Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What is AIDS?
-
16-07-2015 11:40am#1Mod: Posts moved from 2014 stats thread
I have looked at a few documentaries around HIV and Aids as I never really knew anything about it.
But I found it very interesting that there is still some debate on whether HIV is actually a cause of AIDS.
I knew little to nothing about this so figured yes this must of been proven???
My understanding is this.
When infected with HIV like any other retrovirus most people will develop a flu in some cases a rash until their immune system creates anti-bodies.
When you are tested for HIV you are not tested for the virus but tested to see if your body has any of these anti-bodies, if yes then you will test positive.
There currently is an argument that HIV could not and does not effect enough T-Cells to bring on the onset of AIDS and I think this is still a point of contention. HIVE will effect 1 in 10,000 T-Cells nothing that would have any significant impact on the immune system.
The argument that HIV does cause AIDS has not (to my knowledge) answered this question, what it looks at is the number anti-bodies in the body to the HIV virus and how it can give some indication to when someone might develop AIDS.
Back in the 1980s a lot of healthy men who tested HIV+ where given AZT life expectancy was less than 1 year.
Now if you test HIV positive they say you could go 10 / 15 years + without any symptoms.
I do not think it is any secret that AZT was toxic to the body and effectively caused AIDS by destroying the immune system.
It was a drug originally designed for cancer patients but was found too toxic for human use but the AIDS scare of the 1980s meant it was fast tracked for human trials looking back it was nuts!
A life time of anti viral's and other medication could equally have a negative impact on the immune system so it becomes difficult to distinguish what causes AIDS.
I am somewhat skeptical to what big pharmaceutical companies say about HIV.
HIV is still very much in various minority groups.
If your immune system is compromised due to a life time of various illnesses and you die of pneumonia and are HIV negative then you died of pneumonia.
If you are HIV positive then you died of AIDS.
AIDS is very much a real thing but there is still some debate on whether HIV is really the cause.
Today we see people with HIV that do not fall into the minority groups i.e. Gay men and drug users, I think in American these comprised almost 90% of people infected with HIV.
You will find that more and more people are living with HIV who will never develop AIDS, the argument is that new anti-viral drugs are getting better meaning HIV will remain dormant in the host body for longer, Magic Johnston has had HIV for 22 years and never developed AIDS.
It is interesting to say the least and something people need to educate themselves about, and this does not just mean to believe everything that we are being told!0
Comments
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I have looked at a few documentaries around HIV and Aids as I never really knew anything about it.
But I found it very interesting that there is still some debate on whether HIV is actually a cause of AIDS.
I knew little to nothing about this so figured yes this must of been proven???
My understanding is this.
When infected with HIV like any other retrovirus most people will develop a flu in some cases a rash until their immune system creates anti-bodies.
When you are tested for HIV you are not tested for the virus but tested to see if your body has any of these anti-bodies, if yes then you will test positive.
There currently is an argument that HIV could not and does not effect enough T-Cells to bring on the onset of AIDS and I think this is still a point of contention. HIVE will effect 1 in 10,000 T-Cells nothing that would have any significant impact on the immune system.
The argument that HIV does cause AIDS has not (to my knowledge) answered this question, what it looks at is the number anti-bodies in the body to the HIV virus and how it can give some indication to when someone might develop AIDS.
Back in the 1980s a lot of healthy men who tested HIV+ where given AZT life expectancy was less than 1 year.
Now if you test HIV positive they say you could go 10 / 15 years + without any symptoms.
I do not think it is any secret that AZT was toxic to the body and effectively caused AIDS by destroying the immune system.
It was a drug originally designed for cancer patients but was found too toxic for human use but the AIDS scare of the 1980s meant it was fast tracked for human trials looking back it was nuts!
A life time of anti viral's and other medication could equally have a negative impact on the immune system so it becomes difficult to distinguish what causes AIDS.
I am somewhat skeptical to what big pharmaceutical companies say about HIV.
HIV is still very much in various minority groups.
If your immune system is compromised due to a life time of various illnesses and you die of pneumonia and are HIV negative then you died of pneumonia.
If you are HIV positive then you died of AIDS.
AIDS is very much a real thing but there is still some debate on whether HIV is really the cause.
Today we see people with HIV that do not fall into the minority groups i.e. Gay men and drug users, I think in American these comprised almost 90% of people infected with HIV.
