on the shelf by inaugauration day. "Once the dust finally settles from the
current political tug of war, the laboratory origin of AIDS will dominate
the social agenda of humanity, well into the 21st Century."
..."
JimBob-- Oooh, my bestest buddy Lenny Horowitz. Good find.
Oh, snap!
Uggh...
At least Expelled didn't have to potential to kill anyone.
I truly hate denialism on principle. Especially denialist movies. "Expelled" was disgusting for how it interviewed scientists under false premises, distorted science by cherry-picking quotes, and compared honest working scientists to Nazis.
9/11 Denialism disgusts me because it is a slap in the face, and an exploitation of, all those who died on 9/11/2001.
Despite its being denialism of a different sort, "House of Numbers" comes off the same No-Nothing anti-science, anti-intellectual assembly line as did "Expelled."
There are many kinds of denialism, and all are equally dishonest/demented, and should be exposed by rational people. But the HIV/AIDS denialism represented by "House of Numbers" has got to be among the worst in terms of its potential body count.
People will die because of this movie.
Infected people will not seek treatment. Many will not get HIV tested. Some will spread HIV with out warning their partners, because they believe callous idiots instead of scientists and physicians. Only the Vaccine Denialist movement is in the same league in terms of promoting death in the millions.
Brent Leung and his financiers will have blood on their hands.
I do not say the movie should be banned, but perhaps the families of HIV/AIDS fatalities should be able to sue the producers for promoting dangerous lies.
Meanwhile, kudos to Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, his colleagues, and the Boston International Film Festival for taking a stand for modern medical science.
One of my favorite passages from the article:
Kary Mullis, a leading AIDS denialist and a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, blamed many early AIDS cases on poppers, saying, "What exactly caused Kaposiâs sarcoma? We know that now. It was amyl nitrite."
Holy Shit! I guess some Nobel Prize winners are crazier than others but this is like latter day Linus Pauling crazy...
Stryder, Kary Mullis also has made comments about how he believes in reincarnation and how he thinks that the Federal Reserve is part of some evil conspiracy(there may have been anti-Semitic overtones in that context also). Mullis was always a bit of a loon. He had an extremely good idea with PCR and has done close to nothing else with his life since them. Mullis makes Pauling look like a model of sanity and self-restraint.
Quick poll: How many people here support freedom of speech? Freedom of thought? Freedom of expression?
In other news, did you know that the battery industry is ripping you off? See here.
For a good dose of hiv denialism lunacy, hop on over to the Aetiology blog here at scienceblogs, and look at the "Christine Maggiore Dies from Pneumonia" thread - its currently well-represented in the recent comment list.
Be prepared to be startled and disgusted.
"Quick poll: How many people here support freedom of speech? Freedom of thought? Freedom of expression?"
You missed freedom to cause suffering and death through misinformation, ignorance and out right dishonesty from your poll and that is the 'freedom' relevant here.
This is truly pathetic. I can understand why people want to deny evolution (the whole religious consequences), but why the HIV/AIDS denial? I am sitting in one of the hubs of HIV/AIDS research in South Africa. I constantly read of the success that ARVs have here. In fact mother to child transmission is declining rapidly. More adults are living longer due to medications and the spread of infection is stabilizing.
Why people dont understand that makes me want to scream!
Addressing your question, and limiting my response adults, that is why teaching critical thinking is important. You cannot protect everybody from being duped, however. It is one price of freedom. (In the case of HIV infected children not being treated as a result of their parents, that is a different issue, and not one remedied by censoring).
On the other hand, I read the baywindows article, nice article--(makes me glad PZ wasn't allowed in to the screening of the documentary film Expelled), but a little heavy on the use of the word "denialist".
Such rhetoric is actually counter productive IMO, and will, I believe, increase the number of HIV infected individuals likely to fall for the arguments of the HIV skeptics.
Why?
Who gets AIDS in this country?
Prostitutes, homosexuals, drug addicts are certainly represented.
But homosexuals and drug addicts have a tendency to go against the mainstream. Marginalizing the HIV skeptics by calling them "denialists" like a schoolyard bully, will actually induce, in my opinion, more HIV victims to embrace the skeptic's message.
Instead, you should simply answer the challenges. Don't be a bully.
Unless you don't really care. In which case, just scream "denialist, denialist, you're a stinky denialist, la la la la la, and your mom shops at garage sales and stands in line for government cheese" every time you come across an HIV skeptic.
Increase your volume whenever you see a person with HIV nearby.
Lung's unwillingness to disclose his funders speaks volumes!
Because a world where diseases like AIDS can't happen to you is a much nicer world to live in.
William, the "challenges" _were answered long ago_. There are idiots in the comment thread from the news article _claiming that HIV capsid is the same as actin_. That's wrong on a "Lobsters are the same as chicken" level. And putting out movies which falsely claim there's a valid debate here are about as productive as "Mains power sockets: dangerous, or source of superpowers? Take a fork and join us on our tool of discovery!"
Sure, there'll always be people who'll listen to the HIV denial message because what they're really saying is: You're not really ill, you're not going to die. That's seductive.
Concern troll Limp Willy is concerned. And limp.
He's as full of $hit as ever, but at least he's concerned.
Your concern is noted, and rejected.
The challenges have been answered and thats why they are called denialists!
And it is duly noted that your rejection was conspicuous for not being accompanied by any justification whatsoever. And, I am not really concerned; I am disinterested to uninterested. I'm just noting that if the anti-HIV skeptics were actually concerned, they'd behave differently.
You have to consider the audience, especially new members of the audience you claim are susceptible to snake oil sales pitches, and not the challenger. What is so difficult with calmly restating your case every time some long ago answered challenge is spewed by those you claim are charlatans?
Excuse me, but did _anybody_ here hear what Dr. Luc Montagnier _SAID_!?!?
Did he just say that a person with a good immune system can be infected by HIV and clear it within a few weeks?!?
W.T.F.!?!?
Raymond - take a deep breath. Everything will be okay.
This statement is motivated from the perspective of, "any exposure, whatsoever, will cause seroconversion, HIV infection... AIDS..."
Whereas there are known cases of exposure, before knowledge of PEP, where people did not seroconvert.
My understanding is that the titer of infection has to exceed the host's ability to respond; I'm not an immunologist, but talk to folks who work in infectious diseases (my organism of study being a common one).
Check out: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/497274?cookieSet=1
For instance, imagine in the case of a needlestick injury - what do you think the odds of seroconverting are?
Turns out they're ~1/200
With PEP, they're ~1/10,000
Do you think that 199/200 times for the non-intervention cases, that there was simply no virus on the needle? Maybe in some of those cases, but not 199/200. The viruses may not be competent to infect, or they may be in a low enough concentration that they don't out pace the typical immune response. I know how this is explained mathematically, but I don't know the molecular biology behind this; Abbie is in a much better position to speak to this than I. But I think this idea is what Luc is speaking to in that statement.
WW, have you ever had a conversation with a 2-year-old? (Bear with me a moment.) You, know, that conversation where they've just learned "Why?" and keep asking over, and over, and over, and over again until you are nearly insane? That's why we're all sharp with HIV denialists. You explain over and over and over again all the refutations of the lies of the snake oil salesmen, and still they keep coming.
"Denialist" is a strong word, but we use that word because it is correct. Some say that using "denialist" means we're scared. And we are. We are terrified that people will listen to the denialists and die. As the saying goes "Use a whip to get horse out of a burning stable." This is a fight for *lives*; we cannot afford to pull any punches. do you understand that?
@WW #23
Oooh! Nice shot at the gays there WW. Keep attacking the windmills, one day they'll all be sorry they doubted you!
WW, so what you are saying in #23 is that people who are "different" deserve to die of AIDS? 'Cause that's kind of what that looks like. Please don't say that. That would be just plain evil. Not to mention is totally missing the point.
WW's list of people who get AIDS is incomplete.
Don't forget little kids, tennis players, EMTs, dentists ...
OK, maybe it is supernatural punishment for sins.
As someone who is pretty ignorant to HIV/Aids. I have seen this movie and found it very interesting. One point the movie makes is that there is no test that can confirm you have HIV. There are common occurrences of false positives. So my question is does a test exist that can confirm your infected with HIV? One person posted we know the gene sequence of HIV. Then I would assume it would be fairly easy to detect. I'm not a educated in the medical field so I don't know. Thanks for any help
afvace:
They are lying to you, to put it bluntly.
The standard HIV diagnostic series is two tests. The first, ELISA, uses the entire suite of immunogenic HIV proteins, mixed together and stuck to the bottom of a small well in a plate. Blood serum from the person beintg tested is put in the well - if the person has antibodies to HIV proteins, those antibodies will stick to the HIV proteins. A secondary test then detects whether human antibody proteins are retained in the well. This test is quick, easy, cheap, and has a false positive rate of somewhere between 1/100, and 1/1000. It is NOT the definitive test, it is used for preliminary screening, because it is cheap and quick.
People who give a positive result on the ELISA test, then have their blood retested with a much more discriminatory test, the Western Blot. In this test, HIV proteins are separated by size by electrophoretic separation, and then stuck onto a strip of a special paper. That paper is then exposed to blood serum form the person beign tested. If a person is actually infected with HIV, they will have immune tresponses to more than one of the immunogenic proteins, and the western blot test will give positive results at several locations corresponding to the HIV proteins that the person has an immune response to. Typically, to be scored positive on the western blot, they have to be positive at 2 or 3 bands, with a certain base intensity at each.
To be positive on the HIV test, one must first score positive on the ELISA test, and then positive on the Western Blot test. In one study, over 17,000 people who had scored positive in this way were examined by techniques to identify the virus presense - only one did not have virus. This gives an operational false positive rate, in that study, of about 1:17,000.
And then, after one is diagnosed positive, there is a followup therapeutic series of tests for viral load, using yet another technique, typically a PCR-based viral load test. Even if one were a false positive in the ELISA-Western Blot tests, it would soon be apparent that there was no virus - and this is very, very , very rare.
So yes, there is a good, functional HIV test with a very low false positive rate, and the people who tell you otherwise are lying to you.
Wow ERV, way to bring out the kooks, almost as good as the post on the Pickens peeps...
Damnit, in general, I trust scientists because the rules they follow cover so many of them, and the natural competition between them generally brings BS into the light fairly quickly.
It saddens me to see a film like this rolling out. Expelled was one thing, since it only had an effect on potential critical thinking skills. This thing could be personally deadly to folks who are HIV positive but in denial.
I don't know exactly where to stand on free speech about this sort of crap, but I can say keep publicizing take downs of this shit. Consider it a non-funded public health service.
At least post like this should help you sleep better at night. I don't know how the denialists do it.
I think homosexuals more than the average person would be sympathetic to and maybe even try to understand a person who is being bullied. Maybe I am wrong.
One part of the trailer is disconcerting. The lady who all but stated that answers to questions are used in the interpretation of lab results.
Is that a lie?
If true, it is difficult to understand why that would be necessary.
Nevermind, I read and understand Lee's answer in #37.
This from the comments
And we know how well that worked.
I think these denialists are motivitated by a need to feel superior to the "sheeple" and expecially to people who are smarter than they are and who have achieved more than they do. There is a huge overlap in denialism. An HIV denialist is almost guaranteed to be at least 2 of the following:
anti vaccinationist
911 troofer
creationist / ID propensist
holocaust denier
AGW denialist
germ theory denialist
Half Mooner is right - anti-intelectualism is the basis of HIV denialism.
WW, you're making the ...interesting... mistake of thinking that people with HIV are all rah-rah in favour of the people who are trying to prevent them being cured. Surprisingly,this is not always the case.
Der Bruno Stroszek,
No, I am making an observation that in my opinion a larger percentage of HIV infected people will be more likely to listen to the HIV skeptics if they believe that the HIV skeptics are being unreasonably shouted down by the establishment, especially those with HIV who are themselves outside of the mainstream and who are also sensitive to issues like bullying and rooting for the underdog.
It is a differential and unintended consequence of bullying the HIV skeptics, in my view. Not a universal effect.
A reasonable argument might be "if you don't call a spade a spade, even more HIV infected individuals will be taken in."
This is reasonable, and it is as far as I know, just an opinion (as is my opinion).
But interpreting my statement as a universal consequence is disingenuous at best.
I see that mr Wallace is one of those people who think that lesbians are God's chosen tribe.
Forgive me if I prefer to disagree.
This is directed to "Strider" - his comment #17 is as good an example as any of the overheated, poorly-researched rhetoric that seems to find a breeding ground on sites such as these. Here is a humble suggestion:
#1 - Go see "House of Numbers" accompanied by an associate with sufficient reading skills to recite the identifying titles of each interviewee as they appear, should you have any problem with them. (sotto voce is best )
#2 - Upon seeing/hearing any and all denialists, dissidents, etc. cover your eyes with your hands, until their image has left the screen. Hum a favorite tune, aria, whatever.
#3 - When Dr.Donald Abrams, MD (Chief of Hematology and Oncology at SF General Hospital, and a Director at the Osher Center for Integratve Medicine) appears to discuss linkage of amyl nitrite abuse with pneumocystis pneumonia, pay close attention.
#4 - When Dr. Michael Gottlieb, MD (founding chairman of amFAR, first MD to diagnose AIDS) identifies another virus entirely than HIV as the cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma, pay close attention.
#5 - When Dr. Harry Haverkos, MD (retired CDC, NIH officer, associate director,National Institute for Drug Abuse) discusses linkage of amyl nitrite abuse to KS, pay close attention.
By following these simple instructions, you will learn something specific to KS and "popper" abuse, while sparing your delicate sensibilities the injuries and indignities produced by exposure to the image and voice of one Kary Mullis.
While unrelated to your specific KS comment, " Strider," you might consider watching Luc Montagnier, James Chin, Robin Weiss, Anthony Fauci etc.. in between your "duck and cover" activity. These HIV/AIDS authorities have been proven to be non-toxic, and on occasion beneficial to such easily discomfited persons as yourself. In fact, I think the filmmaker Leung could re-edit House of Numbers, excising each and every renegade demonic denialist, and not miss a beat in presenting substantive contradiction and dissonance among the orthodox research establishment. It would shorten the film, and make it more accessible to the "Striders" of the world. That would enhance your viewing pleasure, and leave you more time to thumb through your worn-out "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Or perhaps you only saw the movie....
Yes, its called quotemining. Creationists have been doing it to scientists for decades.
And this is what we were all talking about with the germ-theory denial in HIV Denialism. KS is a secondary infection caused by a herpes virus, HHV-8. Lots of people are infected with this virus, but nothing happens as long as your immune system in strong.
If you develop AIDS, or take immunosuppressive drugs (pre-post organ transplant), KS lesions form. Now, with organ transplant patients, their lesions resolve after immunosuppressive therapy is reduced/stopped.
But Im sure KS in organ recipients is caused by BIG PHARMA sneaking poppers in their system during surgery to perpetuate the HIV AIDS LIE!
Harry Haverkos' current views are detailed in his latest article.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u11168pqm0877915/
He is completely in agreement with the "orthodox" position that HHV-8 combined with immune-suppression from HIV causes KS. He also argues that vasoactive agents such as poppers may be a third factor after HHV-8 and immune-suppression.
I'm not sure how Haverkos is being quoted in thee film but if the film portrays him as being in conflict with the "orthodoxy" then it is being deliberately deceptive.
What a hoot. Does the film discuss the substantive contradiction and dissonance among the Denialists?
afvace:
They are lying to you, to put it bluntly.
The standard HIV diagnostic series is two tests. The first, ELISA, uses the entire suite of immunogenic HIV proteins, mixed together and stuck to the bottom of a small well in a plate. Blood serum from the person beintg tested is put in the well - if the person has antibodies to HIV proteins, those antibodies will stick to the HIV proteins. A secondary test then detects whether human antibody proteins are retained in the well. This test is quick, easy, cheap, and has a false positive rate of somewhere between 1/100, and 1/1000. It is NOT the definitive test, it is used for preliminary screening, because it is cheap and quick.
People who give a positive result on the ELISA test, then have their blood retested with a much more discriminatory test, the Western Blot. In this test, HIV proteins are separated by size by electrophoretic separation, and then stuck onto a strip of a special paper. That paper is then exposed to blood serum form the person beign tested. If a person is actually infected with HIV, they will have immune tresponses to more than one of the immunogenic proteins, and the western blot test will give positive results at several locations corresponding to the HIV proteins that the person has an immune response to. Typically, to be scored positive on the western blot, they have to be positive at 2 or 3 bands, with a certain base intensity at each.
To be positive on the HIV test, one must first score positive on the ELISA test, and then positive on the Western Blot test. In one study, over 17,000 people who had scored positive in this way were examined by techniques to identify the virus presense - only one did not have virus. This gives an operational false positive rate, in that study, of about 1:17,000.
And then, after one is diagnosed positive, there is a followup therapeutic series of tests for viral load, using yet another technique, typically a PCR-based viral load test. Even if one were a false positive in the ELISA-Western Blot tests, it would soon be apparent that there was no virus - and this is very, very , very rare.
So yes, there is a good, functional HIV test with a very low false positive rate, and the people who tell you otherwise are lying to you.
You say they are lying yet the people saying they get lots of false positives are people that work in the testing laboratories. Also the film shows the package inserts for the test and all of them say that they need to be followed with additional tests. Some even say they can't confirm a person HIV positive in the materials. So you explaining how they do the test doesn't really confirm anything for me. When the test materials say more test need to be taken.
OMG! A LEGAL DISCLAIMER!?!?! HIV IS A LIE!
*throws research in the garbage*
Wait... Home pregnancy kits come with a disclaimer too... THIS MEANS STORKS REALLY DO BRING BABIES!
afvace-- I do PCR on HIV-1 samples every day. Technically, multiple times, every day. I can tell you how many viruses are in a drop of sample. And Im not in a clinical laboratory, which have higher stringency standards than research laboratories (we can use flow cytometry equipment they cant, we can use cell sorting equipment they cant, we can use reagents/kits they cant, etc).
If youre telling me that clinical laboratory techs are getting 'lots of false positives' on PCR viral load tests, I am flat out calling them liars.
It is possible that a HIV+ individual has a VERY low viral load-- elite suppressors-- and such a person could be a false negative via PCR.
But false positives via PCR? No. Show me the cDNA sequence- What are the primers picking up if its not HIV-1? Show me the Real-Time data. If youre doing it with SYBR, what the melt-curve look like? Whats your RT(-) sample doing?
I don't understand why your getting so upset, being saracastic and rude I am only asking questions cause I don't know. Is it wrong that I want to inform myself.
I'm not doubting your abilities. I never questioned your knowledge.
I feel that comparing an HIV test to a home pregnancy test seems a little ridiculous to me. I'm not doing a home HIV test. I'm going to a medical facility. So if you have HIV in a laboratory and know what it looks like and how to identify it. Why would these tests say that you need additional testing? Can't you just pull a sample from a person and find the virus just as easily as your saying you do for what ever test your doing on the virus.
Again, I'm not questioning your knowledge or anything. I'm only looking for answers.
afvace-- I was making fun of the Denier claim, not you. I tried to make that clear by not direct quoting you and addressing you after, but I guess I didnt make it clear enough. Asking questions is never stupid. Even my resident trolls ask good Qs now and then:)
Every kit test for every disease is going to have a disclaimer in their instruction manual. Every kit we have in a basic science lab has a disclaimer 'NOT FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES!', even though we technically could use it as such. These are legal protections for the companies that produce them, just like the stupid 'DO NOT OPERATE IN BATHTUB' warnings on hair dryers or 'WE MIGHT BE WRONG' disclaimers on home pregnancy tests.
The reason why PCR isnt the primary/only HIV test used is because its ~10X the cost of an ELISA. Its stupid to screen millions of people with a $300 test when a $3 ELISA will tell you they are negative. And, while we 'know what the virus looks like', electron microscopy is absolutely impossible for testing purposes because of the ungodly time and money it would require per test.
Afvace-
"Can't you just pull a sample from a person and find the virus just as easily as your saying you do for what ever test your doing on the virus."
I think ERV already answered this in comment 50. She said:
"It is possible that a HIV+ individual has a VERY low viral load-- elite suppressors-- and such a person could be a false negative via PCR".
Don't viral loads change over time, and thus the need for multiple tests?
(Anyone feel free to correct me, my knowledge on this is limited).
Jonathan-- No, really its just a money/time thing. If PCR were $3 a test and took 5 minutes, wed just go straight to that. But PCR is expensive, labor intensive, and takes up a lot of time. Just according to the time it takes me to do stuff:
1. Isolating viral RNA from sample: 1 hour (a full plate, 96 samples, would take at least all morning, maybe all day if you didnt have multiple centrifuges), expensive reagents
2. Reverse transcription: 1.5 hours (setting up a full plate, make it at least 2.5 hours), expensive reagents
3. Real Time PCR on viral cDNA: 3 hours (full plate, make it at least 4 hours), really fucking expensive reagents
4. Interpreting data: >1 hour
Considering how many people are negative, it makes no sense to do PCR first. Looking for antibodies is cheap and fast.
ERV-
Thanks for the correction! Like the blog, by the way.
I appreciate your answers to my questions. So I did some research on the Viral Load test. From what I've read the problem with this test is that apparently no one has ever isolated HIV. I can't find anything on who has isolated it etc..
So If HIV has been isolated I would be interested in that info and if it hasn't than how do you know what your working with in your tests is HIV? If there is some other way of identifying HIV without isolating it than that info would be awesome as well.
This is all so interesting. I sometimes wish I would have got in the medical industry now. Thanks in advance.
All of you people slamming the dissidents... How about saying something concrete, rather than name calling?
What difference does it make if the doctors interviewed in the film didn't know that a dissident viewpoint would be given fair time? They said these things. Their quotes are not taken out of context which would change what they said. If their quotes were manipulated, give me an example. Oh, you can't, because you haven't even seen the film, nor were quotes taken out of context. They said what they said. They've been bungling along for 20 years, with trillions of dollars, and HIV=AIDS still don't make sense.
Oh yeah... and the results of viral load and cd4 count have no correlation to health. These tests are useless. Studies prove this, and no studies show otherwise. Thus, if viral load and cd4 count are irrelevant, then there is no reason to take the toxic meds to control such numbers, is there?
Tony F. no need to get angry. You can't be expected to be taken seriously if you come across as a jerk. I currently question what the truth is. But, if you ask and make comments and show facts in a civilized manner you will be surprised how many people will listen or respond respectfully.
Notice how no one responded to you. They aren't gonna waste their time cause you will just gonna come back with anger. You obviously aren't here with an open mind. Just to vent.
ERV,
I appreciate your taking time to answer my questions and acting like someone that isn't a cornered animal when I question things you believe in. You respond with grace. I appreciate that.
afvace:
HIV has been isolated for all but the most narrowest of definitions of isolated. The HIV-denialists have latched onto this narrowest of definitions. It's like arguing that a murder wasn't committed when you have eyewitnesses to the murderer going into the room with the murder weapon (which has the murderer's fingerprints, the victim's blood, and matches the wounds) and security videotape, claiming that the fact that the camera was focused on a mirror rather than the actual events means there is no proof a murder occurred.
Document title:
Phenotypic variations and switches in HIV isolated from the blood and the gastrointestinal tissues of patients with HIV-1 infection
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2645183
Molecular and biologic comparison of HIV-1 isolated from chimpanzees infected mucosally vs. intravenously.
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102213407.html
Isolated HIV-1 core is active for reverse transcription
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/4/1/77
ISOLATED FACTS ABOUT HIV: A response to claims by AIDS dissidents that HIV doesn't exist
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atu/1996/ATU4004.html
Not that any of that will matter. HIV "dissidents" just ignore any evidence that would refute their delusions.
most of the comments on this board are an insult to people like me who have been hiv+ for more than 35 years.
fact: if i had listened to the AIDS orthodoxy i'd be dead by now. i was on the concorde trial in london - it was the only time i got sick from ARV's. after that expierence i never touched arv's ever again, quit the AIDS doctors and NGO's that 'only want to help' and here I am, alive and well and healthy as can be. they told back in the late 80-ties i'd be dead in a few month.
HOW DOES ANY ONE EXPLAIN THIS?
the aids orthodoxy stole my life. and i am intent on getting it back.
and no - i do not deny the holocaust, am not anti semitic, work hard every day, and have managed to retain enough thinking power to question the HIV=AIDS theory.
TO DATE NO ONE HAS EVER ISOLATED HIV. TO DATE NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS. AT BEST THERE IS SOME CORRELATION.
but millions are being poisened with ARV's that make sick. the biggest cause of death for hiv+ people is liver failure from ARV's.
whether you like it or not: the pharma industry has all to lose and nothing to gain by admitting hiv is not causing aids. and they have no scruples in ruining the lives of millions in the process.
sorry meant 25 years :)
I have been jaywalking for 25 years and yet here I am today, alive and well, and ready to jaywalk another day. Does this mean that jaywalking is not dangerous? That there is only a weak correlation between jaywalking and being struck by a car?
aliveandwell: yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call you a liar. We know a lot about the virus now; we know all its proteins, we can see new virus particles bud off infected cells, I've spoken to a postdoc recently who was complaining that the cells she was using sometimes die too fast from virus production, and you may have noticed that a lot of people got AIDS when we weren't screening blood donations for HIV and that doesn't happen any more. So, stop lying about virology, and get new propaganda, your old claims are getting tiresome.
I enjoy the discussion going on in here. For the most part people are civil. But, I have to say that this blog uses the worst analogies I have ever heard. Jaywalking? seriously. You compare that to HIV? No one goes around proclaiming the dangers of Jaywalking and that if you continue to jaywalk you'll have 3 months to live. You all are very smart people. Your analogies just make me laugh though.
So if your using this analogy of Jaywalking in correlation to people not taking HIV drugs. Then this quote from an article about crosswalk studies would say that taking HIV drugs is more dangerous than not.
The San Diego study concluded "in terms of use, that approximately twice as many pedestrian accidents occur in marked crosswalks as in unmarked crosswalks."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200009/ai_n8912574/
Okay, better analogy:
I've been playing Russian Roulette all night, and nothing bad has happened yet! Therefore, Russian Roulette is perfectly <<BANG>>
And since this study does not even look at jaywalking, it has fuck-all to do with your argument. BTW, what moron goes around claiming that untreated HIV will kill in mere months?
Answer: the strawmen that AIDS-denialists construct
The analogy was to the inanity of the argument that "it hasn't killed me yet so it must be harmless". I smoked for twenty years yet I am alive and well, so smoking is harmless. I binged for twenty years yet I am alive and well, so alcohol is harmless. I worked in an asbestos plant for twenty years yet I am alive and well, so asbestos is harmless. yadda yadda ... You get the picture.
And why would you be offended by my trivialising HIV, if you don't believe it even exists? Cognitive dissonance or hedging your positions?
Wow! i guess I should take back what I said about people acting civil.
Sascha I never said you were trivializing HIV. I also never said I didn't believe HIV existed. I'm merely someone that has heard a different side to the story and so I'm trying to do research to figure out the truth.
Kevin, Ok well then how about HIV drugs are the marked crosswalk. People assume they are safe cause this is what society has said. They don't look both ways before the take them. This is a major problem with our society. They just go along with what people tell them just cause they have a status symbol. The don't use the information that is so readily available to us.
So sad. I make a comment saying that someone used a bad analogy and everybody gets offended. I guess I was wrong about the ability for humans to communicate intelligently.
Pardon! Forgive me if I have offended you yet again. I did not mean to, yet again.
I'm not comparing HIV to jaywalking or vice versa, I'm applying the argument, used by A&W to demonstrate the inexistence of HIV, ad absurdam.
Actually, avface, people here are *very* civil... until someone starts lying, obfuscating, and generally being an ass.
Nobody would say that ARV drugs are "safe". Nobody outside a denialist's strawman argument, anyway. I certainly wouldn't recommend them for just anyone.
They are, however, *MUCH* safer than AIDS.
Denialist concept of civility: If I tell you that you're a mass-murdering fraud and that all scientists, doctors and chemists worldwide are deliberately spreading a false story about viruses and killing people for money, I'm just being reasonable and openminded. If you tell me I'm a conspiracy-minded idiot for believing this crap, you're being uncivil and must have something to hide.