You will find that more and more people are living with HIV who will never develop AIDS, the argument is that new anti-viral drugs are getting better meaning HIV will remain dormant in the host body for longer, Magic Johnston has had HIV for 22 years and never developed AIDS.
It is interesting to say the least and something people need to educate themselves about, and this does not just mean to believe everything that we are being told!
Your post I'm not going to comment too much on the content it a different discussion altogether. However a lot of it belongs to the past. It for me does highlight for exactly why I think better more clear and modern (up-to-date) education and awareness of HIV is needed.0 -
jimdublin15 wrote: »Your post I'm not going to comment too much on the content it a different discussion altogether. However a lot of it belongs to the past. It for me does highlight for exactly why I think better more clear and modern (up-to-date) education and awareness of HIV is needed.
I know this was slightly off topic..
What do you mean a lot of it belongs in the past?
Also where do you think the best education for HIV can be found?0 -
My understanding of this is that it is very difficult to get any real facts on this.
Over the last 25 years more and more symptoms are being added to the AIDS bucket.
If transmitted sexually a question was asked why did we not see as many cases in females? Then cervical cancers gets added to the list of symptoms for AIDS which now makes it look like AIDS in women is now growing.
HIV has shown to be somewhat inconsistent, now arguably you could say this is because we know more and more about it or there could be other factors at play.
For example we now have HIV I and HIV II slow acting and fast acting this is primarily to show the difference of life span in say Europe and the USA as apposed to Africa. A newer theory is that that HIV needs to work in conjunction with other viruses before someone will develop AIDS such as hepatitis or even the herpes virus.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I know this was slightly off topic..
What do you mean a lot of it belongs in the past?
Also where do you think the best education for HIV can be found?
The "best" education I can't say, but I don't think anyone really can, also depends on target audience. In general I would say this is not a bad place to look for more information on the subject: http://www.aidsmap.com/0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »My understanding of this is that it is very difficult to get any real facts on this.
Over the last 25 years more and more symptoms are being added to the AIDS bucket.
If transmitted sexually a question was asked why did we not see as many cases in females? Then cervical cancers gets added to the list of symptoms for AIDS which now makes it look like AIDS in women is now growing.
HIV has shown to be somewhat inconsistent, now arguably you could say this is because we know more and more about it or there could be other factors at play.
For example we now have HIV I and HIV II slow acting and fast acting this is primarily to show the difference of life span in say Europe and the USA as apposed to Africa. A newer theory is that that HIV needs to work in conjunction with other viruses before someone will develop AIDS such as hepatitis or even the herpes virus.
AIDS is nothing more or less than the occurrence of specific diseases or cancers in association with an HIV infection, that are normally controlled by the immune system, but in someone with a compromised immune response they are not controlled or not controlled as affectively.
But AIDS is not really used as a term in medical understanding anymore, more for reporting and statistical bases. I understand most would call it "advanced HIV"
As for types yup type 1 & 2, and thankfully with Geno research and 30 years + time a lot more is indeed known now. There are indeed two types of HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2
Worldwide, the predominant virus is HIV-1, and generally when people refer to HIV without specifying the type of virus they will be referring to HIV-1.
The relatively uncommon HIV-2 type is concentrated in West Africa and is rarely found elsewhere.
The strains of HIV-1 can be classified into four groups: the "major" group M, the "outlier" group O and two new groups, N and P.
Within group M there are known to be at least nine genetically distinct subtypes (or clades) of HIV-1. These are subtypes A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J and K
See more at: http://www.avert.org/hiv-types.htm#sthash.m0DXNeFC.dpuf0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »HIV has shown to be somewhat inconsistent, now arguably you could say this is because we know more and more about it or there could be other factors at play.
Same can be said about nearly any subject, I think.
Particularly when it's a subject that has had and been extensively studied & researched with a lot of breakthroughs in recent years. It might seem to someone to be inconsistent when in fact we just know more. It's a perception more than anything else.0 -
jimdublin15 wrote: »AIDS is nothing more or less than the occurrence of specific diseases or cancers in association with an HIV infection, that are normally controlled by the immune system, but in someone with a compromised immune response they are not controlled or not controlled as affectively.
But AIDS is not really used as a term in medical understanding anymore, more for reporting and statistical bases. I understand most would call it "advanced HIV"
This is the part I find interesting....