No, he's right. I was very uncivil. I disagreed with someone who obviously knew the "Truth" that is out there.
I have not said that any of you are mass murders or frauds. Nor have I lied. I have only asked questions. I'm not a denialist. I don't know what I believe. But, I understand why there are many denialists. If you ask questions or try to bring up points that contradict with your beliefs, you folks get very defensive. You are already calling me a denialist.
Well, I guess since I won't learn anything here anymore. Good luck to you all. I have nothing more to post. I didn't start posting here to start an argument. Just find answers.
I agree that there seems to be solid evidence supporting HIV and AIDS. Nevertheless, a review of the past will show the need for objectivity and an open mind. Let us acknowledge that Scurvy killed millions while science pursuits a germ theory (it is a vitamin C deficiency). Let us also acknowledge that the earth is not flat, and we know how long those facts took to settle in. Both are two examples where either dissident scientists faced unprecedented uphill battles or scientists became comfortable with "established" facts.
We must accept counter views in science no matter how insane they are. The danger comes when we ignore it fiercely by assessing a moral standard to the message. Science has always been successful by forcing questions and debates. Always remember that it is not what we do not know that will be our undoing; rather, it is what we KNOW TO BE TRUE but ISN'T.
Objective, scientists are always open to having their minds changed with solid empirical evidence, but HIV deniers, like most cranks, don't have any. What they have are a grab bag of lies and cherry picked half truths which they peddle as science. By playing the Galileo gambit you are completely missing the boat.
No. False. Insane, impossible counter views are not acceptable. This is an appeal to a false middle. There is more to a "theory" than some wild-ass guess some drunk guy in a bar pulled out of his ass. Especially when it comes to very well-documented science, like HIV.
You gotta have evidence. HIV deniers got nuttin.
wait
What?
Every counter view must be accepted no matter how insane they are?
Does that mean insane and unsupported?
Insane and refuted?
Just plain insane?
That view is frankly, insane sir.
One can rather easily deduce from the replies here that most of the responders haven't seen the movie, or know much about the actual views of those against whom they regale.
Any among you parroting "denialist" merely for the sake of memetic value have cashed in on ad hominem while forsaking any reason for those who are skeptical of HIV=AIDS to take you seriously. The more objective and carefully crafted fact based replies are always the most persuasive.
It is not a crime to want to be informed, and even when one is misinformed they are not uninformed, and so are more likely to come around when the facts and evidence convince them to change their position. Therefore, to liken these people to "murders" merely for being misinformed is the epitome of both hyperbole and incredibility; it is not scientific, or even civil, and as others have noted, you simply closes the debate for your adversaries by emploring the worst and most deceptive tactics.
Indeed, when one wants to be informed about what the retrovirus HTLV-III turned into, and how, they won't find much illumination here, nor likely in the film.
...
If someone believes that only 5,999,999 Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis, are they "denialists" or "anti-semites?"
I humbly suggest you think about that.
And rethink it.
...
As someone who's spent over two decades working in hardcore high tech communications, I have indeed witnessed the full politicization and compromise of almost every branch of experiemental, observational, and theoretical Science to suit corporate and national agendas.
"Are you DENIALISTS that: cell phones cause jaw cancer?!"
That is just one of the many claims which my industry actually has to address. The evidence is there that there is a risk, but it is so small and there also so many cofactors that it can't be taken seriously enough to fund long term studies.
Same with "Global Warming" and the people who really believe that the data indicate an imminent doomsday catastrophe.
"Imminent Global Doom" simply isn't falsifiable.
Like every other religion.
Thanks for reading.
It's very frustrating to engage in debate when you get labeled from the get-go as a "denialist."
In science there is no need for pejorative. Only in politics.
I will say outright, I am of the opinion that indeed HIV does not cause AIDS. I in fact take it farther than even that. I submit that what we refer to when we say "HIV" is not an actual unique entity that exists in the real world, but rather a set of conditions that occur in the body (which are numerous and often times, completely normal) that stimulate production of paracrine vesicle cell-to-cell communication and exchange of genetic material to adapt to a change in stasis (what we refer to colloquially as "viruses").
Indeed if one looks under an EM and marks a specific gene sequence with a fluorescent tracer, there may be evidence that some of these vesicles which are endogenously produced by the cells in the body as adaptive entities do have a certain sequence of genes and thus will show up in such cases when you look for that sequence. The idea that these are external entities, and that they are HARMFUL...is simply unproven.
We hear so much about "we know all about the virus."
No, in fact I just got done doing a decently lengthy inquiry into the various proposed mechanisms for how experts say HIV kills or leads to the death of, T cells.
Do you know how many different, often times DIAMETRICALLY opposed theories there are?
Does anyone else not find it highly suspect that the "latency period" of HIV was a few months back in 1984 and has increased in time in direct proportion to the years that have passed since 1984? For instance, and I have virology, or specifically HIV pathology textbooks which were or are used by major universities and doctors, that range from 1985 to 2009 and literally depending on the year of publication you can simply subtract that year from the year 1984, and you will get the latency period. So in my 1989 textbook, take a wild guess what the "latency/incubation" period was? Yes. 5 years.
In my 1993 textbook...you guessed it, 10 years.
In my most current one? Indeed. 25 years+.
Why? Why does the latency period continue to grow?
Because there are people, and always have been, who are HIV+ and remain off the drugs and they are incongruent with the medical model of HIV=AIDS etiology. So what happens? Well, it's not a conspiracy. Not at all...but it's just science at its worst: You buy time. You make the puzzle pieces fit, even if it means you have to shave off some of the corners and recolor a little section of the piece to make it work (kinda). You do what you can.
No there is absolutely no way that "HIV" can be tested for. The reason is because there has never been proper purification done.
The ELISA tests for antibodies.
The Western Blot...tests for the exact same things, just that they are all separated out into their own densities.
ELISA test manufacturers admit it is not enough to diagnose HIV. Western Blot tests makers admit WB is not on it's own, enough to diagnose HIV. But somehow, when combined together it confers an accurate result.
This is not science.
PCR tests for genetic sequences that have not been proven to be anything but UBIQUITOUS in the human body. Therefore no, not synonymous with HIV.
It's a shame that there is a slander campaign and an attempt to discredit people who question lies.
Even if you believe HIV causes AIDS, the drug therapies are the leading cause of death in all persons with HIV/AIDS. That hurts.
Some may argue that this is because "obviously" the drugs are lengthening these people's lives (presumably from being cut short by HIV) and thus because they are living longer it is giving them more time to "unfortunately" develop a toxic liver from the "life-saving" therapies.
...Indeed. I have heard this before. For instance when asked why we get degenerative diseases more often now and the answer is "well, clearly because lifespan has increased and so we are living longer and thus getting these diseases of old age more and more as our lifespans are increasing."
Pure hogwash. Two reasons: There are many societies, or pockets of society which are known to have the longest lifespans out of anyone on Earth (in fact there is a book about these people called Blue Zones) and the one interesting thing is not only do many of these people live to be over 100 on a REGULAR basis, but they do so with not an increase in degenerative diseases of all stripes, but a DECREASE in fact (compared to the general population).
The second reason this notion is deplorably and embarrassingly wrong, is because we are now seeing EARLIER ONSET of these degenerative conditions in the general population. A prime example would be Michael J Fox and his Parkinsons. How old is he? In his 40s? But don't worry, I've looked at the figured in actual Journals...they categorically show a clear trend in recent years of younger and younger age of onset for these diseases we always thought to be due to old age. I think they in fact ARE due to old age...I just think we are not aging chronologically at the same pace that we are biologically. In 40 years we are exposed to so much bad food, stress, lack of sleep, sedentary living, heavy metal poisoning, and so on, that we are literally aging biologically faster than our calendars would have us believe. All aging is is the accumulated strain on the body. Someone who does meth for a few years can appear to age DECADES because of the tax that drug places on the body and the vitamin stores it forces to be depleted. Ouch.
Nevertheless, to get back to HIV meds being the leading cause of death in those with HIV/AIDS, well, lets consider the possibility that indeed this is happening because "the drugs are helping people live longer" and the virus doesn't get them, but the drugs do.
Well, turns out HAART drugs came out after David Ho's marvelously (and by that I mean, horribly) articulated papers and the whole "hit hard, hit early" campaign. That was 1996. In 2006 (10 years) a large cohort study was done to assess the 10 year data of HAART. What was found? Here's what was found NO DECREASE IN MORTALITY.
So no, nobody is living longer because of the drugs. And this was form a Journal article in the Lancet.
Folks who call dissidents "denialists" and say that we do not have "any facts"....my my my, truly narrow minded.
Most dissidents that I know use the very information that is found in the medical literature. No we don't go to TheBody.com or AEGIS.com or AVERT or whatever corporate organized and sponsored institution releases as a PR campaign.
But hey, while we are talking about BS and PR, have anyone looked in the pages of these so called "scientific" journals these days? More ads and commercial gimmicks than actual science. That's a sad, sad state of affairs.
When money is flashed in someone's face, if flashed long enough, blatantly enough, that person's vision becomes clouded real fast. It's not a conspiracy...not at all. It's SELL OUTS. That's what it is.
But you know what, most of you folks simply can't handle the truth.
You're going to go your whole lives actually thinking that the particles we call viruses currently are "disease causing" when they are anything but.
Evolution rarely makes mistakes. If viruses were disease causing, our cell membrane receptors would have long ago lost the receptors. If viruses caused disease, how did our population make it so long without any viral epidemics? All known epidemics are of bacterial origin, and those are not due to bacteria per-se, but rather the lack of sanitation and clean water, and all the things that were plaguing city dwellers as our societies began to cluster closer together and our mode of dealing with our waste-removal and nutrition attainment suffered.
You show me a disease causing virus and I'll show you a compete misunderstanding of molecular biology.
But go ahead, pretend you know everything.
What purpose in the cycle of life do viruses provide if they kill cells? If viruses do that, what purpose would it be for? Think about that for a while.
Don't worry, I got plenty more stuff to say. Don't get me started.
I walk my walk too though. I conquered the common cold. Modern Medicine still hasn't been able to do that has it? No. It hasn't. Because it thinks the common cold and the flu are "infectious" LOL!!! Morons.
Go find a laboratory test where they try and transmit influenza from infected people to non-infected people. Do you know what kinds of results they get? They get a correlation of ZERO. We believe we get flu because we "catch it" and yet when science tries to demonstrate this in a controlled setting, where an "infected" person coughs, touches and interacts with a "non-infected"...well, it fails miserably. But no worry...because it's a nice theory, and so we're just going to keep toeing the status quo line. Great.
Do as you wish. But when someone like me tells you "hey guys, you're wasting your time" Don't dismiss it with "denialist." Totally deplorable language.
have a wonderful day. I hope there is one or two of you in the crowd who is responsive to this perspective and decides to look into it more deeply. I cam imagine 90% of the responses to me will be of the "you're insane" persuasion.
By the way, no I am not religious. I am an atheist. All my life I have been. No do I think the movie Expelled is any good.
But I also don't think House Of Numbers is anywhere near the idiocy of Expelled.
Flat lie. Which tells you all you need to know about this guy. Human-to-human transmission of influenza is very well studied and understood. Viruses are very well understood. This guy denies *all* viruses.
Not just a denialist, but a f*cking moron.
"Human-to-human transmission of influenza is very well studied and understood. Viruses are very well understood."
Fair enough, lets examine that idea.
"I went to consult a standard textbook, âIntroduction to Modern Virology' by N. Dimmock and S. Primrose, published by Blackwell Scientific Publications.
On page 230 I found it surprisingly reported that, although people have presumed that flu is spread by coughing, âtransmission experiments from people infected with a rhinovirus to susceptibles sitting opposite at a table proved singularly unsuccessful. Equally unsuccessful was the transmission of influenza from a naturally infected husband/wife to his/her spouse.'
Also on the same page it reported: âit has been shown that recently bereaved people are susceptible to infectious diseases. Thus one's resistance is influenced by one's state of mind.' It then went on to discuss winter life styles; such as living crowded in unventilated and over-heated rooms, all things it says might make us produce the symptoms of illness - and all things that make cells ill without any need of help from viruses.
It then concluded on page 212: âEvidently viruses do not kill cells by any one simple process and we are far from understanding the complex mechanisms involved ...[it] seem more akin to death by slow starvation than acute poisoning. Lastly it is by no means clear what advantage accrues to the virus in killing its host cell. This situation may represent a poorly evolved virus-cell relationship or virus in the âwrong' host cell.'
It thus seems that cells may be sick, poisoned, stressed or malnourished in some way before they show the symptoms of âviral infection.' There is a considerable body of research that indicates cellular illness or malnourishment often precedes the production of viruses, rather than the converse. For example: it is reported that deficiency in selenium, a metal our cells use as an antioxidant, can precede the symptoms of colds, flu and even AIDS. (There is also a strong co-relation between selenium levels in soils in African countries and the prevalence of AIDS symptoms. )
Dr Melinda Beck reported that selenium-deficient mouse cells show symptoms of illness and emit viruses. She and her co-authors deduced from this that a lack of selenium made viruses dangerous - and consequently that these viruses made the cells ill. But was this deduction soundly based? Selenium is a component of glutathione peroxidase (GPX), an enzyme that protects cells from oxidative stress. Selenium-deficiency thus makes cells ill with oxidative stress without any need for a viral illness. They consequently could produce viral-like particles as waste or for repair purposes.
Another research paper reported that, when cells are suffering from âoxidative DNA damage' (such as from chemotherapy), then they are more likely to get hepatitis due to HCV viral infections. Again, what comes first? The authors presume the virus must cause the illness - but surely the illness started with the earlier oxidative stress."
FROM
European Journal of Epidemiology
-Transmission and control of rhinovirus colds
"Although rhinoviruses are probably the world's leading cause of respiratory illness, they are surprisingly reluctant transmitters"
"Current research suggests that rhinoviruses are spread chiefly by aerosol, rather than by fomites or personal contact."
However, as is common in virology, we have direct contradictions:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/13/1/173_174.htm
In the above link, we have a CDC document entitled "Questioning Aerosol Transmission of Influenza"
It states "We have reviewed the literature cited in Tellier's Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (1) and disagree that it supports the conclusions drawn regarding the importance of aerosols in natural influenza infection."
Interesting. Same story goes for how "HIV" is supposed to cause AIDS. Many theories, none of them conclusive, many of them diametrically opposed like this.
Here is another citation:
FROM
Journal of Hygiene, Cambridge
"An investigation of the possible transmission of rhinovirus colds through indirect contact"
The article delineates some of the possible avenues which are hypothesized for this "mode of transmission" yet it finally admits:
"However, it has generally proved unexpectedly difficult to reproduce 'natural' transmission of colds from infected to susceptible subjects under controlled conditions. ( Tyrell, 1965; D'Alessio, Dick & Dick, 1972)."
Here's an excerpt from another CDC article:
" A prodigious volume of work at the Common Cold Research Unit in Salisbury, England, following World War II established that colds could be produced by inoculating secretions into the nose or eye of volunteers (33). These rather crude experiments were replicated with nasal inoculation of small concentrations of rhinovirus once the specific viral agents that cause the common cold were elucidated (34). Presumably, therefore, persons might acquire rhinovirus by touching their nasal or ocular mucosa with contaminated fingers. A study by Hendley et al. at the University of Virginia demonstrated that health-care workers are not immune to practices that might promote self-inoculation (35). One third of grand-rounds attendees picked their nose, and one in 2.7 rubbed their eyes during a 1-hour lecture. Subsequent work demonstrated that it was difficult to transmit rhinovirus by kissing (36), and that exposure to cold did not increase the likelihood of "catching a cold" (37).
These studies could not answer the central question of whether rhinovirus is transmitted primarily by direct contact, indirect contact, droplet contact, or droplet nuclei. Unfortunately, considerable additional investigation has not resolved the issue completely (38). Essentially, two experimental approaches, both highly contrived, have come to different conclusions. Work by Hendley and Gwaltney at the University of Virginia generally has supported transmission by hand contact and self-inoculation, while experiments by Dick at the University of Wisconsin have favored spread by large droplets, droplet nuclei, or both."
So back in the post WWII days, they found out that "inoculating secretions into the nose or eye" of volunteers could induce a reaction (indeed any irritant can do this, you can "induce a cold then, by rubbing ones eyes or nose with a jalapeno pepper extract). Thus, they can PRESUME that the colds are infectious. That's a giant leap of faith if you ask me (wait. did I just say "faith"...in a science discussion?)
Next
FROM:
Respiratory and Clinical Care
"How do we catch colds"
By the way, just to point out, what a "scientific" question. The question should be asked "How do we acquire colds?" Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect that level of dispassionate inquiry, how foolish of me. I mean, everyone already "KNOWS" that colds are infectious, so therefore we assume they are, and only reserve inquiry into the possibilities that do not require us to overturn any dogma. Come on, it's only natural.
In this article, anyways, it says:
"Understanding of the mode of transmission is critical for reducing transmission of infections within building environments, where large numbers of people may be in close proximity, contaminating surfaces with pathogens and generating infectious aerosols. Dramatic epidemics with emerging infections, like SARS, and the threat of using infectious organisms as a source of bioterrorism, like the spread of anthrax spores in the 2001 episode, add to the rationale for studies on transmission of infectious diseases within modern, often complex buildings. Strategies for controlling infections would differ, depending on the route of transmission: hand washing and cleaning of surfaces for contact and surface transmission and increasing ventilation and air cleaning for airborne transmission."
Interesting. If the author knew anything of the "spread" of anthrax in 2001, they would have quickly discovered that there was no spread, actually...you see, because:
"Anthrax can enter the human body through the intestines (ingestion), lungs (inhalation), or skin (cutaneous) and causes distinct clinical symptoms based on its site of entry. An infected human will generally be quarantined. However, anthrax does not usually spread from an infected human to a noninfected human."
Woops!
No matter...just more assuming, and more assuming. I love the state of the virological sciences today. Amazing.
I got more, don't go anywhere just yet Mr "Human-to-human transmission of influenza is very well studied and understood." Stick around for a sec.
FROM
Medical Research Council's Common Cold Unit, Salisbury, Wilts, UK
"The commonest adverse health effect from the indoor environment is a respiratory tract infection, most often a common cold. Any one of a number of viruses can cause colds. The full process by which infections are contracted is poorly understood. However, there must be direct contact between the infecting agent and the nasal or lower airway cells."
So it's poorly understood. In other words, it's COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD, because if they understood what a cold is, they would be able to prevent them. I know what a cold is, and a flu, and I have prevented them in myself for the last 2+ years. And I used to get them ALL THE TIME.
How odd though that right after there is admission that they are "poorly understood" ... it says ... "there must be direct contact, [etc etc]." Who says? And how do they know, since it's so poorly understood? Woops.
I can go on, and on, and on...
Where is my "Flat lie"?
And if I am not lying then perhaps this doesn't "Tell you all you need to know about [this guy]"
I do not deny all viruses. I deny HIV, Hep C, and a few other viruses that are only assumed to exist from indirect proofs. Other viruses such as poliovirus, rhinovirus, etc, DO EXIST. What I deny is that any of these viruses are disease causing.
How odd too, that the very viruses that we all believe are causing disease, are being conclusively linked to REVERSING it!
"Ironically, new studies show that deadly viruses can actually be used to cure people. With these new discoveries, we can hope for a better future where we can find a way to cure certain fatal diseases. Below are examples of new discoveries on how viruses can help people."
http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/lija4j0/public_html/cure.htm
Yeah...it's not ironic at all, if you understand biology.
What some of us don't understand today is that science is a FLUID process. And we will always live under conditions where the majority of people are convinced of something because it is what the "science" says at that particular time. And so we get caught up in the moment. We forget to consider any other possibilities.
And we start to attack those who say "wait, I see a different approach here."
We like to think the scientific process of inquiry is totally honest, infallible and never gives in to the monetary system. Unfortunately there is much pollution that has manifested itself between science and big business. It is hard to conduct honest, original experiments these days. You don't believe me? Talk to a scientist asking for a grant for his/her own non-industry sponsored work. Yeah, I thought so.
Please be more respectful of people with different opinions and not name call. I am not lying about anything. I have a different perspective, which happens to actually have a much better predictive value than our current scientific dogma does in terms of some aspects of what we think we know about biology, in particular, virology...which is one of the most misunderstood fields there is.
Evolution we know a great deal about.
Red blood cell oxygen delivery, we know a lot about.
HIV, the flu, and others...we know EMBARRASSINGLY little of.
I respect your steadfast decision to deny my opinion as valid, but don't forget, things aren't valid or invalid just because you want them to be. Perhaps you and others are wrong.
Peace.
Let's see... what's the word I'm looking for... oh, yeah.
LIAR!
.54 seconds with teh Google, and clicking on a random link on the first page...
http://www.virology.ws/2009/04/29/influenza-virus-transmission/
Cherry-picking a study, and misquoting to twist it's meaning *is* lying. You don't have to like it, but virus transmission is *very* well understood. Anyone who, in this day and age, denies that HIV, influenza, and the rhinovirii are infectious? Liar *and* an idiot.
Oh, and "spread of anthrax spores" != "spread from infected human to non-infected human". One more lie. Do I need to continue?
Scanning for Godwin artefacts (and I wasn't disappointed) I saw this
Not sure what answer the troll had in mind but in USA/Canada that believer would indeed be a denialist and anti-semitic. /Just sayin'
And do tell, Mr CommonSense, what *is* a cold, since all of medical science is, according to you, wrong.
Also: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hepatitis+c+virus&btnG=Search+I…
Hepatitis C
Dumbass.
I'm sure I'm missing it, but what's the point in bringing up the fact that Bacillus anthracis infections don't especially transmit from person to person?
@JohnV: Denialist-boy thinks that linking a spore-forming bacteria to viruses makes sense. The irrelevancy is beyond his poor, feeble mind.
We're waiting, CommonNonSense. What *is* a cold? And how did you "cure" it?
I stopped reading when you insinuated that you can see fluorescence with EM. Evidently, that wasn't far in.
You claim that the label of denialist has not place in science. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate on science, demonstrate that you understand the concepts you're describing. You evidently don't, therefore I can only assume you're here for political reasons, so I have no qualms labelling you a denialist.
I want a T-shirt with a stereotypical mad scientist, arms raised in triumph, with the words "I conquered the common cold".
"I conquered the common" **ACHOO... snif...** "cold!"
Not only are half of all major epidemics of viral origin, the two oldest pandemics are of viral origin:
165 â 180: Antonine Plague
251 â 266: Plague of Cyprian
Coupled with a number of other false claims noted previously, how much of your other claims are false? Why should I believe anything you say?
What is the mechanism by which "lack of sanitation and clean water" are purported to cause epidemics if bacteria and viruses are ruled out?
I happen to find Germ Theory to have high predictive value, so it would take a LOT of contrary evidence to throw it out.
You're right about the EM, I misspoke. Indeed what we see with the EM is not the stained fluorescent tracer. This is seen with light microscopes though, and, as the recent video does show very well, we see the marked material inside on cell, pass to another.
Sorry for the confusion. But again, we know that cells exchange genetic material with one another under certain circumstances. Indeed times where oxidative stress is high are very likely candidates. This represents an adaptive mechanism which is obviously poorly understood at this time (as we are too busy trying to connect viruses as causes of disease, rather than taking the objective approach of considering them as adaptive responses, which even if you just think about it...makes more sense).
Just seeing some specific sequence of genetic material "infecting" another cell is not proof of causation of disease. Indeed all the "proof" that exists that HIV is etiologically related to AIDS are fragmented non-related cases that purport to fulfill the various necessary steps in Koch's postulates.
But we never see a continuous process fulfill each step. For instance because we can't directly inject human beings because it's unethical (indeed if HIV was real and if it DID cause AIDS, it would be VERY unethical, so considering that most docs do believe this is the case, then it is very ethical that they not carry this step out on purpose)...but since we can't do that, we can only go based on accidental needle sticks and so on.
So we have cases where some nurses get accidental sticks, and sure enough, they happen to test positive (as ANYONE can), and sure enough, they are put on the meds immediately (as ANYONE would be) and sure enough they start getting sick from ... well, that is unclear, as the symptoms from the drugs' adverse reactions are admittedly "indistinguishable in many cases from clinical AIDS" and thus we have there part of our Koch's postulate of being able to "inject an asymptomatic individual with the pathological agent and induce illness"...but again, what is inducing the illness? And how do you know they are HIV positive, when you don't have a gold standard for verifying that HIV is real, exists, and is the same thing that they have floating around in their body?
Again, these so called "proofs" of fulfilling koch's postulates are nothing more than the fantasies of wishfully thinking virologists with frustration and probably a good deal of cognitive dissonance and perhaps even a side of boredom thrown in.
As far as the cold being transmitted from that airplane, it's hilarious isn't it...lets see...people on a plane...you have NO ventilation, and then you have what appears to be ACUTE reactions to most of the people on it which happen immediately and it is blamed on one person who may have had a cold prior to boarding...or perhaps that person they narrowed it down to was simply the first to start coughing or complain of a sore throat.
Amazing how we will not ask questions when we feel satisfied. Did all those people on the plane get tested to see if they all had the same exact strain? If it was from one person, the only way to really conclude this for sure is to check that one person for the "disease causing" virus, and make sure everyone else has that same strain. Did they do this? Or did they just ASS U ME?
You put me on a stuffy plane and have the ventilation fail and guess what, I might develop flu-like symptoms. Stagnant, uncirculating air as well as buildip of heat inside the plane is not a suitable environment for health. And the fact that the people on the plane developed IMMEDIATE acute reactions tells you something. What does it tell you? It tells you "HEY! Stupid!...it's not a virus, because even by the "generally accepted" definition of how viruses that cause colds/flus function, they do not manifest acute symptoms right away. In fact most of the time it is said to be a day or longer for any symptom to arise. This of course in my book is BS as well, but, I'm just mentioning it because if you're under the paradigm of virus -> infection -> disease ... you still have to explain how you would count that case as proof of transmission.
Anyways, what I was responding to was the boneheaded comment that 'we know perfectly well' how the flu and cold is transmitted and so on, and it has been demonstrated before many times. In fact, as I quoted, many textbooks, journal articles, expert virologists and biologists agree time and time again that it is NOT cut and dry and in fact quite the opposite of what our friend in his post claimed, we do NOT have any scientific study where under NORMAL conditions infected people are able to transmit their illness and the virus to other non-ill people.
I made my argument and I certainly think it should be considered and looked into.
AS far as the "pictures" of Hep C, wow...yes, I can draw on MS Paint too.
LOL. I'm not even going to respond to that google images link. Thanks for it though. Because, you know, I never ever actually looked for legitimate pictures of Hep C, you see, I just decided that for fun I was going to deny its existence. ... ... ... ... moron.
Now, what is a cold, how do we get them and what is the cure?
Pretty simple. Not all colds come about due to any one specific cause. Too much stress can cause a cold, lack of vitamin D is the most common culprit by far, which is why in the wintertime as Vit D levels drop colds are "seasonal" as many people fail to get adequate vit D levels during those times. In fact most people above even the 30degree latitude line are deficient in many cases. Any sort of obstruction of cellular metabolism will lead to a cold, which is a vicarious elimination of built up waste (hence large amounts of macrophage and white blood cell loss via mucus expelling) to reach stasis again. If the body is devoid of b vitamins, fat soluble vitamins, or any nutrient, and certainly Vitamin C or the most important, Glutathione, it will take much longer to recover.
Dairy in the diet is a very common culprit as it not only causes colds often, it is also associated with asthma, intestinal permeability, and acne. Same with grains (which humans never were supposed to eat, and only did so starting about 10,000 years ago as an adaptation to not having other sources of caloric intake. For survival, grains played a big role for our species during those less technologically advanced stages of our species.
However, grains were only used as we ventured away from our natural setting where we evolved, along with our primate relatives on a predominantly frugivorous diet supplemented with vegetables and some nuts and seeds. This diet of mostly fruit is being corroborated by research that examines microwear on fossilized teeth from humans and their immediate ancestors from a few hundred thousand years back.
Some of the incredible findings are that for instance "nutcracker man" was not at all eating or cracking that many nuts but rather eating soft ripe fruits. The physical ability to crack nuts was there, and this led most to surmise that this is what those structures were used for, but close analysis of the microwear of the teeth indicated unequivocally that the eating of nuts or in fact any rough or hard foods was not the case and it was soft fruit that comprised our diets and our ancestors' diets.
Anyway, the important thing to realize then is that in order to not have a cold or flu, one must not produce any metabolic waste in the body that builds up faster than it can be broken down. The best way to do this by far is to:
-Eat the best possible foods for your species
-get your rest patterns and chronobiology such that you go to sleep every night around the same time, and get about 6-7 hours of sleep and wake up without the alarm clock (in other words wake up when your body is ready to, and thus is finished doing all the complex cleaning and detoxing processes it partakes in while sleeping)
-ensure you do not have any deficiency in any nutrient or vitamin (sunshine becomes a big must here, for there is no other really good way of getting enough vitamin d, even if you eat lots of animal foods, as these require cooking typically and they generally are vitamin d poor due to this)
-keep positive attitude. mind-body connection is there. I do not for one second suggest this is a "spiritual" connection, as I do not believe in such tomfoolery. However, anyone that has studies psychoneuroimmunology should know very well what I speak of.
-exercise about 2-3 times a week to stimulate lymphatic flow and thus keep everything in the body moving in and out as it should and not promoting obstruction.
-lastly, understanding that diet is a huge factor, if not the most significant one, in getting a cold. By consuming foods rich in sulfur rich amino acids, dehydrated and concentrated foods that are acid forming and "empty calorie" food sources, such are refined white flour and so on, we force our body to work overtime for no good reason (excess secretion of HCl in stomach, Bicarbonate in the duodenum by the pancreas, so on and so forth) this all causes a drain in nutrients and vitamins in the body, which should be provided BY the food, not demanded from the body to be able to process the food.
Most people do not understand this. I have to admit. As little as 5 years ago, I didn't even fully understand this. I was still stuck scratching my head thinking I was getting colds 3-4 times a year because of "vectors of infection" that I was leaving myself vulnerable to. For instance I figured at one point it was me not cleaning my gym bag often enough. When I started cleaning that up it was washing my hands...I must have not been washing my hands enough, I thought. So I got all into washing the hands too...nothing changed. Then I realized I sometimes had a habit of putting pens in my mouth or around it when I had on in my hand...so I forced myself to cut that habit thinking THAT must be it. Nope. Not a thing changed.
Then one day I realized how simple and how stupid I was and I did lots of consideration and came to the conclusion that it was a macro problem, not a micro problem. In fact the flu was also an endogenous problem, not an exogenous phenomenon.
I went on raw foods. I eat something like this on a typical day:
10 or so bananas
2-3 medium melons, or 1/2 a large watermelon
a few apples
bunch of grapes
some dates
few nuts
1 head of lettuce
some tomatoes
1/2 stalk of celery
1/2 cucumber
2 red bell peppers
something like that. I eat that way and have been for about 2 years and change now.
I completely reversed...sorry ERASED all acne on my body. I have not had a single cold in this period of 2 years and change. I have even had girls who worked with me or were in school with me sneeze on me, one even spit directly in my mouth when she was sick with a flu (don't worry, she as cute and I was doing it to prove a point to her that she couldn't get me ill)...NOTHING HAPPENED.
I used to get sick with a flu or cold at least 3 times a year easily up until a couple years ago.
The only trick is to not mess the body up. And by the way Linus Pauling may not be such a crazy person. First of all the man lived to a ripe old age, give him some credit.
Second of all, when I do my micro, macro and phyto nutrient numbers, I am always at perfect levels (yes even b12) on this diet...but I always found one thing very odd and that is that my Vitamin C numbers are always through the roof. When I checked Linus Paulings figures for his recommendation, the levels that a fruit based raw diet like this produces are around those recommendations.
I think we as a scientific community and society misunderstand the different between "adequte" levels of vitamin C (which is simply defined as 'enough vitmain c so that you don't manifest scurvy') and "optimal" levels of vitamin C, which I would define as "the proper amounts of this vitamin to be as healthy as possible, not get colds, not have "predispositions" to "infections" and so on.
Ohh and, yea, I'll be injecting myself with someone's blood who is HIV+ or has AIDS and documenting it, putting up the video online and showing me taking 3 follow up HIV tests after 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after infection. When I do so, I will be posting this video or videos (if I do more than one video on this subject) via the youtube user account "hivpositivelyfalse"
I'm sure I will be met with scorn and ridicule, people will be making jokes about me being a candidate for the Darwin Awards and so on...but...when nothing happens to me and I don't even test HIV+ on any of my tests, perhaps there will be enough cognitive dissonance in enough people that this subject gains a bit more serious appraisal.
It will be a good thing for science when the fraudulent HIV=AIDS nonsense hypothesis is finally accepted as a "mistake" in the annals of science. It will, no doubt, be a very gradual process, but it will be a very good thing, as we won't have to keep living in a lie as rational thinkers.
And back to the topic of this article on this page...shame on whoever connects Ben Stein and his idiocy to HIV dissent.
Ben Stein is a clown that thinks the Earth is under 10,000 years old. And he calls evolution "Darwinism." No Stein. It's called SCIENCE. But by no means does HIV dissent have ANYTHING to do with creationist idiocy.
The only thing that is similar is that they both seem to be going against the generally accepted scientific "consensus". However that alone doesn't say much at all.
If it's science it isn't consensus. If it's consensus it isn't science. Period.
peace.
You really are a moron. And a liar.
Detailed spanking after coffee.
Wait - did he say viruses don't cause disease?
It just saps your energy, y'know? No matter how long you surf the internet (13 years now, for me) you still keep stumbling across new types of stupidity. Not just a new species or a new genus, but a whole new phylum. Whoever came up with the original myth of the Hydra - cut off one of its heads, and two more grow in its place - must have been a time traveller from the 21st century who had first hand experience of internet nitwittery.
#94
"You really are a moron. And a liar.
Detailed spanking after coffee."
Oh do hurry LanceR, JSG, before UncommonNonsense finishes his morning glass of cute co-worker spit and raw fruit breakfast.
Wow... the stupid is so deep with this one. Where to start...
Rhinovirus: When person A, infected with the rhinovirus, gets in an enclosed area with other people, who then start exhibiting symptoms of rhinovirus infection, and we can culture the rhinovirus from their mucous membranes... and those who do not exhibit symptoms do not have the virus... what part of this chain do you not recognize?
Stress causes colds? Simple test: Place a volunteer in a hermetically sealed environment with no outside contact. It's not that hard, we do it all the time. Track that patient through stressful activities, poor diet and bad exercise habits. (Just living in a bubble should do it) See if that person develops a cold. Actually, we have already done that. Look up David Vetter for an example of someone who had never been exposed to any viral infections. Oddly enough, he never developed a cold or flu, even though his life was very stressful.
Viruses have been seen in the lab. I have seen time-lapse video of virii invading, coopting, and destroying cells in their rush to create more virii. We can culture virii from infected organisms, and use those to infect other, healthy organisms, who then become ill.
You are doing nothing more than childish "Nuh-uh" before you quickly move the goalposts. Before you inject yourself with anything, you may want to ask Juliet Young what happens when you accidentally stick yourself with an HIV tainted needle. Oh, wait! You can't, because she DIED.
So, let's see: We've got cherry-picking, false experts, impossible expectations, and *MANY* logical fallacies.
You're so wrong, that the light from right is going to take a thousand years to reach you.
I need a shower to wash off the burning stupid. At the risk of sounding like my father; "You just wait until ERV gets here!"
Oh, and before I forget:
Raw Foodism? SRSLY? You do realize that controlling fire, and the resultant ability to COOK FOOD played a large role in the evolution of the oversized human brain, right?
Are you aware that there are only two animals in the world able to digest both protein and cellulose? You can salvage a little bit of respect if you can name both of them! Come on, CommonNonsense... you can do it!
That's funny, because I feel the exact same way about the folks who believe everything they hear from the church of modern medicine.
Paleontology, physics, chemistry...those are REAL sciences.
Modern medicine is not. Don't get me wrong neither is "alternative medicine" with their crystal healing, sacred herbs and light therapy and all that nonsense. People are often mislead into thinking that the only option is either modern medicine, or CAM.
Such is human perversity.
I will say there are a few cases where modern technological approaches are producing some really great results. For instance surgical techniques, or organ replacement, or diagnostics in general. Modern medicine is amazingly good at doing things like measuring your nutrient status, blood pressure, bone density and so on. But how pathetic is modern medicine at getting people healthy?
If modern medicine worked, you would see an increase or leveling off of life expectancy. You don't see that. We are seeing for the first time in modern (post 19th century)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/life-expectancy-will-decline-withou…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/21/DI20…
It's a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile more pills, more vaccines, more reasons to "ask your doctor about...(the new cure for a disease you didn't even know you had)" and so on.
Yes indeed, I'M the one who must be insane. What if I'm not. What if greed has really truly blinded science that much? What kind of world would you expect to see if indeed greed really did blind science at one point?
Do you think there would be an industry predicated on making money by prescribing pills that are supposed to make you happy, change your depression, make you not shy anymore, and so on? The whole industry of psychiatry was born out of a need to make money. Psychology was doing just fine. People had problems, they talked to a shrink. Sure some of the shrinks may not have been very good, but it was OK. People often times who have 'psychiatric' problems just need to get something off their chest, just need to be comforted, a good friend to talk to, or even sometimes a nutritional assessment and some sunshine.
That doesn't cost any money. If you look at how the DSM has gotten bigger, and bigger, and thicker, and thicker...something strikes you as odd: How on earth are new mental diseases just "popping out" from nowhere? Where did these diseases come from? Do you know there have been independent parties who have analyzed the DSM and every single time they find that by the DSM's standards, there is not one person alive today that can truly be called "sane"? Every single person you can name that is alive today will have one "disease" or another.
Now that's marketing. Making it a pathology to just be a human being. No science. Absolutely no science.
When we find that we CONTINUE to be told that our cholesterol levels are indicators of heart disease, and that taking statin drugs helps "reduce the risk"....yeah...that's bullshit too. Don't worry folks, it ain't just AIDS that's a scam. AIDS is one of the most insidious scams, and avarice permeates the entire establishment, but it's far from an isolated case.
People assume that there's "science" behind it.
There is no such thing. There's very little science behind most pills and drugs.
It's like saying that using dynamite to dig a hole in the ground to plant a tree is "scientific"...yeah...it "works", in other words if you look at planting a tree as only needing a hole to be dug in the ground, then sure a stick of dynamite is a possible solution...but what about damaging surrounding plant life? What about the residue it leaves behind in the soil that poisons the tree you want to plant, what about the fact that you can't dig a very neat and clean hole with it? Whatever happened to a shovel? That's how we approach things like cancer for instance, or yes...AIDS. We hide behind the WEAKEST of scientific excuses to carry our atrocities and because everyone is getting paid very nicely, everyone collectively shuts their critical thinking off and blindly obeys.
Good for you! I can't do that. I see bullshit, I have to open my mouth and say "hey, watch out friend, your about to step in some bullshit!"
People think modern medicine is scientific. Tisk tisk. Modern medicine is often VERY unscientific.
Go ask a kidney stone expert what CAUSES kidney stones. "Well, we just don't know."
Patients are often given pills in a sort of "shoot in the dark" fashion, and each time they don't work the doctor doesn't even really know why they didn't work but he/she will just prescribe the next potential drug on the list of options as if their profession is a kind of blindfolded dart contest.
Ah, but that's not "unscientific" right? Of course it isn't. That's REAL science.
Sure. Keep telling yourselves that. LOL.
Just don't come knockin on my door trying to convince me I need my booster shot because otherwise I am putting others at risk due to weakening the "herd immunity." Yeah, no thank you.
It's really funny....we act like AIDS is caused by a virus...how odd. A super destructive virus that also has the ability to recombine, hyper-evolve, hide in the cells, reactivate and then proceed in causing the most devastating and life-destroying symptoms in history just so happened to come into being and start manifesting disease RIGHT at the same time that recreational drug use was at an all time high (for the first time ever) and homosexuals, for the first time ever were starting to be accepted (and demanding to be) in society so some pockets of homosexuals began doing really unfortunate things like partying a little too hard, taking drugs, taking WAY too many antibiotics, doing poppers etc...and these are the same groups that had the first of the AIDS cases. My goodness, if hard street drugs and overuse of antibiotics weren't the causes of AIDS, it seems they missed the opportunity of a lifetime!
But alas, our wonderful (totally honest) scientists found out the REAL cause, which was a virus. And these were nothing more than the most honest and genuine humanitarians. You know...like Robert Gallo. You know...the guy who engaged in fraud so blatant there was an entire book written about him. The man who was not even given credit for the Nobel Prize, not even given MENTION! Yeah. Truly the creme de la creme.
Such honestly. Even David Ho, who has had papers retracted from Journals, after they find out his research was bogus. Yea...stand up guys. Truly.
And you all are castigating ME?
HA! Go shove another issue of Pharmaceutical Ads, ahem, excuse me..I mean "JAMA", up your ass.
You wouldn't know truth and honesty if it slapped you upside the head.
Yes, I WILL be injecting myself with someone's HIV+ serum, and when NOTHING HAPPENS, I would love to hear the excuses at that time. It's amazing how dumb and narrow minded some of you folks are. It is literally AMAZING.
But yeah, keep talking shit. As long as you can convince yourselves youre right, what does it matter what reality is.
Have a most enjoyable day.
adieu
Blah, blah, blah, GREED.
Blah, blah, blah, LIES.
Blah, blah, blah, argument from incredulity.
Blah, blah, blah, slightly modified Galileo Gambit.
Blah, blah, blah, totally ignore anything anyone has said that might possibly counter my ignorance.
Blah, blah, **fingers in ears** LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA.
Any substantive response? Or just more lies?
You don't have the BALLS to actually inject HIV. Nobody does. You are a liar, a crank, and an idiot.
Discussion?
I hear your comments folks.
And I sympathize with you. I understand why you feel as you do and say as you say. But you're wrong. And I'm not a liar.
David Vetter? Ohh, the kid that was born with a weakened immune system because of thymus atrophe? Who had to be "kept in a sterile environment" to stay alive? Yeah that worked out pretty well for him eh? Where's he today?
Juliet Young? So a nurse gets a jab, finds out she has the "african strain" lol of HIV, and dies after 7 years. Yeah. I'm sure she was on antiviral meds, being a nurse and all. So what does that tell you? How do we know she died of HIV and not the HIV drugs?
Show me someone who gets a needle prick, is otherwise in great health, and refuses to take any drugs after being diagnosed and then dies shortly after. That would be interesting.
But to cite a case of a nurse taking the drugs which we now know are the leading cause of death in hiv+ persons....hmm....I don't see how you can be so adamant that she died of HIV. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence?
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
...and you people are telling me I speak in fallacies.
I'm sorry that it "saps your energy" by the way. But there's a flipside to that you know...some of you people sap my energy too.
For instance when I find out some mother had her son taken away because she wanted to breastfeed and not give her child AZT or nevirapine.
Or when I see commercials for diet soft drinks on tv, or when I see fast food restaurants INSIDE hospitals. Believe me, words cannot describe how "sapped" my energy is when I see these things.
So if I'm sapping YOUR energy, sorry to say but....GOOD! You need a kick in your ass, and you need to know that many people are fed up with modern medicine. IT DOESN'T WORK.
It's ok. Nobody needs to be punished. Just don't hate on people who call a spade a spade.
I thank you.
enjoy your day.
CommonSense,
your assertion about life expectancy is totally wrong. The PLoS Medicine paper cited in Washington Post mentions that life expectancy in the US kept increasing: "Between 1961 and 1999, average life expectancy in the United States increased from 66.9 to 74.1 y for men and from 73.5 to 79.6 y for women."
The point of the article was that life expectancy for women declined in some counties, primarily "in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, and in Appalachia, extending into the southern portion of the Midwest and into Texas." Those counties are home to only 12% of the US population. Whatever the reasons for that decline, it does not reflect the overall trend of increasing life expectancy in the US as a whole, so your argument is complete bunk.
BZZT! Wrong again, dumbass!
Antiretrovirals have *decreased* deaths from AIDS. HIV kills. Look around. There are thousands of people who have refused the ARVs and subsequently died. Just because you have your head so far up your ass that all you can see is your kidneys, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Proof? Evidence? You obviously don't even know what those words mean. When you figure out what "Evidence" means, perhaps you will be able to understand evidence.
David Vetter died of the first virus he ever came in contact with. How's that grab ya, moron? We know viruses very well, thank you. We understand how viruses are transmitted, how they infiltrate the body, how they hijack cells to reproduce, and how the resulting illnesses progress.
BTW: You still haven't answered my question about protein & cellulose. There are only two animals who can digest both... rattus rattus and humans. Think there might be a reason for that?
And why, if viruses are harmless, do our bodies have highly evolved defenses against them? What would be the point of that?
(Cue dishonesty and moving goalposts in 3... 2... 1...)
Hey, wait. I might have to reconsider the womping-- This dude seems like hes got some really great diet advice, and I think we all could benefit from his wisdom.
CrazyDude-- Im 5'9", 135 lbs, and I really need to lose some extra flab, but I dont know how. Will following your guidelines to life help me?
Oh wait! I dont have any extra flab! Im ripped!
I did a back-of-the-envelope analysis of CrazyDudes diet. ~450 grams of sugar. 450 grams. No protein. No fat. Dude might as well drink 15 liters of pepsi a day and take a multivitamin and some benefiber! ROFL!!!
Actually, looking back at that diet, I now understand why he's got such sh*tty ideas! He hasn't been out of the bathroom since he started this diet.
One more lie to add to his tally...
CommonSense @#99
"Go ask a kidney stone expert what CAUSES kidney stones. "Well, we just don't know."
Patients are often given pills in a sort of "shoot in the dark" fashion, and each time they don't work the doctor doesn't even really know why they didn't work but he/she will just prescribe the next potential drug on the list of options as if their profession is a kind of blindfolded dart contest."
Oh for the love of Pete. You have got to be some kind of Super Troll with this "Kidney Stone expert" jive.
ERV are you doing a sock puppet ballet to up your site stats?
Your urologist sounds hysterical.
No.
It really doesn't work that way. We know exactly what the genetic cause of Cystinura (eek)is and though we don't know exactly what environmental or genetic factors might cause the PROPENSITY for other formations (yet) we pretty much understand the chemical imbalances that causes the crystal precipitations that form renal calculi.
You are just lazy and ill informed and either projecting that on an imaginary urologist or his office is in the third stall at Port Authority.
Who is is your imaginary proctologist? I hope it isn't Santa (big fingers and he jiggles during the exploratory).
I get emails when you all comment, so first thing I did was Google my Gmail for this guys IP# to see if he was an old troll reborn-- Nope.
This concentrated arrogant idiocy is 100% legit.
"taking WAY too many antibiotics"
What is your suggested mechanism for how antibiotics cause AIDS?
I did a back-of-the-envelope analysis of CrazyDudes diet. ~450 grams of sugar. 450 grams. No protein. No fat. Dude might as well drink 15 liters of pepsi a day and take a multivitamin and some benefiber! ROFL!!!
Shows how much you know about nutrition. Our primate cousins, for instance the Bonobo, who is 99+% genetically similar to us, eats:
Raw fruits, some veggies, some nuts and some seeds.
To insinuate that there is "NO" protein in my diet is absolutely ridiculous. Every whole food you can name has protein. "Back-of-the-envelope" indeed. If you knew anything about the effects of soluble fiber, and presence of vitamins , minerals and phytochemicals and sugar absorption you would realize that fruits have some of the lowest glycemic index/loads you can name. In fact all whole foods for the most part do when you don't process them to oblivion.
Our bodies require mostly sugar to use for ENERGY...you know...the whole "cellular respiration" bit when glucose is catabolized step by step and then the derivatives are passed down the electron transport chain for maximum ATP production...yeah...that's done with glucose.
If you eat nothing but meat all day, the majority of that meat ALL gets CONVERTED...to what? Yup...SUGAR. As far as fat goes, I get about 10% of my calories from fat, and it is high quality, plant fats, and my omega3/omega 6 ratio is an "impossible" 1:1 ratio which is like the holy grail of lipid nutrition. I have beautiful skin with no blemishes and I can imagine my inner organs are likewise possessing very healthy membranes. My protein I get is about 10% of my total calories. I get more than enough protein, I too am RIPPED, but I'm not constipated either. I go to the bathroom once to two times a day, it takes me less time to take a shit than it does to urinate. Also I don't have any body odor. Ohh yeah, I never wash my hands with soap either...and "oddly enough" I haven't gotten sick once in the last 2+ years.
And why, if viruses are harmless, do our bodies have highly evolved defenses against them? What would be the point of that?
what you see as "highly evolved defenses" I see as "regulation of production." For instance hormone regulation...one could easily say "our bodies have highly evolved defenses against hormones"...for instance when we don't need them anymore, we get rid of them, and we cease production of them. If you realize that viruses are chemical messengers, not disease causing entities, then things like interferon and all these other "highly evolved" mechanisms for "defending" ourselves can really be seen as regulation of viral quantity. As with many systems in the body there seems to be a positive feedback mechanism as well as negative feedback mechanism with viruses, their production and their down-regulation.
It's really just a matter of perspective. Here's an example. Say you have a stressor, say alcohol...too much of it...it's starting to cause problems in the liver. The liver cells are overwhelmed by so much of it, and as a result, certain genes are turned on in the cell which also trigger the production of these viral messengers to be produced to be shot out to "spread the word" to other cells in the nearby area and this process quickly goes "viral" as it were, and within the viral genome is not just information for the virus to replicate, but also cell-altering properties that will become implemented and also regulation of further viral production depending on the circumstances of the cell's environment which received the virus.
Part of the cell-altering properties that the virus may have built into it is perhaps information that triggers more production of a certain protein that breaks down elements of the alcohol, or perhaps the message is to produce more mitochondria or whatever it may be to better adapt to the stressor. When there is an adequate adaptation to the stressor, perhaps there is a function in the virus that says "if there is already ample production of X protein, then you can downregulate this message and 'shred it' (so to say)."
This is much more viable a model than "well, viruses just cause disease and that's it, we need to kill em."
The fact of the matter is we know very little about viruses. We have classified them, for sure. We know that there are the various kinds (that David Baltimore delineated for us in the 70's) but we really truly know very little about them. And the reason is because we are expecting them to be these evil entities and we keep trying to pretend they are the reasons for disease, when it is so very difficult to reconciliate this with reality.
You say we have defenses against viruses, I say we have regulation of endogenous messages which are enclosed in protein capsids. It's very odd, isn't it, that our cells would continue to keep their receptors for these viruses on their surface, if indeed there wasn't some "highly evolved" reason to keep them there. Before I talk about "highly evolved defenses" I would wonder and think about why it is our cells continue to make receptors for these viruses? Some viruses, it's true have the same binding mechanisms as other compounds that are beneficial, and in these cases it is said that there is proof that viruses are "tricking" the cells into accepting them. But there are other cases where some viruses latch onto receptors that the cells have that are ONLY used for those viruses. Very odd. If indeed we were HIGHLY EVOLVED and viruses did cause disease, you would think through the process of evolving, our cells would have dropped those receptors, as there was no benefit.
Imagine how backwards our thinking on virology is.
I get emails when you all comment, so first thing I did was Google my Gmail for this guys IP# to see if he was an old troll reborn-- Nope.
This concentrated arrogant idiocy is 100% legit.
Yes, it is true. I am no troll. Sorry to disappoint. I am passionate about what I talk about though, and I do apologize if I sound annoying to you all. That's not my intent.
BZZT! Wrong again, dumbass!
Antiretrovirals have *decreased* deaths from AIDS. HIV kills. Look around.
Nice argument. I choose you for my debate team. We'll conquer the world together friend. To the moon! To the moon!
"taking WAY too many antibiotics"
What is your suggested mechanism for how antibiotics cause AIDS?
It is well known that antibiotics are immune suppressive.
I will quote from the writer of an article "Beyond Antibiotics" Dr Lawrence Wilson:
"5. Immune Suppression. This may sound odd, as the purpose of antibiotics is presumably to help the immune response. However, evidence indicates that people treated with antibiotics have more repeat infections than those who are not treated. This is especially true of children whose ear infections are treated with antibiotics. Vitamin A and C and the use of simple herbs such as echinacea and astragalus, for example, are much safer and often equally effective.
In fact, antibiotics do not aid the immune system. They replace one of its functions. Antibiotics act by inhibiting certain enzymatic processes of bacteria, and by changing mineral balances. Normal cells, however, are also affected. This may be one reason why antibiotics weaken the immune response. Other toxic effects of antibiotics, such as the effect upon the normal bowel flora, may also be a cause.
AIDS research indicates that a risk factor for AIDS is an impaired immune response. This can be due to a history of repeated antibiotic use. Perhaps it is no accident the same group with the highest incidence of AIDS, male homosexuals as of 2009, is also a group that uses more antibiotics than other groups in America.
The link between antibiotic use and increased cancer rates can also be explained this way. This topic is discussed in the paragraphs above under #1."
Link here: http://www.drlwilson.com/Articles/antibiotics.htm
Indeed, many homosexuals engaged in the very active and recreational lifestyle in the 80's and 90's would commonly do a "pre-exposure" prophylactic dose of antibiotics on a regular basis thinking that this would be a good way to prevent STDs from their partners and thus "thinking ahead" like smart folks. Unfortunately this persistent use of antibiotics could very well have been (along with the general use of hard drugs and nitrite inhalants) causative agents in the etiology of AIDS.
That's how I think antibiotics could cause AIDS.
Disagree if you want, that's what I think is the best explanation. You say virus, I say lifestyle. Who's right? Well the popular explanation is virus. But just because its popular doesn't make it so. It makes it "likely" because "surely the majority can't be wrong"...but then again...often times the majority is wrong.
Okay... the stupid is entirely too strong for an amateur. ERV, try not to splatter too much blood on the carpet.
Viruses as messengers? Yikes. And *we're* the ones who don't understand virology...
CaptainDerp-- You get less than 40 g of protein a day. You eat over 10 times as much sugar as you do protein. And assuming you eat a serving of almonds, you get a whopping 15 grams of fat.
Bodybuilders and powerlifters have some crazy diets, but Im pretty sure your P-7%/F-6%/C-86% ratio takes the cake. Literally. Dudes going to be the first human to get diabeetus from eating fucking bananas LOL!
Ugh I just looked at grams of sugar, not total carbs... the ratio is worse than that. Jesus Christ, dude! Welp, at least hes not going to get scurvy!
CaptainDerp-- "I too am RIPPED"
TITS or GTFO.
Bodybuilders and powerlifters have some crazy diets, but Im pretty sure your P-7%/F-6%/C-86% ratio takes the cake. Literally. Dudes going to be the first human to get diabeetus from eating fucking bananas LOL!
Ugh I just looked at grams of sugar, not total carbs... the ratio is worse than that. Jesus Christ, dude! Welp, at least hes not going to get scurvy!
You show that you have ABSOLUTELY no understanding of nutrition. LOL. My fasting glucose is <60, I play 3-4 hours of continuous sport (basketball) every other day. I bench press 225 pounds. LOL.
And I never get sore, dehydrated, or get headaches, constipation, etc etc etc etc etc etc.
lmao. Nice blog post genius. I'm glad you're informing everyone about such things like:
-Blindly conforming to authority and believing everything about HIV/AIDS without double checking.
-How GMO food is perfectly normal and not bad for you whatsoever.
-Vaccines are necessary for "immune boosting"
LOL! You fail to realize that the requirements for fat are only the following: about 2 grams of omega3 fats per day and 2 grams of omega6 per day. I get right around this amount. I was just giving a typical day. I often times will have an avocado, or more nuts, etc. As far as protein, do you even know what you are talking about? Seriously? Do you know that romaine lettuce has more protein calorie for calorie, than a steak does!? I seriously can't believe you are this ignorant.