There are a lot of things that can cause someone to be immune suppressed.
Some researchers argue that it has never been proven that HIV is actually the cause of this but the consensus is, if your immune system has been compromised and are HIV+ then you have "AIDS" or if you like advanced HIV.
At the moment there appears to be two schools of thought around this.
1. We are seeing people who are HIV positive who are showing no signs or symptoms of the classic AIDS symptoms, a lot these individuals do not take anti viral drug medication. The current thought is, over time they will but that time frame seems to be expanding and what is being said is HIV can lie dormant in the body and it can vary from individual to individual.
2. Fast track HIV cases, these fall into the category of high risk individuals, people like drug users (which devastate the immune system on its own) people who engage in high risk sexual activities and what I mean by that is, there are a lot of harmful sti's that will require medication such as antibiotics and things like anal sex do not come without some health issues and risks, like infection and sepsis.
There are a few youtube videos with a guy called Professor Peter Duesbeg.
He talks about how lifestyle choices seem to be getting ignored and the impact of anti viral drugs themselves on the body over time.
He goes on to say that there is a huge lack of scientific evidence with regards HIV and that in the last 25/30 years that there is no excuse to why these type of studies have not been carried out.
He goes on to say a big part of why he feels the studies have not been carried out is that HIV medication is a 800 Billion dollar machine and any suggestion that HIV might not be the root cause is quickly ignored.0 -
jimdublin15 wrote: »Same can be said about nearly any subject, I think.
Particularly when it's a subject that has had and been extensively studied & researched with a lot of breakthroughs in recent years. It might seem to someone to be inconsistent when in fact we just know more. It's a perception more than anything else.
True but that does not change the fact that in many cases and for decades we are very wrong about symptoms.
For 100's of years we thought scurvy as a contagious disease!
For years stomach ulcers where attributed to stress among other things..
Then in 2005 we discover Helicobacter pylori and say no it's actually cased by a bacteria...
The research into HIV is a little scary when you look at it, the medication in the beginning was literally killing people.0 -
Just to get back on point.
Do we have the numbers of people who have been tested?
When we look at these numbers is the increase of cases reflective of an actual increase of cases or is it perhaps that the number of people who have went and got tested increased?
Perhaps the effect this has had is that more gay men and users of intravenous drugs now get tested.
Heterosexual people may consider themselves low risk therefore get tested less frequent or not at all this can skew figures.0 -
ShowMeTheCash, you are off topic but I feel obliged to respond to you, I've had a look at some of the information you've put forward and it seems to derive from AIDS denialist pseudoscience.
In short, it's a conspiracy theory.
I found a resource that responds to many of the claims you have made or alluded to, give it a read if you're interested; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
AIDStruth.org is another good one.
These theories have cost thousands of people their lives, most notably in South Africa where they recieved government backing, I'm only really posting so they're challenged here, if people want to get into a further discussion on it maybe it's a topic for a new thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
wonderfulname wrote: »ShowMeTheCash, you are off topic but I feel obliged to respond to you, I've had a look at some of the information you've put forward and it seems to derive from AIDS denialist pseudoscience.
In short, it's a conspiracy theory.
I found a resource that responds to many of the claims you have made or alluded to, give it a read if you're interested; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
AIDStruth.org is another good one.
These theories have cost thousands of people their lives, most notably in South Africa where they recieved government backing, I'm only really posting so they're challenged here, if people want to get into a further discussion on it maybe it's a topic for a new thread.
I am not really concerned with propaganda or theories, I am more just looking to the science.
What is proven what is not proven what is an educated guess....
I will look into the information and perhaps open a new thread.
Thanks0 -
wonderfulname wrote: »ShowMeTheCash, you are off topic but I feel obliged to respond to you, I've had a look at some of the information you've put forward and it seems to derive from AIDS denialist pseudoscience.
In short, it's a conspiracy theory.
I found a resource that responds to many of the claims you have made or alluded to, give it a read if you're interested; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
AIDStruth.org is another good one.
These theories have cost thousands of people their lives, most notably in South Africa where they recieved government backing, I'm only really posting so they're challenged here, if people want to get into a further discussion on it maybe it's a topic for a new thread.
Just on another note, if I am trying to look at this objectively.
I notice all the material on the link you provide is nearly all from the 1990s do we have any more up-to-date sources or studies?0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Just on another note, if I am trying to look at this objectively.