I'm going to get diabetes huh? From bananas? Yeah. That's why gorillas in the wild who eat a PURELY vegetarian diet based largely on bananas in many cases, get all that diabetes right?
LOL. Foolish, my friend.
Indeed if I was eating refined sugar devoid of ANY nutrients, devoid of ANY fiber, devoid of any vitmains like a coke, yea, that would be HORRIBLE. I don't do that moron.
Go learn about nutrition before you open your mouth ;-)
Ignorance is bliss as they say though, so I understand if you remain Neanderthal-like in your responses.
Have a good one. But you really should stop presenting yourself as someone who knows anything about science.
L
O
L
Sorry the above should read My fasting glucose is less than 60. For some reason putting the "less than" sign and 60 after it renders it invisible.
Oh good god...
"Do you know that romaine lettuce has more protein calorie for calorie, than a steak does!?"
15 g of lettuce has about 1 calorie, and about 0.1g protein, or about 10g protein for 100 calories lettuce.
100 g of steak (about 4 ounces) has about 190 calories, and about 30 g protein, or about 16 g protein for 100 calories steak.
If you ate a kilogram (almost 2 1/4 pounds, at about a pound per head of head lettuce) of lettuce, you would get less than 7 grams of protein.
L
O
L
CommonSense??? Blood glucose normal range after fasting is 70 to 99 mg/dl. Maybe at less than 60 your hypoglycemia must have had deleterious results on your brain cells. That could account for your ridiculous comments on HIV and nutrition?
How To Fix Obamas Health Plan Before Its Too Late
@the idea of antibiotics causing aids:
Saying "it is well known" then linking to a webpage by someone who seems to suggest that the germ theory of disease is incorrect does not add to the believability of your claims.
Hmmm... looking at the diet, the length of time, and what this guy types on this comment thread.... I have a question for those that know...
Anyone know how long it takes to show signs of B12 deficiency? And what are the symptoms?
Not to mention essential amino acid deficiencies, and fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies...
Dr. Rose was the fellow that experimented on his grad students, right? Withheld specific amino acids from their diets to see how long it took them to pass out... Dude doesnt even eat beans! Jesus!
Am I the only one who sees the incredibly irony of this whack-job, after his thorough research upon HIV using google while eating his banana sandwiches- hold the bread, feels he knows more about HIV and viral transmission than a scientist who's career is based upon these subjects?
So CommonSense, anti-intellectualism much?
Stoopidest comparison EVER.
Holy HELL. You've got yourself a whole MESS of crazy here.
Looks like you've overlooked one bit of his nonsense, though - his claim that AIDS, as a disease, was 'invented' as a way to demonize gay people and drugs. That it SUDDENLY came into existence in the '80s.
Disregarding the fact that the first cases of AIDS are now traced back to around (or before) the 1950s.
What a maroon!
"I have beautiful skin with no blemishes and I can imagine my inner organs are likewise possessing very healthy membranes."
"I too am RIPPED, but I'm not constipated either. I go to the bathroom once to two times a day"
"Also I don't have any body odor. Ohh yeah, I never wash my hands with soap either...and "oddly enough" I haven't gotten sick once in the last 2+ years."
Yes master but how can your magic diet help us?
There can be only one Highlander.
No fair! I want to be immortal too!
After that ugly "pockets of homosexuals"/ hard drugs poppers/ antibiotics post I am tempted to assist you in your exploration of your physical resilience.
We're playing Jarts Saturday afternoon. Wanna be the catcher?
Don't see jarts references very often. Nicely done.
his claim that AIDS, as a disease, was 'invented' as a way to demonize gay people and drugs. That it SUDDENLY came into existence in the '80s.
No, it's not. But thanks for showing everyone your lack of ability to pay attention.
AIDS by definition is a collection of diseases that are simply linked together. In the beginning there were in fact many different hypotheses as to what caused all these different in fact seemingly unrelated diseases in some cases. For instance the very first years of AIDS, the majority of the deaths from AIDS were cases of:
PCP (pneumonia)
and
Kaposi's sarcoma
These two diseases have virtually nothing in common. KS for instance has very little to do with immune suppression. Most KS lesions occurred in persons in the naso/oro pharynx/larynx lungs chest, and generally remained only visible on the upper body and sometimes the arms.
We now know the cause of KS is almost without question due to ONLY the use of nitrite/nitrate inhalants that were popularized for usage within the gay community due to their dilation effect on the blood vessels, which translates into both a kind of "high" (I am told) and more importantly it makes anal sex less painful for the recipient.
KS is traditionally a disease that was seen in ONLY Mediterranean men in their later years and it occurred at their ankles, for COMPLETELY different reasons and causes. The KS we saw in the "AIDS" patients remains to this day ONLY in those who do poppers.
If KS was something HIV caused, we would expect to see it relatively randomly distributed. But we don't see that. Drug abusers who never use poppers, would get AIDS, but NONE would get KS lesions. People in Africa, they don't get KS. Middle class persons who happen to test positive on these so called "HIV" tests, they don't get KS. Even Robert Gallo himself has stated that KS shouldn't really be considered as a symptom of AIDS anymore.
Indeed:
"Robert Gallo, as unofficial voice of the AIDS Establishment, disclosed important revisions in the AIDS-paradigm. It is now necessary to consider co-factors. No longer is HIV believed to cause KS by itself; at most it may aggravate KS after it has been caused by something else. No longer is HIV believed to kill T-cells; whatever damage it allegedly does, it does indirectly. Speaking informally, Gallo discussed the latest thinking on the nature and causes of KS."
--this was as far back as 1994.
Gallo is also quoted in the book "AIDS, the mystery and the solution"...
"The puzzling relationship between AIDS and Kaposi's sarcoma, (the most common form of cancer found in AIDS) continued to intrigue medical scientists and reporters.
In an interview conducted by James D'Eramo, Gallo was asked about...Kaposi's sarcoma. Gallo responded "I don't know the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma. My guess is that it must be related to HTLV-3 infection in some way. Perhaps its caused by the release of growth factors of HTLV-3 infected cells." D'Eramo then asked why Kaposi's sarcoma occurred mostly in gay men. Gallo remarked "I don't know. Kaposi's sarcoma confuses me."
From the very beginning it was a hypothesized link that Gallo and others were merely HOPING for. They WANTED to find that there was a link between HTLV-3 (again, a nonexistent entity) and these diseases that were "new". We had never seen the amount of KS at that serious of an increase in any other time in history. We also had never seen the amount of pneumonia cases like we were seeing.
How odd though, that we saw a rise in KS that correlated directly with the increased use of poppers in the then-burgeoning gay movement, and a huge increase in pneumonia in the drug abusing sector, again a new phenomena at the time (it is true that drugs had been around for a little while before that, but not crack. Not heroin. Not the seriously hard street drugs). How interesting that we looked at increased use of poppers in the gay community, and saw a rise in KS which is very easily linked to the use of poppers, and then we looked at the drug abusers and saw a rise in pneumonia, which is TOTALLY expected and understandable (for instance, if a drug abuser is using hard drugs and is HIV negative, we simply say "ohh, he/she clearly got sick from the drugs." But when they are (again by CHANCE) HIV+ we say "ohh it was clearly the virus that was transmitted via the needle.") we assumed the cause was an infectious entity.
Why anyone would decide to say that these two conditions (which by the way were the 2 main big-time "AIDS defining" conditions in the beginning of the "epidemic") were related and must be caused by a single infectious entity is perplexing. Unless of course, we're on a hunt for a virus. If you want to find something badly enough...you just might "find" it. It's like these Jesus freaks who believe he existed as a real person and they spend their lives pretending that they are "speaking" with him...man, they literally just "find" what they are looking for.
With HIV it's not that insane...but in some cases it's even worse.
Who would draw blood from patients who are sick with these diseases, and then look for proteins and then find a few of them (all associated with UBIQUITOUS cell structural components like myosin and actin and various other normal proteins that comprise everyday cell structure) and then conclude that they all must be all part of some new virus. It's literally as JUNKY as science can get. I mean there is junk science, and then there is AIDS science. I mean...it doesn't get much dumber than this folks.
Since 1994, to be fair, Gallo did try and link a protein from "HIV" (remember "HIV proteins" are all also proteins associated with normal cell function. In fact I challenge anyone to find me an "HIV protein" that is ONLY present in HIV. You won't find it, which is why there is no test that looks at any one single protein. And please...PLEASE don't say "p24"...please don't make me write another 5 page long response explaining why you are a complete moron, seriously...please spare me the hassle). At any rate, he did try and say that one of the "HIV proteins" is linked to KS since 1994, and yet, he doesn't have a proved causal link, but most importantly...it doesn't explain AT ALL, why: KS was virtually only found in gay men who used nitrates, and
as the use of these poppers has declined over the years (which it has substantially) so has the cases of KS. We almost NEVER see KS cases anymore in AIDS patients. In fact many people are now saying KS shouldn't even be an AIDS defining disease, because it occurs now mostly in non-AIDS patients.
Back to the original comment I was responding to though, no, I'm not suggesting anyone invented the diagnosis to demonize homosexuals. I have NEVER been of this opinion. It was a case of virus-hunting. Gallo had a "virus" which he didn't have a disease for. He was researching for the last decade, the possible links to cancer of retroviruses, because they are seen ALL AROUND the tumors. Again, ANOTHER INDICATOR that these are endogenous entities that our bodies make in order to ADAPT TO STRESSORS. We know viruses do not cause cancer now. This should have been obvious to a 5 year old though, and there was certainly no need to spend BILLIONS of dollars trying to prove to ourselves what we already knew from pure observation: CANCER ISN'T CONTAGIOUS! HELLO!!
This isn't rocket science. And yes, I also am of the opinion that HPV does not cause cervical cancer that is a joke, wrapped in a fraud, drizzled with a little bit of a hoc profiteering. Again, CANCER ISN'T CONTAGIOUS. And as I have been saying for some time now: Virtually NOTHING IS. The only contagious things I have seen to be "real" is what Dawkin's calls "memes" I see memes as the most contagious and potent form of viral entities that you can name. I think this is why one of his programs was Sub-Titled "The VIRUS of Faith."
You wanna study virology? Get out of the lab (all that lack of fresh air and unnatural lighting is horrible for your health anyway) and study the 90%+ of the world's population which bows down to imaginary deities and shares insane beliefs (don't say it, I know what you're thinking).
There is no "conspiracy" and there is no "agenda" to "demonize" or "depopulate the undesirables" as some have tried to argue.
You have to realize folks, I'm not the one with the insane theories. I speak that which is evident.
The CRAZY people, aren't even the ones who say HIV causes AIDS. The truly insane people, are the ones who say "this was a virus created in a lab by splicing visna and bovine leukemia viruses (again, viruses don't cause cancer, but like these guys are gonna listen. They sell fucking 400 dollar wind chimes for fuck's sake!)
...Sorry, my mistake, 495 dollar wind chimes. "special" wind chimes. You know...the ones that vibrate at a frequency that enables us to resonate with a higher transmission of energy from the sacred healing 7th chakra field....or whatever they say.
THOSE are the people that are insane.
The ones who claim they have a "cure" for AIDS, and they give you a patent number as proof, even though we all know very well that the purpose of patents is not to verify that a product actually WORKS, but rather to simply verify that you were the first person to have an original idea. That's all. I have seen patents for time machines, mind-reading devices and everlasting life. So yeah...why not throw a miracle AIDS cure in there as well. It's only sensible after all, right?
Disregarding the fact that the first cases of AIDS are now traced back to around (or before) the 1950s.
...you really are a an idiot aren't you. When did I disregard this? First of all "AIDS" simply describes A COLLECTION OF ILLNESSES. But by the CDC definition, we could never know for sure if anyone before 1982 had AIDS because the CDC definition requires not just the disease to be present (one of the 30+ 'AIDS defining' diseases that is) but they must also be accompanied by an HIV+ test result, or, after 1993 when they fraudulently amended an already fraudulent situation to begin with...you could also be called an "AIDS" patient if you had a less than 200 TCell count. And so, by that criteria people in the 1950's or lets go further back...people in the 1550's...couldn't be said to have clinical AIDS, why? Because there was no such thing as an HIV test back in those days you see?
So no, I don't disregard anything. You however, seem to show a lack of aptitude to understand what it is you decide to voice your opinion about. Congrats on that. Join the other 200 million+ in this country who have ABSOLUTELY no idea what is going on in the world around them.
Funny it is, I should add, that they have found human bodies in good enough conditions to analyze their DNA from hundreds of years ago, and they have found them to be "HIV+" as well. They have even tested rats, dogs, lambs, sheep, etc...and they have found HIV in these animals too. How funny.
Here's another hilarious tidbit:
Ever since we have had HIV tests, (1984)...we have done tests on the population to determine how many people in our country as a whole are infected but don't know. In other words what is the total prevalence (determined by simple extrapolation of course). Since 1984...listen to this, because this is important, I'm putting it on the test...
SINCE 1984...THE PREVALENCE OF HIV+ PERSONS IN THE US HAS REMAINED AT 1 MILLION CASES. STAGNANT.
Why do I mention this? Well...when you have an EPIDEMIC (AIDS was CERTAINLY an epidemic, there is no doubt about that) that is increasing exponentially in number, but a a supposed viral agent you are saying is causing this epidemic that is STAGNANT, you have reached what is called an impasse. Cognitive dissonance. The square block does not want to fit into the round hole, Jim! Shit! To quote The Big Lebowski "The damn plane has crashed INTO THE MOUNTAIN!"
K? K.
What a maroon!
God I hope for your sake "maroon" is a derogatory term used to refer to someone's lack of intelligence. Otherwise, you are either:
A. A complete and utter MORON for misspelling that word, or
B. You have decided to result to chromatic-based personal attacks, to which I can only respond by calling you a turquoise.
lmfao.
heh. The research I did as an undergrad was used to develop a clinical test for KS.
Im going to have to post my rebuttal ASAP, before Im overwhelmed by the tide of... the tide of... whats a good name for the Denier version of TARD?
I think we'd need to back waaaaaay, way up to start engaging with this guy.
"God I hope for your sake "maroon" is a derogatory term..."
You don't even have a passing familiarity with Looney Tunes.
You sir, are a monster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
Liar. The nurse I pointed out to you yesterday developed Karposi's Sarcoma in her mouth. Are you suggesting she used poppers?
Man, a liar *and* stupid. Heroin? Opium? Poppy dens? Any of this ringing a bell? Heroin was developed in 1874 by Bayer. For many years it was an additive in over the counter cough medicine.
We have discussed here recently the ability to track strains of HIV in order to determine where the infection started. This has been used to determine if patient A was responsible for infecting patients B C and D. It is being used right now to determine if a Florida dentist deliberately infected several of his patients, several of whom have developed AIDS.
You are incapable of recognizing a fact if one leapt up and bit you on the ass. Your unmitigated arrogance, combined with your boundless ignorance, makes you one of the more obnoxious assholes I've ever had the misfortune to deal with.
What new lies will you concoct now?
I think we'd need to back waaaaaay, way up to start engaging with this guy.
No, not really. I understand the proposed reason for viral existence. Life as it is today is basically thought to have originated with replicator molecules whose sole "function" was to select for the ones that were the best able (by chance or whatever it may have been) to replicate most effectively. These replicators were the fundamental constituents which upon linking together, created the first amino acids and thus polypeptides, and on it goes after we introduce the lipid vesicles which allow for autonomy and faster, more efficient reactions (replication) and then the first cells come to be and on and on... and the theory is that viruses as we know them today are simply these kinds of phenomenon of replicators that are somehow "selfish" and their whole "purpose" is to reproduce. Yet we tend to ascribe quasi-sentient properties to viruses which are anything but alive. They are no more alive than hormones are. Would we say testosterone is? Absolutely not, and yet it has a specific "function" or "action" and yet the molecule itself is as inert as the next.
In nature, the culminating and essential evolutionary feature that defines biology is one word: It's a word that Lynn Margulis (who by the way is an AIDS "denialist" as well) knows all too well:
SYMBIOSIS.
All biology is based on this principle. Indeed there are cases of host/parasite relationship, but even many of those evolve into symbiotic relationships. It would be very odd to all the sudden just have existence of viruses which apparently break all these rules. I would be inclined to revert to Occam's Razor and, before hypothesizing replicator molecules gone awry, killing the very host they "infect" (something even parasites won't do) I would make DAMN SURE that I was 100% positive that these viruses did CAUSE disease.
Viral causation of disease was ASSUMED hundreds of years before we had the electron microscope. Read through the history of medicine. Everyone was convinced that there must be some kind of sub-microscopic entities that caused disease. When we found the EM, we started looking at diseased tissue and lo and behold what did we find. Exactly what we wanted to find...disease causing sub-microscopic entities. Bam. Virus. End of story.
That's fine with me, but the theory is broke, doc. And I can prove it wrong on my own. Which is hilarious. Any disease anyone has, I am more than willing to expose myself to. There is absolutely no way to get an infection when you keep the body in proper health. Similarly to the way that you cannot find a fruit rotting when it is attached to a tree. Does the fruit have an "immune system"? No. Disease is not brought about because you haven't vaccinated or trained your immune system at boot camp (aka inoculations). Disease manifests when there is obstruction of cellular integrity, metabolism and regeneration/cycling. Anything that causes this, causes disease. Then we see bacteria come in and do their work to recycle the dead tissue or viruses get produced by the body in efforts to adapt to a stressor.
It's really funny that I say this right now and everyone here is like "Ohh, you're so lost, so stupid, and so on" and years from now I'll be hearing "ohh yeah, I knew all this stuff about viruses being cellular responses induced by stressors. Of course, we knew that from day one."
I love talking to the sheeple. They always know what they are doing and they always know they are right and anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong and that is that.
You're just as faith-based as the religious people you point the finger at. It cracks me up.
So yeah...let the insults keep rollin' on.
False. Never spent any time on a farm, have you? Fruit rots on the tree all the time.
Actually, yes. It does. Next stupid question?
And the whole idea of the body "producing viruses as a response to a stressor"? Yeah... um... no fucking way. If that were true, then each "virus" would have a genetic imprint similar to the host, and completely different from the "viruses" in other hosts. We can sequence viruses and see that this is not the case.
You really don't understand any of this, do you?
Man, a liar *and* stupid. Heroin? Opium? Poppy dens? Any of this ringing a bell? Heroin was developed in 1874 by Bayer. For many years it was an additive in over the counter cough medicine.
Hey look Ma, another one of those idiot-people you were talking about!
Yes, and heroin was used as over-the-counter Black Tar, inject it directly into your veins, malnourished junkie on the streets living like a bum drug back in the early 1900's/late 1800's? Yeah.
I'm sure. My how inattentive of me.
If I would have said that the heroin from the late 1970's was the same as the heroin from the turn of the previous century, I would have gotten harsh criticism. But no, I make a very logical statement and you have to dig like a deranged idiot to find something to "discredit" me with.
Go screw yourself for being disingenuous. Don't just attack me for the sake of defending your belief at all costs.
It is being used right now to determine if a Florida dentist deliberately infected several of his patients, several of whom have developed AIDS.
RIGHT NOW? really? Or by "right now" do you mean the 1993 case where some people, including a poor woman whose name I believe was kimberly bergalis or something like that...happened to test positive on an HIV test and the ONLY contact she had with any needle or sexual exposure was only when she got a shot from the dentist to numb her mouth...it was thus ASSUMED that this was some "crazed" dentist who was deliberately infecting people even though he vehemently denied doing so. But, since there was ONE patient, they decided to check ALL his previous patients, and naturally, as we would predict, some of those people HAPPENED to test HIV+ as well.
The poor lady who tested HIV+ was not sick though. She had a routine test at the time and was feeling healthy. It was only get this...after she was put on AZT that she started getting REALLY REALLY sick. Of course, we don't do monotherapy AZT anymore because well...quite frankly if you did monotherapy on AZT and you lasted longer than 3 years you are a miracle.
Ohh but no, it must have been the HIV. When you say "hiv sequence" what you refer to is not the entire "genome" of HIV...which DOESN'T EXIST. You refer to small segments of parts of genetic material which is again, common in all kinds of people and has nothing to do with infection. The "closeness" that it may resemble another persons "strain" is no different than someone's genetic sequence for production of insulin. LOL. Yeah, you will find that there is a "similarity" in that respect. It can hardly be used to "track and identify" someone though. What a joke.
...Back to the quote about the 'several of them developed AIDS' bit...
What about the several that didn't? Guess which ones decided to take the drugs? "Several" of them did. Seems to me, you're the one who can't accept reality when IT bites you on the ass.
Your unmitigated arrogance, combined with your boundless ignorance, makes you one of the more obnoxious assholes I've ever had the misfortune to deal with.
What new lies will you concoct now?
What lies? I speak the truth you fool.
Liar. You wouldn't know "truth" if it jumped up and bit you on your lying nose.
The lady who runs this blog *works* with HIV. Live. In the lab. Infecting animals to test vaccines.
Dumbass.
"Any disease anyone has, I am more than willing to expose myself to."
slut
Oh, and "track and identify"? You'd better learn to read. See http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm to try to learn something.
More linky to avoid spam filters: http://cbs11tv.com/local/HIV.infection.trial.2.1017249.html
"I love talking to the sheeple. "
1) Unless you invented the term, you're a shining example
2) Interesting definition of sheep: "anyone who disagrees with me". whereas anyone who agrees is free thinking and independent.
3) Just to be sure, you are of the belief that the germ theory of disease is incorrect?
False. Never spent any time on a farm, have you? Fruit rots on the tree all the time.
Right. Rotting fruit, if still connected to the stem, and if the actual tree itself is not diseased, does not occur on a tree. You will not find a rotting fruit growing on a healthy tree. But as soon as you take a healthy fresh fruit from the tree and allow it to sit on the ground for a few days, you will see it very quickly start to break down.
And no, fruits do not have lymphatic-immune systems. You don't give fruits vaccines for instance to make them healthy (and likewise neither do you with humans). Proof of antibody production does not ensue or ensure "immunity." Matter of fact there is no correlation.
And the whole idea of the body "producing viruses as a response to a stressor"? Yeah... um... no fucking way.
ummm....yes fucking way.
We can sequence viruses and see that this is not the case.
You really don't understand any of this, do you?
Viruses, when introduced into another body via injection will tend to find the target cells, bind, and replicate. Similarly, if you were to take hormones, inject them into someone's blood, you would see a VERY profound effect.
But #1 viruses don't cause disease (and this is why when we try and draw up serum with one sequence of virus, mix it in vitro with tissue from another individual, we will see new virus form because we are looking at fragmented versions of biology. I know of no kidney tissue that exists just as kidney tissue. I only know of kidney tissue that exists as part of an entire kidney, which is part of an organism etc. There are great things we can do with in vitro analysis, but sometimes it's just not robust enough of a situation to mimic what ACTUALLY happens in the body. Particularly the mechanisms of up and down regulation and these sorts of "monitoring" or mediation by the surrounding tissue, organs, blood, etc).
I'll tell you what though. Let's make this really simple...
How about a wager. Let's make it significant. 10,000 dollars. Up front, all cash.
You find someone for me who is HIV+ and you are ABSOLUTELY sure this person has "the virus"...you make sure you have documentation, and you have satisfied yourself 100% that the person absolutely has this virus in their blood...
You bring me to them, in front of eyewitnesses and taken in one continuous shot on camera, we have the "HIV+" person's blood drawn. Say 5-10 ml...or whatever amount you wish to use that would plausibly raise your expectation to a nearly absolutely sure state that I will have the virus replicate in me and I will subsequently test HIV+ and then we inject me with it. I take an HIV test after 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after this "exposure" and if I am HIV- each time I win the money. If I am HIV+ on any of the tests, even regardless of the fact that I have no symptoms or any apparent illness...I still lose. If I get sick, I lose. If I die, I lose. If I refuse to take a test, I lose. If I violate any of these rules or if I do anything that is seen as even REMOTELY suspicious, I lose.
Literally the ONLY way for me to win is for me to:
Get injected, not develop any illness, not develop any AIDS defining conditions, not test for low CD-4 counts, and not test HIV+ on ANY of the tests I take.
I will do this at any time, in front of anybody, anywhere. All I ask is we make the contract official and the money is given to an independent third party we both agree upon to hold until the winner is determined.
This offer is open to anyone. Indeed if you want to raise the stakes my limit is infinity. I will wager my mom's house which is worth around 800K right now with only 40K left on the mortgage. All my belongings, and savings, everything I have I will put on the line. Anyone who wants to take me up on this, I am extremely serious and would like to do this.
Because if you think you are so smart. If you think you are so understanding of these concepts, then you really should put your money where your mouth is.
Otherwise, stfu.
thank you.
3) Just to be sure, you are of the belief that the germ theory of disease is incorrect?
Indeed.
Which tells us all we really need to know. What are you, 12?
Fruit rots on healthy trees. Ask a farmer. I've seen it.
ERV? Smack this fool.
So when we, for example, injected mice with Clostridium perfringens and gas gangrene developed, it wasn't the bacteria causing the disease but the stress on the mouse and the bacteria were just along for the ride?
So when we, for example, injected mice with Clostridium perfringens and gas gangrene developed, it wasn't the bacteria causing the disease but the stress on the mouse and the bacteria were just along for the ride?
Sort of. In the real world, in nature, you don't find bacteria introduced into the bloodstream in any large concentration. Ever. If we were to take that bacteria and instead of bypass all the other physical barriers preventing it from being introduced in large amounts into the blood, we saw...fed it to the mice...there would be nothing more than perhaps diarrhea. To prove that poliovirus causes polio, researcher tried to take infected monkeys and have them directly infect others. This failed each and every single time. Not one case of any documented transmission from touch or oral, etc "transmission". So then the researchers decided to culture the virus and inject it directly into the uninfected monkeys. Still nothing. Occasionally they would get sore arms at the site of infection and SOMETIMES the arm would go numb. But no great success having the disease manifest. It was then that researchers had to revert to INTERCRANIAL drilling and literally stabbing the monkeys in directly in the brain and injecting the sera to have most of them come down with polio symptoms. And thus there was the conclusion that poliovirus caused polio. Very dubious to say the least.
Introducing large amounts of bacteria in the blood is highly damaging to the lymph system and taxes the body and if its enough (and i'm sure the mice you were referring to had MASSIVE amounts of fluid injected into their tiny bodies) then yeah, it would absolutely make sense to see a trauma cause disease, and then having the bacteria present in a body in a state of disease ... certainly would proliferate, for that is what bacteria do in states of disease.
Why do we have to revert to these really invasive and unrealistic never-would-happen in nature methods to prove things about nature which aren't even true?
You ask me. The theory don't fit the facts though, bob.
As a side note, I can't keep posting nothing but "dissent"...I'll link to something I think everyone can appreciate:
Youtube user ndsuvirtualcell Pretty cool animations. Also there is a website called you can find with (some) good info if you good "bioseminars" but then again one of the "seminars" is David Baltimore talking about HIV, so take it for what it is.
Sorry we don't all agree. But I'm also very sorry that you think I am some uneducated moron. Sorry, Maroon. (I don't watch TV, nor did I like doing so as a kid). My apologies for missing the Bugs Bunny reference.
Right. Because there are never traumatic injuries in reality. Nobody ever gets shot, or stabbed, or falls on a dirty tool in the real world.
C'mon, idiot. You can do better than that.
I tell you what: You go down to the local hospital, and you volunteer to take HIV infected blood intravenously. Tell 'em it's to prove a point. Let us all know what happens.
Better yet, tell yer mom what you're contemplating. Let us know how she reacts.
Barring that, take a freaking biology class. You might learn something.
Well in my specific example, the C. perfringens that cause gangrene don't cause food poisoning (absence of an enterotoxin). I know that's not the point, I'm just tossing it out there for nerd credit.
The mice were injected with the bacteria resuspended in 100 microliters of phosphate buffered saline into the right hind leg thigh muscle. When injected with PBS and no bacteria gangrene doesn't develop. When injected with PBS and mutants that don't produce a specific toxin (phospholipase C) gangrene doesn't develop. If its the trauma and not the bacteria causing the disease (with bacteria taking advantage of the injured tissue), why would the absence of a specific toxin gene make such a difference?
(Specific data are coming from DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.9.5204-5215.2004)
This isn't particularly un-realworld. The dosage is skewed, but that's due to the limits of a small animal model + anaerobic bacteria. But the model, C. perfringens finding itself in a wound, is what happens in the real world and why, before the introduction of antibiotics, it was a really significant problem.
If smaller doses are your thing, aerosol exposures of mice to ~1000 Burkholderia mallei and they'll die. Shouldn't be any tissue damage from this mode of inoculation. If you do an IP injection its fewer bacteria still. If you use hamsters its ~10 bacteria.
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.11.6589-6596.2004
I've not been following this thread religiously, but this "commonsense" notion
Rotting fruit, if still connected to the stem, and if the actual tree itself is not diseased, does not occur on a tree. You will not find a rotting fruit growing on a healthy tree.
is just hilarious. Perhaps Mr. CS believes everything he reads in the wholly babble, such as Luke 6:43 - "For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
But in the real world, as we all know, depending on the babble as a science book is not a good idea. See here for a reality check.
Kimberley Bergalis was suffering from systemic candidiasis, extreme weight loss, hair loss and PCP before she was ever tested for HIV let alone put on antiretrovirals.
Kimberley Bergalis was suffering from systemic candidiasis, extreme weight loss, hair loss and PCP before she was ever tested for HIV let alone put on antiretrovirals.
Wow, and I'm the one who is accused of lying?
Bergalis NEVER had the debilitating illnesses and problems she had before being put on any drugs, nor before being tested.
She had candida...a problem so many women have and it is due to their poor diet and lack of exercise. She had a case of pneumonia. Again, she didn't start having the severe anemia the bone marrow problems etc until being put on AZT and in hindsight, looking back...researchers admit that the AZT was what she died from.
Look fuckers, you can't have it both ways. If she didn't get sick it was because "the virus was still dormant" but she got sick and died after 3 years of being "infected" (with what I have no clue). What happened to your precious incubation period?
Ohh that's right. It's not a defined period of incubation, rather, it represents a possible range of inactive time where the virus can remain dormant and hide itself inside the cell without going into attack mode.
All mechanisms for this ohh-so-convenient grace period are shaky at best, pathologically deplorable lies at worst.
The worst part is this:
all you morons (or maroons, for our more saturday-morning oriented children) keep referencing the "very conclusive genetic sequencing" that "proved" the same strains where present in Bergalis that came from the dentist...well, you're just fucking idiots, unfortunately...
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that Bergalis, as well as five other unrelated patients, had contracted the same strain of HIV from Acer. CDC-conducted tests of DNA sequencing showed that there was a high correlation between the strain of HIV carried by Acer and that carried by Bergalis and Acer's other patients. Later review of the CDC tests strengthened the case that Bergalis's HIV infection was linked to Acer. These CDC tests, however, were later called into into question by the Annals of Internal Medicine stating, "that the molecular analyses used to determine that the dentist and his patients had the same strains of HIV had potentially serious flaws."[4][5][6][7][8]
This is from the Wiki page I encourage all you fucking nitwits to open your eyes before you make claims which are incorrect.
And here's a letter from a fellow idiot like yourselves (who claim to be "scientists" lol...fucking children with magnifying glasses thinking they know anything. Amazing)....
Dear Alive & Well,
I urge you to remember the case of Kimberly Bergalis. [Kimberly Bergalis is the Florida woman who died of AIDS in 1989 after allegedly being infected with HIV by her dentist]
Although I loathed her grandstanding, she did serve as an example of someone who never did recreational drugs but died of the same immune system meltdown with the same bony and gaunt face as my friends. Despite what you say, there is ample evidence that AIDS DOES exist. It is not a byproduct of drug use. It's an infection.
Mike Salinas
Dear Mike,
After being diagnosed HIV positive, Kimberly Bergalis took AZT in the tremendously high doses used in the mid to late 1980s. Today, great numbers of AIDS experts on all sides of the issue acknowledge that AZT is extremely toxic and the high dose treatments given back in Kimberly's time were responsible for countless deaths.
Prior to beginning AZT treatment, Kimberly was not seriously ill. She had a yeast infection-a common occurrence possibly caused in her case by antibiotics taken after dental work, and pneumonia. Some 30,000 HIV negative Americans die each year from pneumonia-pneumonia happens and is not uncommon among college age people like Kimberly who often "burn the candle at both endsà through study, work, partying, lack of adequate sleep and nutrition.
Once Kimberly started taking daily doses of AZT chemotherapy, she wasted away like a typical chemotherapy recipient. She lost weight, muscle mass, her hair and her appetite; she developed rashes, acne and neuropathy to the degree she could hardly walk. If you check a medical dictionary or the Merck Manual, you will find Kimberly Bergalis suffering described most succinctly as side effects of DNA chain terminating chemotherapy treatment.
However unfortunate, Kimberly Bergalis' story does not provide conclusive evidence that AIDS is a contagious condition caused by HIV. In scientific terms, Kimberly's experience would constitute a poorly designed study of one with no control. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that one person's experience suffices to prove HIV causes AIDS.
Does the lesser known story of a woman born the same year as Kimberly, diagnosed HIV positive the same year, who unlike Kimberly had suffered with serious illness (Crohn's disease and arthritis) prior to testing positive who opted to take natural treatments and today is healthy, happily married, and the mother of two healthy little girls (both born without medical intervention) prove HIV does not cause AIDS?
Ok. Now your turn to flip reality on its head and tell me how dumb I am... :-)
Cheers idiots.
Prometheus wins the internets:
136 "Any disease anyone has, I am more than willing to expose myself to."
slut
Posted by: Prometheus | June 11, 2009 3:47 PM
AIDS From A Healer, Scorn From Others
The correct timeline is dentist, systemic candidiasis, weight loss, hair loss, PCP (not just any pneumonia) and then being tested for HIV.
Why do you think they tested somebody with no obvious risks for HIV? Because she had PCP which is indicative of severe immune deficiency.
You have quoted Christine Maggiore's version of Kimberley Bergalis' death. In case you hadn't noticed Christine Maggiore spent the last years of her life deperately trying to convince herself and others that HIV does not cause AIDS. That did not stop her from falling victim to HIV.
You have quoted Christine Maggiore's version of Kimberley Bergalis' death. In case you hadn't noticed Christine Maggiore spent the last years of her life deperately trying to convince herself and others that HIV does not cause AIDS. That did not stop her from falling victim to HIV.
First of all, you didn't know christine, or her family, or what happened. And I would suggest being careful what you say about Christine. When she died I felt like a family member passed away. Consider any comments you make about her as though you were speaking about my own mother.
Christine's daughter was given amoxicillin for an ear infection (sad to say I think this was due to Christine feeding her milk and grains, which are the most common causes of ear infections in children). At any rate, her daughter had a severe reaction to the antibiotic. From Christine and her husbands direct words, we know that their daughter upon first taking the antibiotic, had an acute reaction. The second time she took it, she went into shock and died right there. It's a huge tragedy. Then imagine what happens to you as the mother when you are told you are responsible for your child's death. The whole world was told how insane Christine was and how she was killing her daughter. Christine was devastated. Even when these kinds of idiotic and insensitive insults are said, even though they are baseless, it is EXTREMELY emotionally draining to be told constantly by everyone that you are your own child's murderer.
She literally was never the same since then. No more joy and cheeriness. She was devastated.
Autopsy showed her daughter died from anaphylactic shock from adverse reaction. It was only after someone found out Eliza Jane was Christine's daughter that they said "ohh, wait a minute...in that case...she must have died of AIDS. Let's say there was PCP in her lungs."
It's too bad that a photo and micrograph of her lungs was sent to Texas in a court case by then, where it was in fact used as a CONTROL SAMPLE to compare a child that DID have pneumonia in their lungs.
Do you understand this?
Eliza Jane Scovil's lungs were used as a control for what "normal" lungs look like to compare them to a child in Texas who actually had pneumonia. It's too bad the morons at the coroner's office didn't realize this when they fraudulently declared the child died of PCP.
In fact, Christine had a court date set for February to take this issue to court. She sadly died in December, but her husband kept fighting and won the case. So please...pretty please with a cherry on top, keep the lies to a minimum, as well as the sleazy slander.
Here's another thing: Nobody ever talks about the fact that her fist son, Charlie, was conceived long after Christine was diagnosed with "HIV+" status, and yet he is HIV-
Her husband, after YEARS of (obvious) unprotected sex, remains HIV-
You think he's the dumbest man in the world?
How about Karri Stokely and her husband in Florida? Admits hundreds of unprotected encounters sexually and yet...well, no seroconversion.
Just look at the various studies that try and "prove HIV transmissibility" and what do they prove? Nothing. The most famous one of these studies that dissidents point out is the Padian et al study from 1996 where they had HUNDREDS of sero-discordant couples (one negative, one positive) and after the entire 10 year study was finished, despite numerous couples engaging in not just sex but UNPROTECTED sex, many many many times....NOT A SINGLE person seroconverted.
It's as if the obvious truth can be placed right in front of your idiotic faces and STILL you morons (maroons) can actually find a way to deny reality.
Don't accuse me of religious zealous beliefs. You are the ones who keep making excuses and can't answer SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTIONS.
Do you people even know anything about the history of HIV?
You say the lady who runs this blog works "with HIV"? Why don't you ask her to show you the scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS.
It should be a simple document to obtain.
But she won't find it.
And as far as I'm concerned, she can go fuck off too. We need people in this world that are willing to be truthful and ACTUALLY do science, not mindless lab techniques that require less brain power than a retarded chimpanzee has.
Yea I said it.
And if anyone offends Christine, so help me flying spaghetti monster I will beat the living shit out of you.
have a pleasant day.
idiots.
"First of all, you didn't know christine, or her family, or what happened. And I would suggest being careful what you say about Christine. When she died I felt like a family member passed away. Consider any comments you make about her as though you were speaking about my own mother."
Christine Maggiore was a bitch and I'm glad she's dead. Too bad there isn't a hell for her to burn in.
Christine Maggiore was a bitch and I'm glad she's dead. Too bad there isn't a hell for her to burn in.
If I ever meet you in real like I swear on my life I will hospitalize you.
Oh yea.
Yea!
.
.
.
You just wait right there tough guy.
.
.
Now you did it!
.
My mom is waiting for your mom in the 7-11 parking lot to unleash a crippled septuagenarian retired math professor Daughter of the American Revolution beat down on your punk ass mom and her back of the amortization bell curve home equity.
Bring it bitch!
I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
"If I ever meet you in real like I swear on my life I will hospitalize you."
For real holmes, for real.
CommonSense: I'm going to jump on the bandwagon from a different side. I noticed you posted a little link about stopping Obama's healthcare plan. Those of us with a libertarian bent who oppose nationalizing health care don't appreciate crackpots detracting from the arguments' credibility. Please just stick to your arguments that bananas and lettuce can make you fly and immune to bullets.
From a rhetorical standpoint - it's interesting that as soon as a commenter identified someone with your convictions who caused damage (Christine Maggiore), you resort to the tactic of organized religion: "You aren't aware of X Y and Z obscure event or doctrine, which disqualifies your opinion", "You can't question that", "I'm offended", "watch what you say", "only I can talk about that". Do you seriously expect that to work here? Your objection really makes you appear to be stifling inquiry, rather than welcoming it in the interest of persuading others of your argument's value. And are you really spending all this time commenting on blogs when you could be helping people directly? Market forces apply to medicine too, you know - where are the hordes of people lining up for your health instruction? Or can a conspiracy so easily trump the market? In fact, how would you be behaving differently if you were (hypothetically) just a full of shit sad-sack and just looking for attention?
Last question CommonSense - I'm starting medical school in the fall. How exactly do you expect them to indoctrinate/brainwash me with these looney ideas that viruses cause diseases (and crush your valuable dissent)? What should I watch out for? Or does my admission already guarantee I'm part of the conspiracy?
Christine Maggiore was an evil woman who murdered her own daughter in order to glorify herself.
I just read the article about Leung's AIDS denialist movie. CommonSense, seems you're not the only crank with a sore spot when someone mentions names of people whose delusions ultimately cost them their lives. Am I imagining the similarity in behavior patterns here:
"In the middle of Kuritzkesâs speech Leung and several other audience members shouted over him, 'This is not a panel!' and, 'Whereâs the panel?' The shouting reached a fever pitch when Kuritzkes began reading a list of names of AIDS denialists who allegedly died of complications from AIDS."
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=90…
Christine Maggiore's ghost and your mom just called. They offered me a triple interdimensional basket job with ectoplasmic photo finish. Can I borrow a quarter, a Ouija board and cab fare to alley behind Merchant Marine Hall?
Hey ERV, this guy is an F5 fountain. Give him his own punishment corner. You can build Arnie a gold plated bitch barn with your crazy Shell Oil banner ad bucks.
Or bet them against this guy's mom's house he'll get hydrophobia if he wrestles a bunch of rabid skunks on You Tube.
Either of these.
I'm easy.
ahh 'commonsense' you somehow forgot to address the point where I showed that you were 'mistaken' about the events leading up to Kimberley Bergalis being diagnosed with HIV.
PS. If you want to threaten somebody with physical violence it is not a good idea to also brag that your diet consists mostly of bananas and lettuce.
Forget it, Chris. CommonSense uses the time-tested tactic known as the Gish gallop. He doesn't care whether his arguments are right or wrong. He will just move on.
Fuck, you guys are all responding to him with substantive points and gay shit like that. I'm just trolling. I feel kinda bad.
What should I watch out for? Or does my admission already guarantee I'm part of the conspiracy?
What is it with conspiracy? Did I EVER say this word? It's not conspiracy. It's just bad science. If you were to be starting psychiatry school I would tell you the same thing. It's no conspiracy, it's just bad science because it's been polluted by money. Profit motives. It's VERY simple.
Here's what happens when you go to med school:
You get TRAINED in PROCEDURES. You can pass with an "A" or a "C" and it's no different. Med school is incredibly intensive, you will have no time for pussyfooting around and considering the possibility that what you are being taught is not the best info and that's that. You got tests to take, terms to memorize, patterns to recognize and there's no time for wondering if say cholesterol really is a risk for heart disease, or if HIV really does cause AIDS and so on. There's just no time to mess around with these ideas.
And so you QUICKLY learn to brush off these concerns and laugh at people (or simply avoid them) who question what you are being taught. In fairness, med school is not a bad thing. Most of the things learned are indeed helpful in many cases. But the problem is the following:
Medical school is basically predicated upon creating physicians that do certain things. The idea is to create a doctor who will be very much inline with what everyone else is saying such that there isn't confusion. The most important thing is for the doctors to basically know what they can question and what they can't question. Examples:
What you can question:
-Whether you feel like recommending complementary or alternative medicine to your patients.
-If you should give b12 to people who are low in MMA tests via injections or with sublinguals
-What product to recommend for someone with dandruff
-How many glasses of water you tell your patients to have each day
What you cannot question:
-If treating symptoms with drugs is they way to give people health (it is, decades of the absolute best scientific research has proven this over and over)
-Whether vaccines are safe and effective (they are, anyone who says different is a hippie idiot)
-Whether chemotherapy is cruel and unusual punishment (it isn't, chemo may not be the best option, but it's the best we got. anyone who says you can treat cancer with rabbit food doesn't understand neoplastic growths and in all likelihood, is a hippie idiot)
-Whether the main causes of disease is anything other than viruses, bacteria/fungi, genetics or misshapen proteins (these are the causes of pretty much all major diseases. anyone who suggests it could be diet, environmental toxins, stressful living conditions and poor lifestyle habits is likely...a hippie idiot. as well as a possible communist).
When you go to med school, it's not OPTIONAL to disagree with certain tenants of modern medicine. Your job as a doctor is simple:
-give vaccines to people
-diagnose people with diseases
then, match up disease symptoms with corresponding pharmaceutical and sign name on line.
-attend "CE" courses, which are for the majority of them, more pharmaceutical adverts.
-see as many patients in a day as possible because it's all about making that dough, boy. And the more people you see, the more cash you get. Bottom line.
Ohh yeah, and did I mention that you will have DEBT when you leave school, and you will need to start paying that back...like right away. The best way to do that is by working with your friendly pharmaceutical drug retail reps, making sure you push those pills, and so on...
Doctors are really quite useless when you think about it. All this bullshit about having a "calling" and "wanting to help people" is COMPLETE bullshit and most med students know it. They want MONEY, man. Which is fine. It's ok to want money...but not when you are not giving people the best care.
Doctors right now are nothing more than pharmaceutical vending machines. They serve no legitimate function in insuring health. That's the truth. The only ones that I respect are the ones who get out of med school and then write books questioning what they learned, and telling people how to be healthy, and that the system sucks.
Doctors are not their own people. They are EMPLOYEES. Of who? Of Roche, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, etc, etc etc...
Without the products these companies produce, there is no doctor. There is no "medicine." There is no industry.
You are asking if I think you are "part of the conspiracy?" There IS NO conspiracy. It's just business as usual. No conspiracy at all. Just self-interest of the individual that blinds them from the concern of their peers and patients.
Enjoy your 4 years. I am myself considering going to med school. I still don't know if I wanna do it though because I will have to bite my tongue so much. I might just go into chiropractic instead, or naturopathy.
But no, for the last time. No conspiracy.
Oh okay.
Thousands of scientists worldwide working directly with the viruses and witnessing their effects firsthand = BAD SCIENCE
Profoundly crazy, retarded, ignorant idiot abusing an internet connection = GOOD SCIENCE
Got it.
It figures. He would fit right in.
I go for the B12 deficiency hypothesis - aggravating an underlying mental illness.
#163
"Fuck, you guys are all responding to him with substantive points and gay shit like that. I'm just trolling. I feel kinda bad."
Not me Tyler. My posts, like Christine Maggiore have no substance.
Get it? See it's funny cause she's dead. See what I did there?
Where is my threat? What am I? Chopped lettuce?
Sorry. I am really tired and I had ham for dinner. My immune system is compromised and an HIV goblin is probably sneaking down the chimney.
I go for the B12 deficiency hypothesis - aggravating an underlying mental illness.
Actually I'm really good on my b12 stores. The most common cause of b12 problems (which by the way affect meat eaters just as well as vegans) is problems with parietal cells in the stomach. Low HCl production and intrinsic factor secretion are in fact the most significant causes of b12 issues. It's not actually getting the b12. There are papers in Nature and in Science and in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition that analyze plant sources and find b12 in things like organic tomatoes, strawberries etc...
I have read many researchers state that they think the b vitamins are almost always found together in all whole food sources...hence "b-COMPLEX" as they are called.
Nevertheless, I have optimal Methylmalonic Acid levels indicative of adequate b12 levels actually. I also have all other nutrients and minerals in the body at optimal levels. I live in a very sunny state and so my vitamin D levels are perfect. The thing I really like about my diet and my state of health is that I never get fatigued. I lift weights and I can do the same exact muscle groups the very next day, literally 24 hour recuperation cycles. Most weight trainers will brag about how tough their workout was because they were "sore for three days"...lol. These folks done understand that's not a good thing. That's indicative of the fact that your body is not able to go into optimal anabolism and repair.
These are the same idiots who die of renal and hepatic disorders in their 40's and 50's due to their tubs of concentrated protein they eat. It amazes my how people can look at soy protein and think "wow, yummy. only 50 bucks!? What a deal"
Idiots.
Hey you know what, I'm not an internet tough guy. I'm standing up for something I know is right.
All you guys who are making comments about Christine Maggiore, I won't lie, that hurts to read them. I truly loved that woman for all she did and how selfless she was, but I understand that people view her as the enemy or as some deranged idiot mom.
Let me just make a few points that some of you may not know:
-Kary Mullis...the inventor of PCR technology that allows all this genetic sequencing research to even exist is an unwaivering AIDS Dissident.
-Peter Duesberg, a member of the National Academy of Science is an AIDS Dissident. Even though the mainstream has completely backlashed against him, his views on cancer are interesting enough that they are willing to "overlook" his AIDS dissidence and give him interviews and publish his thoughts on his chromosomal-level cancer link (as opposed to single gene link that most research is looking at)
-Dr. Rodney Richards. He was working with Abbott Labs literally responsible for developing the so called HIV tests. His advice? "HIV tests of all kinds should be banned immediately and never used again. For anything. They do not detect a virus."
Again, you have many many more highly recognized scientists on the list of rethinkers and many who voice support from behind the scenes but don't go public themselves out of fear of being ostracized. And there is plenty to fear. Just look at the reactions I got here. And I'm not even a tenured researcher or professor.
I think it's odd that Lynn Margulis is on the list. Most people don't know that.
So we take Margulis's theory on endosymbiosis. And we take Mullis's PCR technology, and Duesberg's aneuploidy theories, but when they mention HIV they MUST be idiots and lunatics, right?
Right. These aren't "REAL" scientists after all right? I mean, PCR? Any old fool could have thought of that. Endosymbiosis? What a crackpot theory. And aneuploidy theory of cancer? Please...that was disproven decades ago.
These aren't scientists, these are DENIALISTS.
So, lets do this...lets make straw man arguments about these people and then proceed to make them look incompetent and moronic. Wonderful!
Can anyone explain to me why THESE people think HIV doesn't cause AIDS? It seems for all intents and purposes they are quite...well..intelligent people. They are believing in some big giant lie though. How could they be so duped? Is it sufficient to just call them cranks and nutters?
They're certainly not doing it for the money. Most of them have had funding removed (Duesberg)
or even lost their jobs due to their views (Rebecca Culshaw, Dr. Andrew Maniotis).
Is it really enough to explain why rational, apparently very bright and intelligent researchers in high positions are holding these opinions?
Does calling them wackos really answer the question of why do they believe what they believe? Is there a chance they are right and everyone else is wrong? How can we be sure?
Have you heard all of their claims and concerns?
If not, should you be able to justifiably dismiss them without investigation?
These are important questions.
CommonSense Said:
"We now know the cause of KS is almost without question due to ONLY the use of nitrite/nitrate inhalants that were popularized for usage within the gay community due to their dilation effect on the blood vessels, which translates into both a kind of "high" (I am told) and more importantly it makes anal sex less painful for the recipient."
"KS is traditionally a disease that was seen in ONLY Mediterranean men in their later years and it occurred at their ankles, for COMPLETELY different reasons and causes. The KS we saw in the "AIDS" patients remains to this day ONLY in those who do poppers."
"People in Africa, they don't get KS."
African children must be very resourceful in order to travel outside Africa to get and use poppers, so they can develop Kaposi's Sarcoma and get back home in time to be noticed in the hospital systems there.
See: Non-infective pulmonary disease in HIV-positive children. Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Jun;39(6):555-64.
and:
Kaposi sarcoma in children with HIV: a clinical series from Red Cross Children's Hospital. J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Feb;44(2):373-6.
No.
By using science to test their claims. It's been done, and they are wrong.
Unless they've come up with something new, then yes.
It's been investigated and found to be wrong. On many different levels.
No. These are irrelevant distractions. The questions have been asked and answered, and now defense is simply badgering the witness.
You may want to check out "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. It would be a much better use of your time than trying to impress adults with your adolescent fantasies.
Stop lying and learn to read. And the vague threats just make you look foolish.
Aaaaand yet another appeal to authority from the ranting loonball.
You have no idea how science works. None.
Every scientist, no matter how eminent, will have each and every idea evaluated on the quality of their evidence.
The denialists have none, and in fact have a boatload of counterfactual claims, as others have nicely demonstrated in this thread (most recently, Robert Smith's post immediately above).
Evidence. That's how science sorts out the good ideas from the bad. Shocking concept, I know!
Unfortunately, until the day comes when science accepts ideas on the basis of whether they make you feel morally superior to all those filthy homosexuals and drug users and African mud people who don't live "cleanly" like you do, you're shit out of luck and will continue to be treated like like the ignorant asshole you are.
And just to remind you about a comment (#147) above that you are ignoring, mr. internet tough guy, fruit does rot on trees as surely as you are rotting in your mom's basement.
Let me know when you are coming to beat me up. I'll clear my schedule.
As far as fruit rotting on trees give it up man. You're missing the point. When the tree is grown in optimal conditions without use of pesticides and chemicals and synthetic fertilizers, you do not see fruit rotting on the tree. If you do, it is because the whole tree is unhealthy.
Go to the pristine areas of Peru and check the mangoes on the trees and see if you can find an area where they are growing naturally and find me a diseased fruit on the tree.
Go to Bordeaux in France and check the grapes there in the countryside and tell me what you see.
Here is MY point. The integrity of the individual, and the resistance to disease is related to their nutritional status and their level of overall health. It is NOT related to how many vaccines they have received. It is not related to their HMO.
If you want to dispute this that's fine. If you want to pick at details, go ahead. There are always cases where you may see some of the fruit on the trees get bruised up from wind, or they are grown in improper soil conditions and thus have no natural resistance to insects, who begin to chew through the skin, exposing the inside of the fruit to the outside and thus allowing oxidation to occur. And guess what happens after that? Yeah...it might rot on the tree. But you're missing the point by clinging onto these threads.
I'm not making an all or nothing statement. But here's what I AM saying...take an orange tree for example:
Notice 10 oranges that all are about the same "age", that is, they all began as little buds at the same time, and they are all relatively the same size. As soon as they appear almost ripe, you randomly select 5 of them and you snap them off the tree and you set them down below it. You monitor the 5 you snapped off the tree and the 5 still remaining on the tree.
You let the days go by and notice which ones get moldy first. What you will notice is that the 5 you pluck off the tree will go bad virtually ALWAYS before the ones on the tree. In fact, the ones on the tree only will go bad after they fall from the tree naturally on their own.
That's all I'm saying. Get over yourself. Yes I acknowledge your point from comment #147, yes. OK, not ignoring. There you have it. I hope that clarifies my point.
And like I said, if vaccines were so important for immune health, why do we not vaccinate wild animals and they remain fine. Why do we not vaccinate fruits and veggies (after all, someone said they do have immune systems too)...
As far as KS in children in Africa, it has been documented that such a disease was found in African children (albeit an extremely small percentage) decades and decades ago. Out of all the cases of what we call "AIDS" in Africa, do you know how common KS is? Compare that to the Incidence of KS in homosexual men with AIDS in the 1980s. Are you kidding me? Gay men were getting KS like it was their job. Africans were getting this disease at rates less than 1/1000th if not even less often and these cases were nowhere near the same as the obvious and pronounced lesions on the homosexual mens' upper torso and respiratory region.
Here's what the paper you cited states:
"Before the HIV epidemic, this hospital treated one patient with Kaposi sarcoma every 4 years; the incidence has now increased to 2 patients per year."
Does this sound like:
- An epidemic?
- Statistically significant?
- Diagnosis bias?
And yea, KS is something you can DEFINITELY have some wiggle room in the diagnosis. I can guarantee that many of those kids who had the diagnosis of KS could easily have been determined to fit the same etiological patterns of those children decades before the AIDS era who had the same symptoms.
I'll bet you that.
Again, it's the same old song and dance. You can use that kind of statistic to suggest KS is caused by an infectious agent. But when I point to similar finding about autism in relationship to the total amount of vaccination that has increased by 3 to 5 fold since the 70's, people start to tell me "well, this is very likely due to diagnosing bias."
And when I say the reason we have stories of children with KS increasing could very well be due to similar bias, it is told to me this is impossible.
The rules don't apply to everyone who toes the line. I know how it works. You find any reason you can to discredit those who question you.
Appreciate the response though, without the slander.
Demonstrably false.
Rabies.
Tularemia.
Pasturellosis.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no2/wolfe.htm Wild primate populations & infectious diseases.
That wooshing sound? That's the goalposts moving.
Oh, and Karposi's Sarcoma is pretty obvious, even to the untrained eye. Autism? Not so much. But a good attempt at irrelevancy to change the subject!
Slander is a very specific legal charge. Calling you an idiot does not apply. You are demonstrably an idiot.
Go tell your mother she wants you.
When someone can claim that fruit doesn't rot on trees, be confronted with evidence that it does (commonly, frequently, in fact), and claim people are missing the point, you know that the "point" was never anything more than "I'm right, no matter what".
Wild animals in the south west United States come down with Yersinia pestis infections and periodically pass them along to humans.