I notice all the material on the link you provide is nearly all from the 1990s do we have any more up-to-date sources or studies?
The source itself is 2009, it references older studies.
I don't know, but nor do I know of any recent studies into the cause of polio, scientific study on the link between HIV and AIDS reached it's conclusion.
You referenced Peter Duesberg earlier as a source, his own research is from the 80s. You'll find no genuine research of his more modern than that either. As treatments grew better the link between HIV and AIDS became undeniable. People don't get funding to study that link because the body of research is so great it's simply a waste of money. We already know.0 -
wonderfulname wrote: »The source itself is 2009, it references older studies.
I don't know, but nor do I know of any recent studies into the cause of polio, scientific study on the link between HIV and AIDS reached it's conclusion.
You referenced Peter Duesberg earlier as a source, his own research is from the 80s. You'll find no genuine research of his more modern than that either. As treatments grew better the link between HIV and AIDS became undeniable. People don't get funding to study that link because the body of research is so great it's simply a waste of money. We already know.
Yeah my reading on this is a little scary.
People like Peter Duesberg is labelled denialist and anyone that questions the excepted theory that HIV causes AIDS appears to be labeled the same.
I find this a little weird.
Proving a theory one way or the other is just good science.
I find it worrying when people are labelled when challenging a theory, for me it always raises more of a question around the reaction than it does the original challenge.
Even if Peter Duesberg is a nut I still find it weird the term "HIV denialist" is even used.
Pharmaceutical companies control medicine, if the pharmaceutical company cannot coin, patent or distribute a cure then it is rarely excepted as:
1. A disease
2. An excepted treatment.
I have known a number of people including family members that have died from Cancer.
I remember having this conversion around Cancer treatment.
I have known 3 people that have had chemotherapy went into remission, 6 months later cancer is back, 24 months later all three are dead.
I have no doubt in my mind that the cause of Cancer in all three was more life style related, these people spent their entire lives on what many would call a very unhealthy lifestyle, booze, fags, bad diet etc etc.....
In my own head I thought was it any wonder and was no surprise...
You can only poison the body for so long before the body reacts!
I look at the amount of money that is spent trying to come up with a magic pill then I look at the amount of time and money that is spent trying to determine what in a persons lifestyle might be killing them.
If medicine is not profitable it is usually deemed pseudoscience or homeopathic or holistic or as my doctor once told me simply not recognised by the HSC.
It is not to say research is not important and we need to find new and effective ways of tackling diseases but it is worrying that large Pharmaceutical companies appear to drive the direction of all this research and the lengths they will go to, to protect what is deemed as the excepted medical explanation and treatment.0 -
Posts moved from "2014 HIV statistics released by the HSE" thread
If you have issues with a thread REPORT, don't make on thread comments0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Yeah my reading on this is a little scary.
People like Peter Duesberg is labelled denialist and anyone that questions the excepted theory that HIV causes AIDS appears to be labeled the same.
I find this a little weird.
Proving a theory one way or the other is just good science.
I find it worrying when people are labelled when challenging a theory, for me it always raises more of a question around the reaction than it does the original challenge.
Even if Peter Duesberg is a nut I still find it weird the term "HIV denialist" is even used.
Pharmaceutical companies control medicine, if the pharmaceutical company cannot coin, patent or distribute a cure then it is rarely excepted as:
1. A disease
2. An excepted treatment.
I have known a number of people including family members that have died from Cancer.
I remember having this conversion around Cancer treatment.
I have known 3 people that have had chemotherapy went into remission, 6 months later cancer is back, 24 months later all three are dead.
I have no doubt in my mind that the cause of Cancer in all three was more life style related, these people spent their entire lives on what many would call a very unhealthy lifestyle, booze, fags, bad diet etc etc.....
In my own head I thought was it any wonder and was no surprise...
You can only poison the body for so long before the body reacts!
I look at the amount of money that is spent trying to come up with a magic pill then I look at the amount of time and money that is spent trying to determine what in a persons lifestyle might be killing them.
If medicine is not profitable it is usually deemed pseudoscience or homeopathic or holistic or as my doctor once told me simply not recognised by the HSC.
It is not to say research is not important and we need to find new and effective ways of tackling diseases but it is worrying that large Pharmaceutical companies appear to drive the direction of all this research and the lengths they will go to, to protect what is deemed as the excepted medical explanation and treatment.