Anyhow, still waiting for thoughts on why sham inoculations and inoculation with certain mutant strains of a bacteria don't cause disease while the wild-type causes a lethal infection.
CS
You initially made the blanket assertion that fruit does not rot on trees.
I showed that this blanket assertion was wrong.
Your eventual response (after initially ignoring the fact that you are wrong) was to point out that sometimes fruit doesn't rot on trees (or grapevines, now), or that if you pick them, they might rot faster, or that any tree with rotten fruit must be unhealthy. That's not an intellectually honest response; that is, as LanceR pointed out, moving the goalposts.
An intellectually honest response would be to admit that your original blanket assertion is incorrect. But since you seem to be congenitally incapable of doing that, I'll help out.
Your original assertion was wrong.
As are most of the rest of your assertions, by the way. But since others have been pointing that out to you quite successfully, I'll just get out of the way now.
Carry on.
CommonSense wrote:
Indeed, let's see how they make a desert wine known as Sauternes:
And while we're at it, let's look up noble rot:
Those grape vines must be sick. Them twisted French!
Here is all you need to know about CommonSense:
CommonSense says:
"The most famous one of these studies that dissidents point out is the Padian et al study from 1996 where they had HUNDREDS of sero-discordant couples (one negative, one positive) and after the entire 10 year study was finished, despite numerous couples engaging in not just sex but UNPROTECTED sex, many many many times....NOT A SINGLE person seroconverted."
Here is the abstract from Padian et al:
Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-year Study
Nancy S. Padian1, Stephen C. Shiboski2, Sarah O. Glass1 and Eric Vittinghoff3
1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, CA
2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, CA
3San Francisco Department of Public Health San Francisco, CA
To examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a prospective study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985. Participants were recruited from health care providers, research studies, and health departments throughout Northern California, and they were interviewed and examined at various study clinic sites. A total of 82 infected women and their male partners and 360 infected men and their female partners were enrolled. Over 90% of the couples were monogamous for the year prior to entry into the study; <3% had a current sexually transmitted disease (STD). The median age of participants was 34 years, and the majority were white. Over 3,000 couple-months of data were available for the follow-up study. Overall, 68 (19%) of the 360 female partners of HIV-infected men (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.0â23.3%) and two (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected women (95% CI 0.3â8.57%) were infected. History of sexually transmitted diseases was most strongly associated with transmission. Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005â0.001). Overtime, the authors observed increased condom use (p < 0.001) and no new infections. Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low, and STDs may be the most important cofactor for transmission. Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:350-7.
The less than symbol garbles anything after it because it signifies the beginning of an html tag. I've replaced the symbol with [less than] to show the full abstract.
To examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the authors conducted a prospective study of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners who have been recruited since 1985. Participants were recruited from health care providers, research studies, and health departments throughout Northern California, and they were interviewed and examined at various study clinic sites. A total of 82 infected women and their male partners and 360 infected men and their female partners were enrolled. Over 90% of the couples were monogamous for the year prior to entry into the study; [less than] 3% had a current sexually transmitted disease (STD). The median age of participants was 34 years, and the majority were white. Over 3,000 couple-months of data were available for the follow-up study. Overall, 68 (19%) of the 360 female partners of HIV-infected men (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.0-23.3%) and two (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected women (95% CI 0.3-8.5%) were infected. History of sexually transmitted diseases was most strongly associated with transmission. Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight-times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005-0.001). Over time, the authors observed increased condom use (p [less than] 0.001) and no new infections. Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low, and STDs may be the most important cofactor for transmission. Significant behavior change over time in serodiscordant couples was observed.
**shocked**
Do you mean to say that CommonNonSense was... **gasp** LYING?
I am shocked! Shocked! To find gambling in Rick's!
Whoops, wrong movie...
In short, CommonNonSense is a serial liar, an "Internet Tough Guy", roughly 12-15 years old, and lives in his mom's basement. Am I missing anything? Oh... and he's got severe diarrhea from all the fruit in his diet.
*sigh*
Why is it that people who think they are defending science believe it is OK to act like idiots?
ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz
Because it's fun and because you deserve no better.
Of course, you're not going to bother to address the latest demolitions of your claims. You know you can't. But you will continue to blurp your stupidity here, or elsewhere, as though your claims hold any merit whatsoever.
This is why most people find it more entertaining, and a better use of time, to mock you, and your mommy-worship of an ex-porn starlet-turned-AIDS-denialist.
Margulis is also a 911 truther. Mullis believes in astrology, the Urantia book and denies anthropogenic global warming and that CFCs cause ozone depletion.
So yes these people demonstrate that it it is completely possible to make an important scientific contribution in one field of science while being a complete idiot and raving lunatic when they speak about subjects outside of their own expertise.
Oh! I'm wounded! A serial liar, Internet Tough Guy, barely pubescent, living in mommy's basement, twit with chronic diarrhea thinks *we're* acting like idiots!
**sproing** Dammit! That's the fifth irony meter this week! You owe me fifty bucks, Nonsense!
Please cite and briefly explain the overwhelming evidence that proved HIV was a fatal disease that Justified AZT's release in 1987. Waiting.
cooler:
here is a review article from 1987. Note that in 1987, we already had the complete sequence and genomic organization of the virus. Note that it references the epedemiological studies, showing HIV preferentially in AIDS and pre-AIDS (ARC) patients.
Not especially, cooler, the pictures of budding HIV virus, in 1987. And note the reference ot known and published methods for isolating HIV from patients and culturing it, as a definitive diagnosis for HIV.
there are many more such review articles from around 1987, cooler.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=2590378&pageinde…
By 1985, AZT was shown to inhibit HIV replication in vitro, at concentrations of ~ 1-5uM. It was known from previous work that this concentration was achievable in vivo, in patients, with manageable (although nasty) side effects. It was also known tahat the compound had high oral bioavailability, and that it had reasonably good penetration into CNS tissues, so AZT was selected for clinical trials in patients with AIDS.
A Phase I clinical trial in 1985 showed that AZT therapy could at least partially reconstitute immune system function in late-state AIDS patients. IOW, it was shown in 1985 that a therapy chosen because it targeted HIV replication, gave the hoped-for immune system response.
A multi-center, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study was initiated, in 262 patients who had been diagnosed with AIDS and had PC, or who had been diagnosed with ARC. This study was terminated prematurely in September 1986, because of observed significant differences in survival rates - 19 placebo patients died, and 1 AZT patient. In addition the AZT patients had dramatically fewer opportunistic infections, and significantly improved T4 lymphocyte counts, as well as reduced serum titers of p24 antigen, reflecting reduced titers of virus.
So, a compound chosen because it inhibits HIV, when given to AIDs patients, dramatically reduced AIDS mortality, dramatically reduced AIDS-related opportunistic infections, improved T4 counts, and reduced HIV titers.
A planned placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial was scrapped, largely because of demands from dying AIDS patients for access to AZT.
A fast-track process was created, and 6 months later AZT was licensed for treatment of AIDS and advanced ARC patients. A condition of licensing was ongoing monitoring and studies - which continue to this day.
BTW, a good friend of mine was one of those men in 1986 - 1987 praying and hoping for access to AZT - he was on his deathbed, with PCP, KS, and thrush, a week or two at most from dying, and AZT saved his life. He was one of the lucky ones for whom AZT monotherapy remained effective long enough to bridge him to multi-drug therapies and HAART - but was again on his deathbed from PCP and KS once during that transition. AZT remains part of his HAART therapy to this day.
Lee et al,
Just cite and briefly describe the describe the experiments that proved HIV was a fatal infection that proved HIV was a fatal infection that Justified AZT's release in 1987, I would think there should be overwhelming evidence for people to take such a dangerous drug.
Spamming a Url is not evidence, it would get one laughed out of a courtroom and flunked out of any class.
All I can find is Gallo barely being able isolate a virus in 26/72 people and Levy being able to not fare much better at 22/45. If this was the basis to put people on AZT the rest of their lives, than this is a sick joke. So this whole hypothesis was based on a partial correlation with a microbe that was so difficult to isolate because it was barely there? Pretty sad Duesberg is totally correct, the whole thing was invented at a press conference.
Prove me wrong by citing and briefly describing the studies that justified AZT's release in 1987, remember no spamming websites.
From the Padian et al. article (the full text is available, see link):
Apparently the HIV-positive partners of the participants had been infected before the study, so CS wasn't lying about that particular bit. However, (s)he didn't exactly bend over backwards to avoid miscomprehensions about the rest. There weren't hundreds of couples engaging in unprotected sex for ten years and not getting infected, but:
Cooler:
"All I can find is Gallo barely being able isolate a virus in 26/72 people and Levy being able to not fare much better at 22/45."
Cooler, you have been corrected on this multiple times - stop lying.
Here are a few of the more significant relevant key papers from 1987 and earlier. They show a pattern of detection and ISOLATION (yes,cooler, isolation, from well before 1987) of HIV, and detection and localization in tissues, from people with AIDS, pre-AIDS and ARC, or at risk of AIDS, but not - read the controls in those papers, cooler - from people not at risk for AIDS. Together, these and the others - I could go on - form an overwhelming picture.
Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science.
Popovic et al 1984. Detection, Isolationa nd continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Science.
Gallo et al 1984. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathis retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science.
Feorino et al 1984. Lymphadenopathy associated virus infection of a blood donor recipient pair with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Science.
Levy et al 1984. Isolation of lymphocytopathic viruses from San Francisco patients with AIDS. Science.
Zagury et al 1984. HTLV-III in cells cultured from semen of two patients with AIDS. Science.
Sarngadharin et al 1984. Antibodies reactive with human T-lymphotropic retrovirus (HTLV-III) in the serum of patients with AIDS. Science.
Thiry et al 1985. Isolation of AIDS virus from cell-free breast milk of three healthy virus carriers. Lancet.
Palmer et al 1985. Morphology and immunoelectron microscopy of AIDS virus. Archives of Virology.
Gelderblom et al. 1985 Fine structure of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and immunolocalization of structural proteins. Virology.
Ratner et al 1985. Complete nucleotide sequence of the AIDS virus, HTLV-III. Nature.
Schupback et al 1985. Antibodies to HTLV-III in Swiss patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS and in groups at risk for AIDS. NEJM.
Petricciani, 1985. Licensed tests for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus Type III. Sensitivity and specificity. Ann Int Med.
Carlson et al 1985. AIDS serology testing in low and high risk groups. JAMA
Ho et al 1985. Isolation of HTLV-III from cerebrospinal fluid and neural tissue of patients with neurological symptoms related to the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. NEJM.
Duncan et al 1986. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, HTLV-III, and HTLV-III antibody in the wife of a man with transfusion-acquired AIDS. Am J Med.
Griffith 1987. Principles of laboratory isolation and identification of the human immunodeficiency firus (HIV). Yale Jrnl Biol Med.
Vogt et al 1986. Isolation of HTLV-III/LAV from cervical secretions of women at risk for AIDS. Lancet.
Ward et al 1987. Risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection from blood donors who later developed the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann Int Med.
CDC 1987. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in transfusion recipients and their family members. MMWR
Sorry partial correlations don't remotely prove causality. Finding a virus in less than half of "AIDS" patients does not prove anything, neither does stretching the latent from 10 months to 10 years (Duesberg inventing the AIDS Virus), when your pet microbe turns up in totally healthy people, not to mention the lack of an animal model.
This is not even mentioning what a difficult time Gallo had to isolate the virus, because it was barely there, he could only isolate it by using stimulants, and admitted it only infected a very small % of t cells. This virus fails every single one of Koch's postulates. This is all you have to justify people taking AZT the rest of their lives, a long term cell killing blood transfusing chemotherapy?
Since you just gave me a bunch of references with no specifics to their data, let me ask you a question, how many people with "AIDS" were Gallo and Levy able to isolate HIV from?
oh, cooler, yo magnificent idiot.
You claimed you couldn't find anything except Levy and Gallo. I posted a whole crapload of relevant papers - and you respond by ignoring everything except Levy and Gallo.
Oh, and - Levy looked at 86 AIDS patients, and found HIV antibodies in all 86. 100%.
He randomly selected 45 of them, and attempted to culture HIV from them. He succeeded in 22 of the 45, for an ~ 50% SUCCESSFUL CULTURE rate - despite, as you pointed out, the difficulty the early experimenters had in culturing HIV at all. IOW,Levy found antibody evidence of HIV in 100% of his aids patients, and confirmed that with virus culture and isolating in 22, or 1/4 of those cases.
He looked at high risk men - sexualy ative gay men - and found a very high percentage of them ahd HIV antibodies, indicating a very large pool of infected but not overtly symptomatic people, who were at risk for AIDS because of the infection.
This was in 1984. Levy's work in 1984 predicted a massive surge of AIDS cases, because of the high level of latent infection. Anyone remember what happened to gay men in SF in 1985 - 1990? I do - many of us refer to those years as "the plague years." Levy was right.
cooler, your refusal to admit so much of the evidence, does not mean it does not exist.
And Gallo et al 1984 - he SUCCESSFULLY ISOLATED VIRUS from:
18/21 pre-AIDS patients
3/4 clinically healthy mothers of children with AIDS
26/72 AIDS patients (with a high proportion of degraded serum samples to start from)
And in his controls:
1/22 clinically healthy homosexual men
0/115 clinically healthy heterosexual subjects
cooler, this paper isn't proof - no single paper is proof - but it is compelling evidence. Look at the numbers in the controls. And the combination of ALL the MASSIVE amount of other evidence, only some of which I cited above, was overwhelming evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS even in 1987. Only 3 years after identifying HIV. We have 22 additional years of data since - 8 times as many years, many orders f magnitude more papers - and the evidence is overwhelming.
First of you pathetic liar, even 100% correlations don't prove causality, or I should get the Nobel prize discovering wrinkles cause death in old people.
Second of all, Levy and Sarngadharin et al found a whole lot of antibody in healthy people, but you can stretch the latent period to 10 years to get around that!
What your basically saying if a microbe is barely present at all in less than half of people with a disease, and you can only find antibodies, antibodies that are also present to a lesser degree in healthy people this justifies a massive terror campaign of AZT consumption? They teach this in stats class you moron, half-assed correlations like this don't prove anything.
"Antibodies to ARV were found in all 86 AIDS patients and in a high percentage of 88 other homosexual men in San Francisco."
Classic! Levy et al found Antibodies in almost as many non-AIDS patients! We must extend the window period to 10 years to get around this!
Isolation of lymphocytopathic retroviruses from San Francisco patients with AIDS
JA Levy, AD Hoffman, SM Kramer, JA Landis, JM Shimabukuro, and LS Oshiro
Infectious retroviruses have been detected in 22 of 45 randomly selected patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and in other individuals from San Francisco. The AIDS-associated retroviruses (ARV) studied in detail had a type D morphology, Mg2+-dependent reverse transcriptase, and cytopathic effects on lymphocytes. The viruses can be propagated in an established adult human T cell line, HUT-78. They cross-react with antiserum to the lymphadenopathy-associated retrovirus isolated from AIDS patients in France. Antibodies to ARV were found in all 86 AIDS patients and in a high percentage of 88 other homosexual men in San Francisco. This observation indicates the widespread presence of these lymphocytopathic retroviruses and their close association with AIDS.
cooler's on autopilot - Levy! Gallo!
Yes in 1984, Levy found HIV in a high proportion fo otherwise healthy gay men n SF. I remember what happened to gay men in SF, between 1994 - 1990. A very, very high percentage of them died. From AIDS. As I said above - cooler, do you read more than GAllo! Levy!?
Cooler, do yo have any intention of addressing all the other evidence from pre-197? Or are you going to coninue on autopilit - Levy! Gallo!?
See, the problem with arguing with Cooler is that he has no interest whatsoever in actually discussing reality. He has an ideological bias against the whole idea that HIV=AIDS, and he has latched onto Levy! Gallo! as his escape route.
If he and other AIDS denialists had any contact with reality, we could discuss the many times when otherwise healthy people were deliberately/accidentally injected with HIV tainted fluids and subsequently developed AIDS. Of course, this would directly contradict their wishful fantasy and will thus be completely ignored.
"all from the metropolitan Zurich area of Switzerland. All the AIDS and pre-AIDS pateints were positive for antibodies; 36% of the drug addicts, 10% of healthy homosexual men and 8.4% of the hepatitis patients were also positive but none of the other patients or blood donors was. "
Wow! AIDS negative drug addicts, healthy homosexuals, Hepatitis patients testing positive! Lets just give them a nice long window period and some AZT to get them sick if they are not already!
Schupback et al 1985. Antibodies to HTLV-III in Swiss patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS and in groups at risk for AIDS. NEJM.
Abstract:
The authors used 3 assays, an ELISA based on disrupted HTLV-III and 2 strip radioimmunoassays based on the Western blot technique using either purified virus or extracts of cells producing the virus, to screen sera from patients with AIDS (10) or pre-AIDS (10), hepatitis (83), other disorders (10) as well as from healthy homosexual men (40), intravenous drug addicts (103), and healthy blood donors of both sexes and of unknown sexual preference (83), all from the metropolitan Zurich area of Switzerland. All the AIDS and pre-AIDS pateints were positive for antibodies; 36% of the drug addicts, 10% of healthy homosexual men and 8.4% of the hepatitis patients were also positive but none of the other patients or blood donors was. Antibodies to the p24 core protein were found consistently and at high titres in seropositive numbers of at-risk groups and pre-AIDS individuals but were dramatically reduced in AIDS patient but antibodies to the p41 envelope protein were present in all AIDS and pre-AIDS patients but absent in some 10% of seropositive people at risk. The value of the ELISA for screening but not other purposes because of false-positive results is stressed. [A large survey of nearly 7000 blood donors, in Germany, revealed that 0.16% were infected with HTLV-III (see Lancet, 1985, i, 275-276).]
D.W. FitzSimons
Oh jeez here goes your correlation, out of 22 antibody positives only 2 went on to get AIDS!
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;289:573-575 (8 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.289.6445.573
Seroepidemiology of HTLV-III antibody in Danish homosexual men: prevalence, transmission, and disease outcome.
M Melbye, R J Biggar, P Ebbesen, M G Sarngadharan, S H Weiss, R C Gallo, W A Blattner
Sera taken from 250 Danish homosexual men in December 1981 as part of a prospective study of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) were examined for the presence of HTLV-III antibody with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Antibody was present in 22 (8.8%) of the men. Seropositivity was most strongly associated with sexual exposure to men in the United States (relative risk 3.5; p less than 0.007). Increased frequency of anal receptive intercourse was also independently associated with seropositivity (p less than 0.05), but age, years of homosexual experience, number of homosexual partners, and use of nitrite inhalant were not independent risk factors. The frequency of seroconversion from absence to presence of HTLV-III antibody appeared to be about 1% a month in this community during December 1981 to February 1983. Of the 22 men who were originally seropositive, two (9%) subsequently developed AIDS as defined by the Centre for Disease Control and two (9%) others the AIDS related complex. Blood was taken in addition from two of the men to develop AIDS earliest in Denmark (diagnosed 1981) at the same time as the initial survey in 1981; both were seropositive. The spread of HTLV-III from high to low risk areas and the subsequent appearance of illnesses related to AIDS in the seropositive group support the hypothesis that HTLV-III is causally related to the development of AIDS.
...in the first 28 months of the study. The follow-up studies show a much different picture.
Progression to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Is Influenced by CD4 T-Lymphocyte Count and Time Since Seroconversion. Kamilla Begtrup, Mads Melbye, Robert J. Biggar, James J. Goedert, Kim Knudsen, and
Per Kragh Andersen. AJE 1997
This paper included the same cohort as the paper cooler cited, plus an American cohort of similar size and demographics, from 1981-1995, 11+ years longer. Excluding those members that died of non-AIDS-related causes, the original 21 HIV+ men in the Danish study were joined by 48 the seroconverted during the study. Of these 69 men, 37 were diagnosed with AIDS by 1995 (a related paper shows that an additional 4 AIDS cases were diagnosed by September 1996)
37/69 = 53% (and a higher percentage in the US cohort)
The study also showed (for both the cohorts) that there is a very low risk of being diagnosed with AIDS within the first 3 years of seroconversion, after which it dramatically increases. The risk then remains fairly constant for 3-9 years, and then begins to decline after 10 years. Exactly what we'd expect if HIV (a) caused AIDS, and (b) had a long latency period.
Cooler, in the 14 months of that study, 18% of seropositive individuals developed either AIDS or ARC. The study was done with sera taken in 1981, in the very early days of the epidemic in Denmark - most seropositive men in Denmark in 1981 would have been very newly infected, within the previous year.
By February 1983, within 2 years or less of the seropositive determination, almost 1 in 5 of those men were diagnosed with AIDS or ARC.
Cooler, that study is a snapshot of the very early days of a tragedy in progress. That you can somehow read this to indicate that HIV has noting to do with AIDS, just shows how unbelievably committed you are to your ideology in the face of any evidence.
Yes, I'm sure most of those people were put on monster doses of the Cell Damaging drug transfusion inducing chemo AZT, were drugged out and terrorized with a diagnosis of death, that will cause you some damage!
The sad part of all these studies is that is they don't even control for these types of confounders. So your basically saying a non-controlled correlation where the hypothetical cause and effect is extended from 10 months to 10 years to save your hypothesis proves causality? Someone should get the Nobel for discovering yellow fingers cause lung cancer then. Pretty sad the entire HIV hypothesis is pretty much based solely on correlation.
Since you guys are so obsessed with partial correlations, you'd be interested in the first 41 cases of AIDS/Kaposis as reported in the New York Times in 1981..........the article states most of the people were nitrate inhaling (a possible cause of Kaposis) drug addicts who had tons of sex! Since they are correlated it must be the cause right?
http://www.aegis.com/news/nyt/1981/NYT810701.html
They have injected over 100 Chimpanzees 20 years ago and they rarely if if ever die of AIDS, and this virus only infects a small % of T cells, in violation of Koch's first postulate that says the microbe must be found in abundance.
"All that has changed. As Warner C. Greene, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, explained in the September 1993 Scientific American, researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory because HIV does not infect enough cells: "Even in patients in the late stages of HIV infection with very low blood T4 cell counts, the proportion of those cells that are producing HIV is tiny-about one in 40. In the early stages of chronic infection, fewer than one in 10,000 T4 cells in blood are doing so. If the virus were killing the cells just by directly infecting them, it would almost certainly have to infect a much larger fraction at any one time."
What causes AIDS? An open Question. Mullis et al 1994 Reason Magazine.
Many experts admit it is difficult to explain the 10 year lag, even if direct cell killing occurred and every t cell was infected with HIV, wouldn't the patient be dead in weeks/months, not ten years?
My guess is that most of the people that died of AIDS died of AZT poisoning, mycoplasmas, severe drug abuse, the terror of a positive test and malnutrition in Africa.
Since all you guys can come up with is weak partial correlations that Justified AZT's release in 1987, one must look for other causes.
*amused again*
cooler-- Why does AZT (any NARTI, really) work against Hepatitis B, if they are worthless against HIV-1? Or do you also deny the existence Hepatitis B?
Well the evidence in favor of AZT was that 19 people died in the placebo group vs 1 in the AZT group in the original trials. Duesberg et al have looked closely at this data and have found it very misleading. According to Duesberg AZT caused such severe cell damage in the AZT arm that 30 people needed blood transfusions to stay alive, ie they would have died without them, while there were 5 transfusions in the placebo group (possibly due to patient initiated drug trading.)
So if you count transfusions as deaths, which you should because they would have died without them there were 31 deaths in the AZT arm vs 24 in the placebo group. This doesn't look so good for AZT anymore. Here is a debate in 1994 between Duesberg et al and medical experts that support the HIV theory, even the orthodoxy and the Editor of the Lancet Dr. Richard Horton express major concern about AZT's safety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zof7l4OH9oA&feature=PlayList&p=D93449600…
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? Wow, I guess he really *IS* that stupid!
Can we mock him now? Plz?
Whatever loser Lance, that AZT study was totally crooked and only lasted 4 months. Yes I do count a side effect that is so severe it requires a major medical intervention to prevent death as a death. Especially when the only evidence available at the time in support of the HIV theory were partial correlations. Not a good trade off is it when many of the HIV positives didn't even have any symptoms, and the medical establishment was just buying time extending the window period from 10 months to 10 years (Duesberg IAV) to save their weak hypothesis.
Whats next, is the the FDA going to approve a drug that causes a persons skin to melt, and they'd only be kept alive with surgery and skin grafts, and they would count that as a success story? Sorry I count those as deaths caused by the drug that were only prevented with a major medical intervention.
"Whats next, is the the FDA going to approve a drug that causes a persons skin to melt, and they'd only be kept alive with surgery and skin grafts, and they would count that as a success story?"
If it keeps you alive, erect or pain free?
Yes.
cooler keeps saying:
"the only evidence available at the time in support of the HIV theory were partial correlations"
This is simply not true. It isn't even true in the studies he is misrepresenting, one of which is a prospective study showing progression to AIDS at a very high rate, among people identified at risk for AIDS based on their HIV status - and also showed no progression to AIDS among people without HIV, even if their sexual preference and sexual activity status put them in the perceived high-risk group.
There were also all the blood donor/recipient studies, which cooler very, very carefully avoids mentioning.
Lee, nearly all the studies you have cited to justify AZT's release in 1987 are based on correlation. Sure looks like a half assed correlation to me.
IgG antibodies to HTLV-III associated antigens in patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS in The Netherlands.
Goudsmit J, Tersmette T, Kabel P, Miedema F, Melief C.
Thirty-nine homosexual males, 11 of whom suffered from AIDS and 13 from Lymphadenopathy Syndrome (LAS), 18 healthy hemophiliacs and 12 healthy blood donors, not belonging to any AIDS risk group, were tested for IgG antibodies to Human T-lymphotropic retrovirus type III (HTLV-III) by indirect immunofluorescence. All tested people were from the area of Amsterdam or from elsewhere in The Netherlands. Five of 11 AIDS patients, 8 of 13 LAS patients and 5 of 15 healthy homosexuals had antibodies to HTLV-III. Five of 18 healthy hemophiliacs were seropositive for HTLV-III. None of the 12 blood donors was seropositive for HTLV-III.
PMID: 6100824 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
In exactly the same way that bullets are merely correlated with death.
What happened to 'CommonSense' he was more fun?
Bozohead Chris,
Bullets reproduce the same effects in experimental animals, HIV doesn't, bullets the cause and effect is instant, there is rarely ever a 10 year lag between getting shot and being injured, there is no mystery to how bullets tear flesh, and you can find bullets in abundance, unlike HIV that can only be found with the PCR.
Oh gang, Garth Nicolson has found mycoplasma in 28/28 of gulf war vets with ALS and in none of the healthy controls. This is a 100% correlation! It must be the cause of GWI vets that have ALS right?
In short, the bullets cause injury/death is based on a lot more than correlation. Now if somebody got shot with a water gun and came down with Kaposis 10 years later, that is a more accurate description of HIV's dubious causal role.
Sorry it was 30/36 for Nicolson and 2% for MF in controls. Hey this about the same as Gallo. It must be the cause!
http://www.immed.org/autoimmune/publications/JOCN_ALS_2002.pdf
"Polymerase chain reaction assays demonstrated the presence of C pneumoniae MOMP gene in the CSF of 97% of MS patients versus 18% of OND controls"
ond= other Nuerological diseases........
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/82001998/abstract?CRETRY=1&S…
Hey guys I found the cause of MS too! It's chlamydia! There is a correlation! Its even better than HIV! Lets put all people who test positive with these microbes on AZT even if they are totally healthy! We can extend the latent period to get around that! And we'll call anybody that objects a denier!
Ooh! Someone has come a bit unhinged! Sounds like he's getting a bit desperate since nobody buys his lies.
What's the matter, cooler? Your test come back positive? What's with the desperation? Why do you ignore the transfusion angle? Why do you simply repeat the same debunked lies?
So, cooler has stopped even pretending to offer a substantive argument about HIV-AIDS.
Congratulations LanceR and Lee for systematically handing cooler his butt on a platter but the crown must go to Chris Noble for getting called "Bozohead".