Seems to me at least your post is more about the drug companies and conspiracy surrounding them in general, and the idea of treating symptoms vs illness. Sorry to hear about your family and friends with cancer who passed away.
Can't say much about the pharma companies other than if I have a headache and I take a painkiller and the headache is gone that's great. I tend to not expect them to treat the cause as it can be so many things. So ill count myself out of this thread.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Mod: Posts moved from 2014 stats thread
I have looked at a few documentaries around HIV and Aids as I never really knew anything about it.
But I found it very interesting that there is still some debate on whether HIV is actually a cause of AIDS.
I knew little to nothing about this so figured yes this must of been proven???
My understanding is this.
When infected with HIV like any other retrovirus most people will develop a flu in some cases a rash until their immune system creates anti-bodies.
When you are tested for HIV you are not tested for the virus but tested to see if your body has any of these anti-bodies, if yes then you will test positive.
There currently is an argument that HIV could not and does not effect enough T-Cells to bring on the onset of AIDS and I think this is still a point of contention. HIVE will effect 1 in 10,000 T-Cells nothing that would have any significant impact on the immune system.
The argument that HIV does cause AIDS has not (to my knowledge) answered this question, what it looks at is the number anti-bodies in the body to the HIV virus and how it can give some indication to when someone might develop AIDS.
Back in the 1980s a lot of healthy men who tested HIV+ where given AZT life expectancy was less than 1 year.
Now if you test HIV positive they say you could go 10 / 15 years + without any symptoms.
I do not think it is any secret that AZT was toxic to the body and effectively caused AIDS by destroying the immune system.
It was a drug originally designed for cancer patients but was found too toxic for human use but the AIDS scare of the 1980s meant it was fast tracked for human trials looking back it was nuts!
A life time of anti viral's and other medication could equally have a negative impact on the immune system so it becomes difficult to distinguish what causes AIDS.
I am somewhat skeptical to what big pharmaceutical companies say about HIV.
HIV is still very much in various minority groups.
If your immune system is compromised due to a life time of various illnesses and you die of pneumonia and are HIV negative then you died of pneumonia.
If you are HIV positive then you died of AIDS.
AIDS is very much a real thing but there is still some debate on whether HIV is really the cause.
Today we see people with HIV that do not fall into the minority groups i.e. Gay men and drug users, I think in American these comprised almost 90% of people infected with HIV.
You will find that more and more people are living with HIV who will never develop AIDS, the argument is that new anti-viral drugs are getting better meaning HIV will remain dormant in the host body for longer, Magic Johnston has had HIV for 22 years and never developed AIDS.
It is interesting to say the least and something people need to educate themselves about, and this does not just mean to believe everything that we are being told!
I am not getting what your overall point is? Are you suggesting that only gay men get AIDS? Like AIDS is some sort of gay plague?It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
To be brutally honest I believe the OP is using a veneer of reasonability to cover his attempts to promote conspiracy theory ideas in the minds of the uninformed.
If you don't trust the honesty of those who are educated in specialised subjects, then you become at risk of dislocating entirely from scientifically observable facts.
If anyone is *that* concerned whether HIV really causes AIDS, then become a properly qualified virologist. Same goes for if you think the moon landing was faked. Science is all about testing things out. Not so much about message board sophistry.0 -
To be brutally honest I believe the OP is using a veneer of reasonability to cover his attempts to promote conspiracy theory ideas in the minds of the uninformed.
If you don't trust the honesty of those who are educated in specialised subjects, then you become at risk of dislocating entirely from scientifically observable facts.
If anyone is *that* concerned whether HIV really causes AIDS, then become a properly qualified virologist. Same goes for if you think the moon landing was faked. Science is all about testing things out. Not so much about message board sophistry.
People are entitled to disagree with the consensus opinion on HIV. The OP is merely looking for a debate.0 -
hotmail.com wrote: »People are entitled to disagree with the consensus opinion on HIV. The OP is merely looking for a debate.
People can have whatever opinions they want. Theres a couple of issues though. The overwhelming scientific evidences proves the op wrong. Also the theories put forward by the op can have very dangerous effects such as seen in South Africa. Really though what kind of "debate" are we talking about here? A veiled attack on gay mens lifestyles?It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
The OP stinks of some sort of anti-vaxxer style conspiracy, pretty crazy to think people would questions the stacks of data from independent sources as to what HIV is and what it does and what AIDS is in regards to HIV.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »If transmitted sexually a question was asked why did we not see as many cases in females?