The debate was over when cooler had to start counting people who were alive as dead to impeach a correlation he was claiming as false in the first place.
When you introduce 'Factor Zombie', you are done.
I'm hoping this becomes as stringent in hard science as Godwin's has in social science based internet smackdowns.
I learned a lot about seroconversion and AIDS diagnostics.
Thanks Guys.
P.S. I am crestfallen that the human roller coaster that is CommonSense has returned from whence he came(Potty? 25lbs/day of produce will do that to you.).
According to Duesberg and Culshaw and even the CDC latest statistics there has been around 1 million HIV positives each for the past 20 years, and an average of about 50 thousand AIDS cases each year, ranging from 10k to 80k, and not correlating at all with the the numbers of HIV positives. This means that less than 1 out of every 10 people with HIV has AIDS!
The hypothesis is entirely dependent on a correlation that doesn't exist! Wait what about the correlation between lung cancer and yellow fingers? What about wrinkles and people dying of old age! There is a correlation, it must be the cause! We were able to isolate with great difficulty HIV from 22/45 AIDS patients it must be the cause! Goudsmit J et al found antibodies in 5/11 AIDS patients it must be the cause! Levy found antibodies in many AIDS free people, lets invent a 10 year window period!
"So, cooler has stopped even pretending to offer a substantive argument about HIV-AIDS."
No, I just pointed out that other scientists have found high correlations between microbes and disease and unlike Gallo the fraud, they acknowledge that the correlation could be the effect, not the cause. Most scientists realize vauge correlations don't prove causation.
But it's no wonder Gallo the fraud would lie about his paper, no wonder their was a congressional investigation of this clown, and all sorts of craziness turned up. I guess that is why he held a international press conference with a republican Lawyer, Margret Heckler, who headed the DHHS before his paper was published saying he had found the "probable cause" of AIDS in 1984.
He knew that if he could convince a powerful crooked public health official, that's all he needed. So before a single paper was published the HIV hypothesis was pushed by the federal government, and accepted mindlessly by many in the medical establishment. Many scientists were intimidated or brainwashed into believing the HIV theory because of the federal governments massive propaganda campaign. Some became so delusional that they suddenly believed vague correlations prove causality, when it is well known even 100% correlations don't prove causality. It is easy to see how such a blunder could take place, since science is not democratic, it is run by Crooked public health officials and drug companies.
What is it with these denialsits? Don't they have jobs, families or (other) hobbies? First CommonSense leaves textbook-length posts that are then chopped up and debunked line by line by the "erv reception committee", then cooler starts the same process again after CommonSense gives over. I barely have time to read all of this stuff in between having a functioning life!
My guess from the Bordeaux reference is that NoSense may be related to Martin Barnes, "Public Relations Chairperson" of "rethinking AIDS"
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Content/QA/tabid/161/Default.aspx
Barnes has just authored a brochure on HIV testing that includes false statements like:
âResearch has proven that âviral loadâ tests are useless in predicting who will get AIDS."
It's illustrated by celebrity AIDS denier, R. Crumb.
That's a very significant numerical difference. If true, that would be interesting, to say the least. But I notice cooler didn't actually provide a source. Is this worldwide? Just the US?
So what are the latest CDC estimates?
So about 56,000 new HIV cases in the US per year and 37,000 new AIDS cases per year, about 2/3rds, not the less than one in ten that cooler was claiming (also note that there is, as cooler pointed out, a large variance on these numbers
So where did that 1 million number come from? How about this:
In other words, cooler probably confused the number of current HIV cases with the number of new HIV cases. I'd hate to think he deliberately used false information.
I got my numbers of Aids cases per year from Averts Website.
And on the 1 million total HIV positives in America, Duesberg has documented this for years. He's got the references from government sources. Ever since HIV has been in the population there have been about 1 million HIV positives estimated.
"American AIDS is new, because HIV is new in America. However, in America HIV is a long-established retrovirus #(Duesberg, 1992, see Chapter 6)#. Ever since the virus could be detected in 1984, an unchanging 1 million Americans are HIV-positive (Fig 1A) #(Curran et al., 1985; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1994, Farber, 1995b)#. By contrast, a new microbe/virus spreads exponentially in a susceptible population (see V). Thus the non-spread of HIV establishes it as an old virus in America #(Duesberg, 1992)#."
How much longer can we afford the AIDS virus monopoly?
Duesberg Genetica 1995
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch13.html
"If HIV is the cause of AIDS, and the number of infected individuals is constant, then, other things being unchanged, the number of cases must remain constant. Although there are reasons why a virus might stop causing a disease (such as immunity, or drugs that confer resistance -- although neither apply in this case), there is no defensible reason in the clear light of these data for thinking that HIV ever began to cause one in the first instance"
Culshaw 2006
You mean this site, which I just had up and has similar numbers to the CDC page I quoted? You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. "Living with" is not the same as "per year"
As far as Duesberg's claim of 1 million living with HIV in 1984, his scholarship seems to be a bit lacking:
Estimating hiv prevalence and projecting aids incidence in the united states: A model that accounts for therapy and changes in the surveillance definition of aids
P. S. Rosenberg, M. H. Gail, R. J. Carroll
10.1002/sim.4780111302
Abstract
The AIDS incubation distribution is changing in calendar time because of treatment and changes in the surveillance definition of AIDS. To obtain reliable estimates of HIV prevalence and projections of AIDS incidence in the 1990s using the method of backcalculation, we constructed an appropriate incubation distribution for each calendar date of infection.
We parameterized the impact of treatment on the incubation distribution by specifying the relative hazard for AIDS in treated versus untreated people as a function of duration of HIV infection. To account for trends in the incubation distribution, we modelled the prevalence of treatment, the distribution of treatment onset times, and the impact of the revision of the AIDS surveillance definition in 1987. We selected and evaluated backcalculation models based on consistency with external information. We defined a plausible range of estimates that took into account uncertainty about the natural incubation distribution and treatment efficacy, as well as bootsrap assessment of stochastic error.
Using these methods, we projected that national United States AIDS incidence will plateau during 1991-1994 at over 50,000 caes per year. Projections exhibited substantial systematic uncertainty, and we calculated a plausible range for AIDS incidence in 1994 of 42,300 to 70,700 cases. An estimated 628,000 to 988,000 cumulative HIV infections occurred as of 1 January 1991. After accounting for AIDS mortality, we estimated that 484,000 to 844,000 people were living the HIV infection on 1 January 1991. Favourable trends in HIV incidence appeared in gay men and intravenous drug users. Plausible ranges for our estimates overlapped with those from a stage model approach to incorporating treatment effects in backcalculations. Our approach, however, tended to yield smaller estimates of epidemic size, mainly because the parameters used with the stage model implied that more treatment was in use and that treatment was more effective than in our model.
BTW, that paper is from 1992. The source I linked to is not clear on that point.
We've already gone over this - repeatedly.
From 2007 Denialism: "they don't remember"
The only reference that Duesberg gives for 1985 is Curran et al, Science 229:2720(1985), 1352-1357. The basis of the estimate comes from the San Francisco CDC cohort study with a total of 6875 subjects. In this cohort the seropositivity was found to have increased from 4% in 1978 to 68% in 1984. This is hardly indicative of stable prevalence. . . . Everybody except HIV Denialists now accept that the estimates from the mid 1980s were overestimates. They were not obtained by testing 100% of the US population. This is shown in the references that you giveâ¨J. M. Karon, P. S. Rosenberg, G. McQuillan, M. Khare, M. Gwinn and L. R. Petersen Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA, JAMA Vol. 276 No. 2, July 10, 1996.
Official estimates of HIV incidence over the past 30 years can be found in this paper Estimation of HIV Incidence in the United States
They would both be much happier if CommonSense and Cooler had a nice romantic banana and lettuce dinner before disproving teh germ thoery of dis-ease by spitting in each others mouth.
Chris, If you didn't have a 300 pound fat ugly wife I might have taken offense to that. (Just collapsed in complete laughter)
Hey guys! Guess I proved you'll wrong again!
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/Documento1.pdf
Estimates from each year from 1985 on referenced from mainstream sources like the IOM. No explosion as Farr's law states, just an average of around 1 million per year, infact the numbers slightly decrease over time.
What is with this disbelief that there can be a long latent period for a disease? Deusburg even says in the absurd monograph that cooler links, that there are no known diseases with long latent periods.
Which is simply bullshit.
Latent syphilis can last a decade, up to 50 years or more. Shingles is herpes zoster infection, with onset decades after the infection with chickenpox, and can occur even with subclinical chickenpox infections with no history of having had chickenpox. Genital herpes often has decade or more latencies with no symptoms at all, ever, until it suddenly has a major outbreak. Just off the top of my head, without having to do any research at all.
Also, the idea that HIV has no effect for its latent period is just as much bullshit. ~ 50% of those infected suffer acute HIV infection - flulike symptoms 2-4 weeks after infection, typically lasting a week to a month or so - this is associated with very, very high blood levels of HIV.
By the end of the acute phase, there are permanent and predictable losses in the immune system, with up to 60% of the CD4 cells killed, and permanent alterations in subpopulations of CD4 cells. I'm sure our hostess here could say a lot more about this.
This is also the most infectious period, since there are very high titers of circulating HIV.
During and after the acute phase, an often-persistent lymphadenopathy occurs. Remember that Montagnier named the virus LAV: lymphadenopathy-associated virus.
Persistent and progressive changes in lymph nodes, thymus, T cell counts and functions, gut lining function, all continue throughout the course of the infection, even before there is acute clinical disease with opportunistic infections subsequent to collapse of the immune system.
cooler keeps citing "Farr's Law" - and that Farrs' Law required AIDS cases to have skyrocketed, and that therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
This is looney tunes, of course.
It also ignores the published record - of course. This is cooler, after all.
Here is a publication from 1990, using Farr's Law to predict that the epidemic would crest in 1988, and then fall thereafter.
They were wrong too - but it is clear that "Farr's Law", to the extent that it says anything useful at all, does not say what cooler wants it to say.
JAMA. 1990 Mar 16;263(11):1522-5.
Farr's law applied to AIDS projections.
Bregman DJ, Langmuir AD.
Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90033.
Farr's Law of Epidemics, first promulgated in 1840 and resurrected by Brownlee in the early 1900s, states that epidemics tend to rise and fall in a roughly symmetrical pattern that can be approximated by a normal bell-shaped curve. We applied this simple law to the reported annual incidence of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in the United States from 1982 through 1987. The 6 years of incidence data closely fit a normal distribution that crests in late 1988 and then declines to a low point by the mid-1990s. The projected size of the epidemic falls in the range of 200 000 cases. A continuing incidence of endemic cases can be expected to emerge, but we believe it will occur at a low level.
Loser Lee,
You are such a dope, that paper you cite talks about the increase in AIDS cases. Nobody denies that increased up to 80,000 in the early 90's and then decreased. When Duesberg cites Farr's law he saying that HIV has stayed at around 1 million for over 20 years. See the sources I posted above.
Also your pathetic attempt to compare herpes to HIV, Herpes is basically an infection that only reemerges when people have weakened immunity due to stress etc. As far as Tertiary syphilis, this condition was probably due to the toxic mercury fumes people were forced to inhale among other toxic "cures" that caused brain damage. Koch's postulates have never been met for tertiary syphilis.
What Duesberg is saying is that HIV is one of the very few microbes to cause disease 10 years after being neutralized by antibodies, to the point HIV can only be found in in 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 40 t cells. Most viruses like mumps, chicken pox, the flu, and measles cause disease prior to antibody production, act rapidly and are neutralized by immunity. That's why when the CDC quarantines people they suspect have viruses, they are quarantined for a few weeks, not ten years. Viruses reproduce exponentially.
As far as ARS, anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a creation of the virus hunting establishment. Did Magic or Tommy Morrison ever complain of a single symptom before they were given a death sentence at a routing physical? No.
Keep in mind the CDC says there are 250k people HIV positive who don't know it, which means they don't have any symptoms, like ARS, and these people who supposedly get a flu like syndrome that can last a month don't seek medical attention. Hell, you'd think the ER rooms would be full of people like this who come in with full blown AIDS. Seems like they only get deathly sick when they are terrorized with fear from a positive test and put on AZT.
which highlights the uncertainties in the estimates of HIV prevalence from 1985.
Funny you should say that. Around 25% of people diagnosed with AIDS only find out that they are infected with HIV when they turn up in ER with full blown AIDS.
Who Still Dies of AIDS, and Why
"A large proportion of these victims are indigent; many are intravenous-drug usersâIVDUs, as theyâre known in the official jargon, accounted for 21 percent of HIV-positive New Yorkers in 2006, but, as noted above, 38.5 percent of the cityâs AIDS deaths"
Thanks for proving Duesberg correct. The people get sick because of the extraordinary drug use, malnutrition, homelessness and being co-infected with every microbe you could think of.
Funny how none of these 250,000 people seem to come from upper class non-risk groups.
I think its funnier how Deniers refuse to discuss basic science related to their claims.
Last time Im asking this: Why does AZT work for HepB, cooler?
@ 235, I find it interesting that cooler is using correlation - without controls, without good evidence for a causal mechanism - to "prove" causation. Exactly what he claims (incorrectly) is all there is for linking HIV to AIDS, and dismisses as insufficient.
Cooler, IV drug abusers have a lot of medical problems they get hepatitis, local and systemic infection, TB - lots of problems. But unless they are infected with HIV, they don't get AIDS.
The correlation you are using to claim that drug use causes AIDS isn't even correct.
ERV,
I have not read the studies on AZT being used on Hep B patients. I just read the CDC site and the wikipedia site and Hep b usually recovers by itself, in rare severe cases other antivirals are used, and a vaccine is considered the best protection.
I do not think AZT is FDA approved or even used off label for this infection. Of course you can correct me if I'm wrong since I just looked into this claim. I've never heard of AZT being used for Hepatitis b, if there are preliminary studies that show some benefit, so be it, I don't think the risk benefit ratio would be too good since AZT causes Severe side effects. And I think the slight chance A drug like AZT is beneficial it would be for very short term use, to kill the virus, limit the damage to healthy cells and avoid long term side effects. Like any chemotherapy long term use could kill someone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B
"Acute hepatitis B infection does not usually require treatment because most adults clear the infection spontaneously.[39] Early antiviral treatment may only be required in fewer than 1% of patients, whose infection takes a very aggressive course ("fulminant hepatitis") or who are immunocompromised. On the other hand, treatment of chronic infection may be necessary to reduce the risk of cirrhosis and liver cancer. Chronically infected individuals with persistently elevated serum alanine aminotransferase, a marker of liver damage, and HBV DNA levels are candidates for therapy.[40]
"Although none of the available drugs can clear the infection, they can stop the virus from replicating, and minimize liver damage such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Currently, there are seven medications licensed for treatment of hepatitis B infection in the United States. These include antiviral drugs lamivudine (Epivir), adefovir (Hepsera), tenofovir (Viread), telbivudine (Tyzeka) and entecavir (Baraclude) and the two immune system modulators interferon alpha-2a and pegylated interferon alfa-2a (Pegasys). T"
Shorter cooler:
What a joke, AZT is not used for hepatitis b, even the wacked out medical establishment wouldn't give this blood transfusing cell killing agent for this.
You're the one that doesn't know diddly sqwat. If you did know anything about virology you wouldn't have such a difficult time answering this question. What were the papers that you read that convinced you HIV was a fatal infection that justified AZT's approval in 1987? Describe them briefly.
Search my blag, numbnuts.
"Acute hepatitis B infection does not usually require treatment because most adults clear the infection spontaneously."
Wait. What? Does Wikipedia really say that?
Acute hepatitis B=Walk it off dude.
I don't know shit about virology either (but I am at least curious).
Is that statement remotely true?
This is a great excuse. I'd be making excuses as well if the only evidence was that Gallo and Levy had such an enormously difficult time isolating the virus (bc it was barely there) they could only do it in 26/72 and 22/45 cases respectively. When they couldn't find virus they had to resort to finding antibodies, antibodies and barely detectable virus usually implied a virus that was defeated by immunity.
When these same antibodies turned up in healthy people they just merrily extended the latent period from 10 months to 10 years.
Anyways you guys have been duped. The only germ theory denialists are you people. Mycoplasma incognitus is the only microbe to worry about.
M incognitus was found in abundance by EM in the damaged tissues of 22/34 AIDS patients. It was not found in any healthy controls. M. incognitus was isolated and grown in culture and shown to a unique microorganism. (1/3 the size of M fermantans.) 4 monkeys were injected with low doses of M incognitus, all had a fatal wasting disease and died in 7-9 months, the control monkey was fine. Mice injected also died, if you Read Lo's patent, the mice developed AIDS like OI's when near death. M incognitus was found and ruled to be the cause of 6 previoulsy healthy non aids patients with normal immune systems. It was found in abundance in the damaged tissues by EM in these autopsied patients. (Koch's postulates fulfilled right there, the pathology report is easily available) Case studies from the Army show people near death with this microbe make who have normal immune systems make recoveries with Doxycycline. Now compare this To Gallo's garbage, not only was there a correlation, it was found in abundance and low doses caused fatal diseases in injected animals. All this work was done by the Armed forces institute of pathology. References.
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html
It is no wonder those poor Gulf war vets were so sick! They had this in their blood! So when Chris babbles about people going to the ER this is what is probably making many of them sick, along with other toxins. When Dr. Garth (Winner of the NCI's outstanding investigator grant) and Nancy Nicolson, two scientists at the University OF Texas found it in the blood of sick vets armed agents from the DOD warned them to stop their research, and their boss was shot in the head six times 15 minutes after he was told it was part of the bioweapons program! They've written a barely fictionilized version of the hell they went through entitled "Project Day Lily." Rave reviews from several scientists including a Nobel laurete in medicine.
What a huge blunder this is, HIV might be benign and Mycoplasma is the only microbe to worry about. This is exactly what Montagnier said as the 1990 AIDS conference. These types of blunders are what happens when science is not democratic.
6 previously healthy people non aids patients with normal immune systems that died in 1-7 weeks I meant to say.
Lo SC; Shih JW; Newton PB 3d; Wong DM; Hayes MM; Benish JR; Wear DJ; Wang RY. Virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) is a novel pathogenic mycoplasma: Mycoplasma incognitus. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, November 1989, volume 41, number 5, pages 586-600.
Lo SC; Dawson MS; Newton PB 3rd; Sonoda MA; Shih JW; Engler WF; Wang RY; Wear DJ. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, September 1989, volume 41, number 3, pages 364-376.
Prometheus-- Acute HepB is 'walk it off, dude'.
Unfortunately some people dont 'walk it off'. Chronic HepB leads to cirrhosis and liver cancer, and chronic Hep B is endemic in Asia-- causes +80% of their liver cancer (or alternatively, HepB was created in the lab by evil scientists to get rid of Asian people. Asian HIV, if you will. lol!).
So to control chronic HepB, you give people NRTIs. Though HepB is a DNA virus, it has a reverse transcription step in its life cycle which can be blocked by the same drugs used to block HIV-1 reverse transcription.
So I was wondering why cooler was so against AZT, its so toxic you know, when its given as a HepB therapy to preserve the liver of chronically infected individuals. Seems like thats the opposite of what you would do, if NRTIs are so damaging and worthless.
Buuuuuuuut he couldnt answer that, so we get more copy/pasted stupidity. Hurray!
What is your point? AZT is never used for hep b. Other Antivirals are used in rare instances.
Thanks for the explanation.
A more pressing question is....How the hell do you attract these guys?
I mean Meyers gets the run of the mill "Nuuuuhhh Uhhh its Jezbus!" trolls or Turkish spam bots but you get the bonafides
"I'm Ponce De Leon for the win on my weekly 175 lbs of fruit and spit diet."
Now a Project Day Lily/Nazi Scientist/Paperclip/CIA Conspiracy super whackaloon whose rabbit hole goes all the way to the center of the earth.
It's like a Midas touch for tinfoil hats.
What gives? Is it the lolspeak?
Edit:I'm not complaining. It's a blast. I like poking freaks with a stick as much as the next internet tough guy.
Other antivirals are used, like Viread. But Viread wasn't even tested against a placebo!
http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20080812/fda-oks-hiv-drug-viread-fo…
It was tested against another drug Hepasera, Wouldn't be surprised if that drug was tested against another drug. Another drug based on treating many people long term that have no symptoms or liver disease/damage at all, many just test positive for some surrogate markers or for an antigen that has been neutralized by antibodies. This would explain why most people chronically infected have no liver disease for decades.. These markers make big bucks for drug companies. Just like Halliburton needs war, these drug companies need disease.
Yes promoloser, citing peer reviewed evidence from the worlds top Army Pathologists, Nobel prize winners, Members of The NAS etc vs. a lowlife loser like yourself is real entertaining.
Anyways I'm going to Hawaii in 3 days with my friends, just killing time at work with you clowns now.
So cooler, are you claiming mycoplasma is the cause of AID? Or maybe its just correlated with AIDS?
Hard to tell, given that your cite mentions only a partial correlation between people who died of AIDS and mycoplasma - and you've already told us how you feel about partial correlations - and also mentions people that people who died of mycoplasma infection did NOT die of AIDS.
"promoloser" hmmmm it just doesn't have the ooomph of Bozohead. C- lacks effort.
Wheeeeeeee I'm an attention whore toooo.
but
I think you have a disconnect. You are discussing the hepatitis treatments for an HIV independent Hep B infection as opposed to AZT treatment for HIV positive/Hep B which results in hepatitis remission and resolution of hepatic inflammation.
At least according to the conspiratorial escaped SS officer douche bags over at the CVI journal of the American Society for Microbiology.
My condolences to Hawaii.
The cite I used much more than just correlation. Mycoplasma was found in abundance in the damaged lesions of about 2/3 of AIDS patients, low doses injected into monkeys caused a fatal wasting disease, mice injected died and experienced OI's (lo's patent) and there is a pathology report of 6 young previously healthy people non AIDS that died in 1-7 weeks of an undiagnosed infection, autopsy found m incognitus in the damaged tissues and army pathologists ruled it to be the cause and death and said this microbe was lethal in it's own right.
This is a lot more than just correlation that Gallo et al had. I don't think it causes All AIDS cases since it wasn't found in all AIDS patients, since many feel AIDS is multifactorial, this could be one of the several causes along with severe drug abuse and AZT chemotherapy.
Watch AIDS & MYCOPLASMA: The crime beyond belief and you'll understand everything.
Notice how Chris can offer no response Lo et al's pathology report on how they found it in abundance in the damaged tissues of AIDS and Non AIDS patients and primates dying of an acute fatal disease. Chris is too enamored with Gallo's adding stimulants, pooling patients blood together and barely finding RT activity in 26/72 AIDS patients. This, in his feeble mind is compelling evidence because he can't really think for himself.
Anyways. It would not be surprising if Saddam used biological weapons during the first gulf war.
"I received the very first draft and read it with increasing amazement as I was going along. I knew Garth Nicolson from his days at the Salk Institute and knew he was (is) of sound mind. The implications, medical and political, of what is revealed in "Project Day Lily" are major. If you are interested in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, or the problems of our Veterans with Gulf War Syndrome, you will want to read this book, think, and wonder.
Roger Guillemin, M.D., Ph.D.,
Distinguished Professor,
Nobel Laureate in Medicine
The Salk Institute"
http://www.projectdaylily.com/
Wow. I am just stunned. They found an environmental pathogen in the bodies of people with suppressed immune systems? Amazing.
Sometimes, the stoopid really does burn.
Dumbass, Army pathologists stated because they induced a fatal wasting disease in monkeys and mice with low doses and ruled it to be the cause of death in 6 previously healthy adults it was lethal and pathogenic in its own right, not just an OI.
Now who knows more about virology, The Military's brightest scientists and virologists, or a pathetic crackpot like yourself?
So HIV-1 isnt real. HIV-1 was created in the lab to kill black people and teh gays. But it wasnt, because the mycoplasma was created in the lab to kill black people and teh homogays via mycoplAIDSma. But AIDS isnt real, and Ill punch you if you say thats what killed Christine Maggiore. Except when it is real. Also, chronic fatigue syndrome was created in the lab to kill Iraqis, war veterans, and middle-upper-class American white women.
Seriously, I want a Denier version of the acronym 'TARD'. Cause thats some good TARD, right there.
The only tard is you. You haven't read any of Duesberg's papers, Lo et al's from the Armed forces Institute of pathology, can't even cite and explain the papers that justified AZT's release in 1987! The best you guys can do is spam aidstruth something that would get you laughed out of a courtroom or a classroom!
You guys haven't even read the orthodoxies papers either, it's like when Tara Smith admitted on her blog she'd never read the Padian or David Ho's study until "Denialists" brought it to her attention! All of you guys are totally scientifically illiterate, Its pretty funny actually.
Anyways, Duesberg has been dying to debate somebody on HIV, No wonder Ya'll are scared to death to do it. Its no wonder you're scared, he was elected to the National Academy of sciences, got Tenure at Berkeley at 36 and got California scientist of the year, while you guys live in your mommy's basement. And Duesberg and the hundereds that agree with him had evidence, unlike those clowns that read the Durban Declaration.
Psst... cooler.... some of the people you are calling dumbasses and such are university research scientists - in virology -. A few wiki searches and choice denialist links are not quite up to par with their working knowledge in the field.
Go back to conspiracy theory land.
6 people died rapidly (1-6 weeks) not of AIDS but of an undiagnosed infection later attributed to mycoplasma. When you inject mycoplasma into lab animals they die of a wasting disease that is not AIDS. Therefore, mycoplasma causes AIDS.
That's one hell of a correlation you got yourself there, cooler.
*corrections
cite and explain the papers that proved HIV's causal role that justified AZT's release in 1987
unlike those clowns that signed the Durban Declaration.
Anyways, it's been a blast debating you guys and making you look like total fools!
Jim, you dumb little girl. I'm glad your here. Just do what these guys couldn't. Cite and explain the papers that proved HIV was a fatal disease that justified AZT's release in 1987.
Well Lee, it beats those over 100 chimpanzees that were injected that were just fine after 20 years, at least lo et al found it in abundance with the EM in the damaged tissues, pretty sad you can only find hiv with the most sensitive technique the PCR.
BTW, for onlokers.
Dr. Lo did find and publish, in 1986, that he had found a 'novel virus' in AIDS patients. Later, in 1989, he identified hsi "virus like infectius agent' as a new mycoplama, which he called Mycoplasma incognitus. Later, by the early 1990s, it was shown that incognitus is simply a strain of the already-well-known Mycoplasma fermentans, which is a common (and widely cursed) contaminant of mammalian cell lines in cell culture laboratories.
Mycoplasma fermentans does occasionally kill otherwise healthy people in fulminant infectious episodes. There have been attempts to link it to various ailments, including Gulf War Syndrome - but it appeas that is most likely a common environmental pathogen that can infect to detectable or pathogenic levels when there is immune compromise.
There is a link to AIDS - as an opportunistic infection, it is known to cause kidney damage.
There is also evidence that mycoplasma potentiates the CD4-cell cytotoxicity of HIV, and also interferes with HIV reverse transcriptase activity - so it does interact with HIV in some interesting way.
Note that the increased CD4 cytotoxicity operates by potentiating HIV - and that the HIV is still the thing that kills the CD4 cells.
And cooler, your revered Dr. Lo published this. In his 1991 paper, he demonstrated the potentiating effect of Mycoplasma on HIV-caused CD4-cell death.
Lo SC, Tsai S, Benish JR, Shih JW, Wear DJ, Wong DM. Enhancement of HIV-1 cytocidal effects in CD4+ lymphocytes by the AIDS-associated mycoplasma. Science. 1991 Mar 1;251(4997):1074â1076
Funny, cooler hasn't been citing this paper by Lo.
cooler, did you forget this?
192
Lee, is of course either lying or totally incompetent.
First of all the papers that Lee cites that proved HIV causal role that justified AZT's release in 1987 are totally laughable in proving anything. If lee took a stats class he's realize this. The virus was barely found in a less the half of AIDS patients, never found in abundance, so they had to resort to looking for antibodies......etc etc.
Secondly on mycoplasma, m incognitus is not the same as Mycoplasma fermentans, Lo et al pointed out several major differences when they isolated it in culture. I'll post the abstract. Also your suggestion that It was a contaminant is laughable, it is impossible for a contaminant to be directly identified in the damaged lesions of patients with the EM in the pathology reports.
Antibody testing is not reliable for this microbe bc the monkeys and people infected had a weak antibody response only when near death, it has been found by PCR in sick vets. Anyways I'm gonna check this blog once more before I leave on Friday morning and you assorted nutcases can come up with more of your dumb one liners cause you don't have much evidence, than I'm done with this blog.
Virus-like Infectious Agent (VLIA) is a Novel Pathogenic Mycoplasma: Mycoplasma Incognitus
Shyh-Ching Lo, James Wai-Kuo Shih, Perry B. Newton, III, Dennis M. Wong, Michael M. Hayes, Janet R. Benish, Douglas J. Wear AND Richard Yuan-Hu Wang
American Registry of Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC; and Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
The newly recognized pathogenic virus-like infectious agent (VLIA), originally reported in patients with AIDS but also known to be pathogenic in previously healthy non-AIDS patients and in non-human primates, was cultured in cell-free conditions using a modified SP-4 medium and classified as a member of the order Mycoplasmatales, class Mollicutes. The infectious microorganism is tentatively referred to as Mycoplasma incognitus. M. incognitus has the unique biochemical properties of utilizing glucose both aerobically and anaerobically, as well as having the ability to metabolize arginine. Among all known human mycoplasmas, these specific biochemical characteristics were found previously only in a rarely isolated species, M. fermentans. In comparison with M. fermentans, M. incognitus appears to be even more fastidious in cultivation requirements and fails to grow in all tested mycoplasma media other than modified SP-4 medium. In addition, M. incognitus grows much more slowly, has a smaller spherical particle size and occasional filamentous morphology, and forms only irregular and very small colonies with diffuse edges on agar plates. Antigenic analysis using polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and DNA analysis of sequence homology and restriction enzyme mappings in M. incognitus, M. orale, M. hyorhinis, M. hominis, M. pneumoniae, M. fermentans, M. arginini, M. genitalium, M. salivarium, Ureaplasma urealyticum, and Acholeplasma laidlawii revealed that M. incognitus is distinct from other mycoplasmas, but is most closely related to M. fermentans.
Cytopathogenicity of Mycoplasma fermentans (including strain incognitus).
Stadtländer CT, Watson HL, Simecka JW, Cassell GH.
Department of Microbiology, University of Alabama, School of Medicine, Birmingham 35294.
Mycoplasma fermentans strain incognitus, an organism recently identified in tissues of patients with AIDS and in tissues of otherwise healthy adults with an acute fatal respiratory disease, was evaluated for cytopathogenicity for tracheal tissue in vivo and in vitro. In this study, the organism produced a chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract in LEW rats following intranasal inoculation and induced both ciliostasis and cytopathology in experimentally infected tracheal explants from rats. The time of onset of ciliostasis, type of cytopathogenicity, and localization of organism in strain incognitus were different from those in other strains of M. fermentans as well as other species of mycoplasmas isolated from humans. The results strongly support, but do not prove, that M. fermentans strain incognitus is an unusually invasive mycoplasma, as it was the only strain found within respiratory epithelial cells both in vivo and in vitro. Detection of the organism within the lamina propria also supported the organism's invasive potential. Further study of both the in vivo and in vitro models should provide insights into this potentially unique mycoplasma-host relationship.
ERV didn't you watch the video I linked to?
It isn't just any old mycoplasma. It's weaponized mycoplasma. It has HIV-1 Env sequences in it. That's why it causes AIDS. How do you think the HIV-1 sequences got into mycoplasma? Huh? That's why mycoplasma causes AIDS and HIV doesn't, because mycoplasma has HIV-1 sequences in it. And besides HIV has never been isolated so these are all endogenous sequences. Understand?
If you still don't get it then watch this video from the same scientific conference and learn about the connection between Chemtrails and Morgellans
cooler:
"pretty sad you can only find hiv with the most sensitive technique the PCR"
cooler continues to be full of shit.
IV is commonly visualized in infected tissues by RNA in situ hybridization, and has been visualized in such tissues by EM.
The panel at this link shows such an in situ study - one of many, many such studies. The image on the left is of lymph node tissue in an HIV-positive patient before beginning HAART. The green is the dye used to vizualize hybridization to HIV RNA - note that there is a LOT of free and intracellular HIV RNA present. The image on the right as after HAART. Nte that there is only one cell with intracellular RNA, and no detectable free HIV RNA - a dramatic response to HAART.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14807/F1.expansion?ck=nck
And here is a link to an article with a TEM image of HIV budding from tissue taken from an HIV patient. There are a lot more like this, if you just look for them:
http://huehueteotl.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/immune-system-reactivated-i…
Cooler, it has been known for a long time - since at least the early 1990s - that free HIV RNA is highly concentrated in lymph nodes - thus the lymphadenopathy that is common in HIV infection. HIV has been visualize in lymph nodes since at least the early 1990s. If you aren't aware of this, you are extraordinarily (and clearly intentionally and therefore dishonestly) uninformed for someone who pretends to know that everyone has it wrong about HIV. If you do know this, you are simply extraordinarily dishonest.
Which is it?
Anyone else notice that cooler never includes dates of publication in his abstract cut-and-pastes?
Also, did anyone notice that cooler attempted to refute my statement that M incognitus is a strain of M fermentans, by pasting an abstract from a paper that shows that M imcognitus is a strain of M. fermentans?
Let me help with the dates of the papers:
1986 - Dr Lo finds something in AIDS patients that he identifies as a novel virus:
---
Lo SC. Isolation and identification of a novel virus from patients with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1986 Jul;35(4):675â676
1989 - Dr. Lo publishes that his "virus" is a novel not-yet-identified virus like infectious agent, and that it kills animals:
---
Lo SC, et al. A novel virus-like infectious agent in patients with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Feb;40(2):213â226
---
Lo SC, et al. Fatal infection of silvered leaf monkeys with a virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) derived from a patient with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Apr;40(4):399â409.
Later 1989, Dr. Lo publishes that his novel virus-like infectious agent is a novel species of mycoplasma:
---
Lo SC, et al. Identification of Mycoplasma incognitus infection in patients with AIDS: an immunohistochemical, in situ hybridization and ultrastructural study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Nov;41(5):601â616.
---
Lo SC, et al. Virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) is a novel pathogenic mycoplasma: Mycoplasma incognitus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Nov;41(5):586â600. [PubMed]
Also in 1989, Dr. Lo publishes that his novel mycoplasma is associated with non-AIDS deaths in non-HIV patients.
---
Lo SC, et al. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989 Sep;41(3):364â376.
1990, 1991, Saillard and Stadtlander show that M incognitus is a strain of M. fermentans:
---
Saillard C, et al. Genetic and serologic relatedness between Mycoplasma fermentans strains and a mycoplasma recently identified in tissues of AIDS and non-AIDS patients. Res Virol. 1990 MayâJun;141(3):385â395.
---
Städtlander CT, et al. Protein and antigen heterogeneity among strains of Mycoplasma fermentans. Infect Immun. 1991 Sep;59(9):3319â3322.
And finally, in 1991, Dr. Lo publishes that his AIDS-associated mycoplasma (note that he no longer calls is M incognitus): interacts with HIV and potentiates CD4 cytotoxicity:
---
Lo SC, et al. Enhancement of HIV-1 cytocidal effects in CD4+ lymphocytes by the AIDS-associated mycoplasma. Science. 1991 Mar 1;251(4997):1074â1076
Wow. At the risk of repeating myself, finding an environmental pathogen in the bodies of people with compromised immune systems? Shocking.
Weaponized mycoplasma? Yikes. The *paranoid* stoopid burns even hotter.
Try citing something more recent than the early 90s, cooler. It is irrelevant at this date *what* people knew in the 80s. AZT works. It works even better when used in conjunction with other antiviral drugs. You can whine and pule all you want, but the evidence is clear.
Cue lies and ranting in 3... 2... 1...
Again cooler... your one paper question is a strawman. That and your Gish Gallop style avoidance of questions pointing to the holes in your logic mean that this will be the last post to you from me.
Science does not work by one paper proclamations. It works by a summation of observations that support a hypothesis over the others. The data to date clearly supports HIV as the causative factor in AIDS. Read it all, and not the ones on your conspiracy theorist web pages then get back to us.
The "nail in the coffin" experiment would be to knowing inject some people with it, and a control group without, then control all other risk factors and watch what happens. A little side complication - 1st degree murder, forced confinement and torture charges, as well as a fundamental respect for human life - is keeping researchers from doing this exact experiment.
There is no sense debating you. No more than there is sense in debating a fundamentalist creationist on the matter of evolution. You blindly believe the crap you are saying, and nothing will make you think rationally about the matter. Enjoy living in denial, but be glad that the rest of the world is not as deceived as you, or we would be suffering the same AIDS related catastrophy as the unfortunate African nations being lead by superstitious fools.
Hell, there's even a wiki page (that golden standard source of information you keep citing) trashing you little religion / superstition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism
@257 ERV's 2nd Request
"Seriously, I want a Denier version of the acronym 'TARD'. Cause thats some good TARD, right there."
I was kind of waiting for a prize like Pocky or Rule 34 on Luskin but you explained the HepB thing so nicely. Sooooooo
My submission:
'INANE'
I
Need
Attention
Not
Explanations.
Jim, I never asked for just one paper. I asked for the the "papers" and and a explanation as to how they proved HIV was a fatal disease that justified AZT's release in 1987. The simple fact that you would create a straw man shows how utterly delusional and idiotic you are. Hey Jim, you can always spam AIDStruth, or some other websites, something that would get you laughed out of any courtroom or classroom! Thanks for basically admitting you have no evidence and have just taken everything on faith.
Lance, You pathetic idiot. None of the New aids drugs are tested against placebo, except for the original crooked AZT trials. And you are complaining about old references? Well almost every reference from the Durban Declaration is from the previous century as well.
Lee, wow big deal you found a a couple viruses! But as your idol Lance says HIV , like Mycoplasma could just be an OI when the AZT and the severe drug abuse depletes immmunity. Oh and Lo et al authored a chapter in a book in 1992 where they he still used the term "M incognitus" and still said it was lethal in it's own right due to the reasons stated above. He could be wrong or right, but one must dispassionately read scientific papers to come to correct scientific conclusions, since most of you guys are non thinking shills that don't read any papers, orthodox or dissident, this is impossible.
Most of you guys have never read Duesberg, Piatak, Gallo, Levy, Ho, Lo, montagnier etc. I'll give credit to Lee for at least trying, even though anyone that took a stats class would know he made fool of himself.
Anyways this has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with psychopaths that have no personalities. Being a miserable person that can't think leaves one no choice to just mindlessly believe what your told. So there is no honest debate in dealing with people that have no capability to read papers and think critically. So I not going to be posting here again. I'll be gone on vacation while you clowns can come up with your stupid one line zingers that are not even funny. What I find funny is how grown adults can still use LOL talk, but coming from people that are pschycopaths that have no personality and can't think I wouldn't excpect anything more. Have a nice Day!
Yep. Lies and ranting. And one of the worst ad hominem rants I've seen recently.
Yeah, his test came back positive. He's not going to Hawaii... he's going to start his HAART therapy, and this is how he vents.
We're all miserable mindless psychopath clowns with no personalities and an inability to read or think critically.
Can we party now?
"Can we party now?"
Why not?
We already have Clowns, Zingers, Spam,....who's bringing the tequila to "Burning Strawman" this year?
LanceR, JSG predicted:
"Yeah, his test came back positive. He's not going to Hawaii... he's going to start his HAART therapy, and this is how he vents."
The dead giveaway was when he said he was going with "friends".
Shit dude, tell us are going with supermodels or mutant Galligators. If you are going to fantasize, go for broke.
cooler said, Jim, I never asked for just one paper. I asked for the the "papers
Oops. You are correct, and I apologize for missing the "s".
But the point remains, start with the link I supplied. It has a large number of reference that may help you out (and also discusses the issues with the references you seem to hold as gospel). After that there are textbooks, full of references and explanations. And Pubmed searches on AIDS research will fill you in with the new stiff. I think you have about a year or more of reading to catch up on.
I'll ignore the personal attacks and get directly to the point. Have you read anything outside of the few known denialists and their slanted interpretations of papers? If no, then there is nothing to discuss. Show us that you have actually though about his and not just swallowed the rhetoric at the websites you mentioned. Then maybe the people here will take you seriously and discuss your questions. Being an ass will not convince anyone to spend the months that appear to be required describing the whole HIV thing to you.
jim - Don't make the mistake of thinking that cooler has questions. He has certainty - which is impervious to any response.
I don't expect to change his mind in anything - his responses when we show that he was simply dead-to-rights wrong on the basic facts shows how impervious to change he is.
But I am curious, often, as to where the crumbs come from for the denialist crap. It was interesting to dig into the Lo story, see what Lo actually did and reported, and also see what small part of that the denialists latch onto and what parts they are forced to utterly ignore.
Lo's work is interesting. He found a previously unknown, more virulently pathogenic strain of M fermentans, showed that it was frequently present in AIDS patients, showed that it interacts with HIV infection in ways that are potentially clinically significant in AIDS cases - and his work ended up being perfectly congruent with, and supporting the fact that HIV causes AIDS. His new strain of fermentans also ends up being clinically interesting for other reasons - it can, rarely, kill people all on its own.
I had known some of that, I learned some of just in the last day looking into the actual science behind the crap cooler spewed, and I was happy to post it - and that it dismantled cooler is a nice side benefit, because I consider his dangerous brand of misinformation to be worth no more than a good dismantling.
Sometimes, I like to Nom.
But then, I'm a shill, and incapable of critical thought - cooler told me so.
jim - Don't make the mistake of thinking that cooler has questions. He has certainty - which is impervious to any response.
I do get it, but it's in my nature to try to engage and point out the problems. Not enough direct contact with ID/no-vaccinate/denialist/911 conspiracy/ etc crowds and too much time as a teaching assistant, I guess.
Chemtrails, morgellons, day lily? OMG I'M SO CLOSE TO CONSPIRACY THEORY BINGO.
Also, I'm really curious about an answer to why sham inoculations and inoculation with certain mutant strains of a bacterium don't cause disease while the wild-type causes a lethal infection.
I was remiss to wait so long to check CommonSense's response to my question about medical education (which must be a big conspiracy if we're all promulgating lies):
"In fairness, med school is not a bad thing. Most of the things learned are indeed helpful in many cases. But the problem is the following: Medical school is basically predicated upon creating physicians that do certain things. The idea is to create a doctor who will be very much inline with what everyone else is saying such that there isn't confusion."
If the idea of medical education is to produce people who won't rock the boat, why is the amount of research built into medical curriculum increasing? Why are some of the highest-prestige positions research positions? Why is some of the biggest news made when the received wisdom is shown by well-controlled studies to be false? It seems to me that this system is trying to rock the boat as much as possible, to uncover any myths or inaccurate beliefs?
In fact CommonSense, I've been managing clinical trials for twelve years and you know what - sometimes the drugs we're testing drugs don't work! And when we find that out, do we cover it up and try to sell them anyway, to promote our drug-and-disease-based picture of medicine? No. Even if we were that dicky, the public (through the FDA, advocacy groups, physicians, and our colleagues at other companies and academia) would be onto us in two seconds. Can you imagine ERV letting us off the hook for something like that?!?!? So we drop that molecule and try another one, or try another approach altogether. No torchlit room with Big Pharma execs in black robes chanting the dark liturgy of Bristol Myers. We have a drink that night, and then we try again.
And thanks for your heads-up about the evil pharmaceutical industry and its Mammon-like tricks to ensnare naive physicians. I might be able to steer clear of those on my own, thanks.
Cooler, if you're still around, can you shoot me an e-mail? I may have some questions for you (and also maybe some conversation).
It's kdghantous
at
photo
dot
net
No big deal if you can't.
The flaming stupid is starting to hurt.
@commonsense: I am a physician with a small apple/cherry/pear orchard way out in the middle of nowhere.
1. I don't spray with any manner of pesticides or use chemical fertilisers due to not being overly concerned with what I produce: even if the birds get most of it I will still have enough for personal use. I do pick the produce and use it.
I can assure you that healthy, bumper-crop-producing "organic" trees do indeed have fruit rot on the limb.
2. Please don't inject yourself with HIV infected blood. I may think your views are batshit crazy, but that doesn't mean I wish you any ill.
3. You have no clue what goes on in medical school. Accredited medical schools have statistics and epidemiology and "how to spot falsified data" lessons which encourage critical thinking.
They can teach us whatever they want, in essence, but they give us the skills to spot the lie.
4. I do find it rather incredible that anyone at this late date could think the germ theory of disease to be untrue. Don't get me wrong, I don't have the studies at my fingertips, that would be one hell of a slog. It's just so... basic. I have READ the studies, BTW, very elegant.
Seriously, cholera (par exemple) really sucks, and current prevention and treatment really work....
5. You are shooting yourself in the foot with your comparisons of KS in HIV patients in the Americas vs in Africa. AIDS has a much shorter course in the malnourished and these folks will have no time to develop KS for the most part.
6. I hope you put butter on those veggies or eat lots of avocados and peanuts. Yeeps.
I slept with a hiv positive man, got terribly sick a few weeks later but am not hiv positive. Now I have constant swollen glands and skin that looks acidified. I am not on any medication. The doctor can't explain it, an autoimmune disease. I believe a virus causes AIDS under the right circumstances and it might be HHV6A not HIV which usually occurs together. I'm the one dying of this strange autoimmune disorder so I have the right to question hiv.
Nope. Sorry. Do feel free to try again next week.
marie, how long ago did this occur?
I cant figure out what this comment is trying to say-- 'skin that looks acidified' doesnt mean anything. Thats not a description. Does she mean her skin is peeling?
And autoimmunity and AIDS are completely different things. AIDS is 'acquired immunodeficiency syndrome', not 'autoimmune deficiency syndrome', which is impossible (you dont have an immune response, but you have autoimmunity).
Its completely nonsensical.
marie may be "murmur" over at AIDS Myth Exposed, in which case it appears only 3-4 months have passed since the initial infection opportunity (though I may be reading too much into her writing). IIRC, the older versions of the initial screening test for HIV are not reliable until about 6 months after initial infection - and I'm not sure if the current version is any better. The reason for this is that the initial screening doesn't actually detect the presence of HIV (unlike a number of other tests), but the presence of antibodies. Keep in mind, however, that I am an engineer, not a doctor, and that this is based upon my memory of what I read while participating in this discussion a few months ago.
Also, what ERV said. Though you could just be using imprecise or inaccurate language.
Bit late to this discussion - I agree with that Commonsense guy who was posting around June 10 - His diet is 100% and I agree with most of what he has to say - viruses, bacteria are ubiquitous and are part of the natural process - where there is disease you will find them scavenging on toxic debris - kind of like flies at a rubbish dump. The medical profession have been flogging a dead horse with germ theory for decades now - time to admit defeat - even the common cold is beyond them.If there is such a thing as an HIV virus - highly debatable - then it probably has use as a marker for identifying those who are in a highly diseased state - further than that I would say the actual virus is harmless.
ANOTHER germ theory denying idiot?
Mark, you're a fucking moron. The very existence of antibiotics proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You are denying facts that have been known and demonstrated in countless ways long before you were born. You reject all evidence and substitute bullshit.
Maybe she means that her skin looks the way it does when she drops acid. You know, mouths opening up in it and whistling showtunes that morph into chartreuse hummingbirds bearing messages from God.
Yet all she took today is a cocktail of shrooms and horse tranquilizers! How do you explain that, you allopathic running-dogs of the medical establishment?
I am HIV+ for 22 years and reading through this thread is an insult to me.
for the first 5 years i was a patient at the kobler centre in london and i saw people die. i got sick myself taking azt on the concorde trial and later from combo therapy and haart.
then i started asking questions. how exactly does hiv cause aids? where exactly has hiv been isolated? i came across duesbergs site and got off all meds.
i never looked back. i have never been as healthy as right now, cycle to work regularly (40 km one way!) and my rowing team broke the local record just last week.
the only thing that will kill me is the pharma industry and their cronies pushing all these worthless drugs onto the market.
and they are not only doing it to people that test positive with questionable tests for hiv. they push their drugs quite legally to those that are depressed, suffer diabetes, arthrities, etc. any illness thats long-term - they just love that. they dont want you to be healthy. they want you to be sick, but not sick enought to die, so you keep taking their crap.
wake up people - its incredible to see how many of you have been brainswashed into believing all this nonsense. they use you to make more money for themselves. of course there are a few good men and women in the system as well - but they cant speak up or they will lose their jobs.
any one who is telling me that hiv is the cause of aids is also responsible for all the death that result from:
- arv's
- suicide
the world does not need more poison! if you want to eridacate AIDS you need to tackle poverty, war and corruption.
"I am HIV+ for 22 years and blah blah blah..."
Please die soon.
In the comments section for a New Scientist article on denial, "whereistheproof" wrote:
"i owe peter duesberg my life. in the early 90-ties when on the concorde trial i became pretty ill on azt. before i was actually not sick at all - other than being hiv positive. none of my doctors were really able to explain to me why i was getting ill. the headaches were pretty awful and i had skin rushes as well as increasing amount of diarrhea. that was when i started looking into alternatives. and so i came across peter duesberg. i emailed him, explained my situation and his advise was invaluable: stay off azt. so i did. even my counselor at the time advised me to do the same. but the pressure was on at the kobler centre to stay on the trial. many did. those who weren't on the placebo arm didnt look so well after some time - unless they did what i did: flush azt down the toilet. ever since peters advice i never looked back. i am living a 'normal' life today (if you can call being discriminated against normal), and once off the arv's i recovered my health completely."
So in this version, a little AZT, felt sick, hello Dr. Duesberg, drug down toilet. Apart from the non-sequitur about "arv's" plural, anyway.
Here they write: "i got sick myself taking azt on the concorde trial and later from combo therapy and haart." How is that consistent with "ever since peters advice i never looked back."? What were they doing taking " combo therapy and haart"?
Someone is not being truthful, methinks.
The crappy AIDS denial movie House of Numbers is now being "four walled" by a company called Moxie that I think essentially hires movie theaters to show films.
http://movieswithmoxie.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/MOXIE/89110227827?v=info
So not only did the filmmakers get funded to fly around the world deceiving people, they seem to have money to be paying to get it shown. They won't say where the funding comes from. Someone on AME reported that there were 5 people in the theater in LA.
Moxie is also hosting a run at The Quad in New York and having a party to celebrate:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=241672885033&ref=mf
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Time:
8:00pm - 11:00pm
Location:
Hibernia Bar
Street:
401 West 50th Street
Screening well is the best revenge-You who have not seen the film can natter all you like, but apparently some who actually have seen HON have found something of value in it.
I refer you to this Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?page=1&aid=106076&id=40491054861
That Facebook page says the film is an "official selection" of Paley Doc Fest.
But it isn't listed as showing there:
http://www.paleycenter.org/paleydocfest09
They will show it in November, I believe on the 9th. They have not posted anything past October as of yet, please be patient.
Pardon me, November 1 is date for HON at the PaleyDocFest
The Paley website says: "Paley DocFest, a look at politics & culture, New York, October 2009."
Where does it say it's continuing into November?
The House of Numbers Facbook page doesn't say November 1, it says:
"Start Time: Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 6:30pm
End Time: Monday, November 30, 2009 at 9:30pm
House of Numbers will screen at the PaleyDocFest in NYC sometime in November."
TeeDUK - sorry for any confusion, I got date from HON website, not Facebook. There would appear to be some confusion here. Perhaps you should contact the Paley Center folks and get it straightened out. The internet is a swamp of ambiguity and misinformation, as you probably know. Good luck.
Quotemined!
Can you tell me which passages were quotemined and taken out of context? I'd like to be prepared before I go see it.
marie,
don't go looking for advice on-line; you will only find crackpots or people with zero educational interests and a never ending thirst for entertainment at your expense.
"so I have the right to question hiv.
"Nope. Sorry. Do feel free to try again next week."
I am sorry for your troubles but you will only find frustration here, so stop blogging before they turn you into a complete and unredeemable denialist.
Most biblical scholars and preachers readily admit that they know Christ was not born on December 25th. However, they claim that this day is as good as any other to celebrate the birth of Jesus, despite the fact that it was originally a pagan celebration called Saturnalia which commemorated the birth of the sun god.
Yet the church perpetuates this error without recourse or repent and the world just plays along without challenging this status quo. Go figure.
Personally, take all the ARVs you want. If you live, great; if not, dead. Don't take ARV ever. If you live, great; if not, dead. Whichever way, make very informed decisions and live without regrets. You owe no one and no one owes you your own choice for life.
Denialism is a double edged sword. It applies to those who don't believe that HIV causes AIGS and to those who deny that there may be more than was disclosed. A closed mind to either option is unhealthy.
False equivalence. You must look at actual evidence in order to make an informed decision, and all of the evidence says that HIV *is* AIDS.
Knowledge is, indeed, power. Get some.
Ever heard of the Bangui definition of Aids, a 12 point system that declares Africans as suffering from Aids if they show signs of loss of energy (4 points), loss of weight (4 points) and diarrhoea (4 points). This fact alone and Luc Montagnier's statement is enough for me to doubt the pharmaceutical industry. This method was used until 1992 and is still used in the absence of and anti-body test. You guys are crazy if you believe this mass murderer Robert Gallo. PS: I have seen people dying of AZT too.
When one says that they have seen their friends die of AIDS, i'd like them to clarify that point.
What exactly were the symptoms of their friend's ailments while they were dying???
Allow me to guess.... Heart disease, liver disease, kidney failure, with some nice bone density issues and dementia thrown into the mix...
Hhhmmmm. the only problem is, none of those thing have anything remotely to do with the immune system, and everything to do with HIV medication.
If a dissident can't convince you.. i don't really care... Keep eating all the meds you want... You have no one but yourself to blame in the long run.
Meds takers die every day. They are seen as heroic, while Christine Maggiore is seen as foolish... You ain't foolin' nobody (but maybe yourself).
Excuse, but I am afraid that you are wrong.
[I]"To be positive on the HIV test, one must first score positive on the ELISA test, and then positive on the Western Blot test. In one study, over 17,000 people who had scored positive in this way were examined by techniques to identify the virus presense - only one did not have virus. This gives an operational false positive rate, in that study, of about 1:17,000."[/I]
According to this study, in low-prevalence populations the false positive rate of the algorithm you describe is 50%.
[I]AIDS counselling for low-risk clients[/I]. AIDS Care. 1998 Apr;10(2):197-211.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9625903
[I]"And then, after one is diagnosed positive, there is a followup therapeutic series of tests for viral load, using yet another technique, typically a PCR-based viral load test. Even if one were a false positive in the ELISA-Western Blot tests, it would soon be apparent that there was no virus - and this is very, very , very rare"[/I]
According to this study, "PCR-based viral load tests" detect also "copies of HIV" (?) in HIV negative persons.
[I]False positives for HIV using commercial viral load quantification assays[/I] AIDS:
October 1998 - Volume 12 - Issue 15 - p 2076â2077
http://www.google.es/#hl=es&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=677&q=False+positive…
Unbelievable!
You people deserve to die!
I really can't believe just how stupid some people are!
Die of ignorance... Die of AIDS!!! LOL
Acquired Ignorant Dumbass Syndrome
You people wouldn't know the meaning of science if it was dressed in a pink and green jumpsuit jumping up and down yelling "look at me! I'm a virus!!"
Sheeple really do deserve the current depopulation agenda being thrust upon them. We are wasting our time trying to show them the light. Don't waste your time, let them eat AZT, or whatever other types of poison the choose to mindlessly consume.
I believe today you can find many, many free online dictionary's. Try looking up reason and/or logic.
Bob Sayno...thing of value @ 309:
Yes, it is. You have chosen to sputter incoherently on a three-year old post. It is literally impossible to interpret from your ravings exactly what you are for or against.
My only suggestion: Alprazolam. Try having your caretaker get it prescribed for you.