There are more women with HIV than you'd think, but if you think about it, most heterosexuals who practice sex with their partner will use condoms primarily to avoid pregnancy, and homosexual women don't exchange affected fluids as easily.
Interesting point made here by CDC:
"The risk of getting HIV during vaginal sex without a condom or other protection such as PrEP is much higher for women than it is for men, and anal sex without a condom or PrEP is riskier for women than vaginal sex without a condom or PrEP. More than 20% of women aged 20 to 39 who responded to a national survey reported anal sex in the past year."0 -
wonderfulname wrote: »If you have issues with a thread REPORT, don't make on thread comments
Posts deleted, muckraker banned, don't feed the trolls!0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »I am not getting what your overall point is? Are you suggesting that only gay men get AIDS? Like AIDS is some sort of gay plague?
Yeah that's what I am saying :rolleyes:
My post is does HIV cause AIDS and specifically how did this get proven.
As I say my education on this will little to none, HIV causes AIDS I saw it on the TV. But now when I look at it the science around the discovery seems to be somewhat ambiguous.0 -
To be brutally honest I believe the OP is using a veneer of reasonability to cover his attempts to promote conspiracy theory ideas in the minds of the uninformed.
If you don't trust the honesty of those who are educated in specialised subjects, then you become at risk of dislocating entirely from scientifically observable facts.
If anyone is *that* concerned whether HIV really causes AIDS, then become a properly qualified virologist. Same goes for if you think the moon landing was faked. Science is all about testing things out. Not so much about message board sophistry.
Are you informed?
Look you can entertain your own ideas or conspiracy theories with regards my intentions if you like, be huge waste of everyone’s time.
As I already stated, I knew little to nothing about this subject other than what I was taught in school and from what I’ve seen on TV.
To my knowledge I do not know anyone that is HIV positive or has AIDS.
It was only after watching a documentary which questions what the current research is saying and what has been proven did I question the subject matter.
So you are saying to try and understand this better you suggest people become a properly qualified virologist?
Maybe before I make my breakfast I should train to become a chef?
Or when I change the oil in my car I should really train to become a mechanic?
Oh but I am a University qualified Scientist so I do know what is involved in publishing a paper and as you say “ Testing things out”.
I find the most ill-informed are people who really question nothing and accept everything, with people like that we would not sail to the ends of the earth due to the fear of falling off the side!
HIV may well be the cause of AIDS I am more interested in how this conclusion was derived and looking at other qualified experts in this field who disagree with this conclusions does anything they have said carry any weight, if so why? If not why not?0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »People can have whatever opinions they want. Theres a couple of issues though. The overwhelming scientific evidences proves the op wrong. Also the theories put forward by the op can have very dangerous effects such as seen in South Africa. Really though what kind of "debate" are we talking about here? A veiled attack on gay mens lifestyles?
You seem to have an axe to grind?
Science is not political but I see you are trying to make it political, events in South Africa are of no concern to me and too put it bluntly I don’t care.
I care not for the sexual orientation of people or whether they engage in same sex, opposite sex, fruit, vegetable or animal.
But I do find it funny the minute a question around lifestyle is asked you somehow construe this as an attack? Please explain?
You remind me of a guy I met is a shop once.
He was drunk and shop owner phoned the cops as he just seemed to be wandering around.
Cops land and ask him was he buying anything he said he was just looking so the cops asked him to leave (This was petrol station at 2am)
At which point he went nuts started shouting he was being discriminated against for being Gay!0 -
There are more women with HIV than you'd think, but if you think about it, most heterosexuals who practice sex with their partner will use condoms primarily to avoid pregnancy, and homosexual women don't exchange affected fluids as easily.
Maybe so, what are the numbers like? How many women have died from AIDS? (I actually do not know)
Also.
So you are saying there are more Gay people practicing unsafe sex than Straight couples?
Let's considering being Gay you are very much a minority.
Let's say being Gay is 1 in 10 people and lets say half of them are practice safe sex so that's 1 in every 20 gay person that is putting themselves at risk.
That means if you have 20 straight individuals that 19 of them would need to be practicing safe sex for the numbers to grow at a compatible level.
But it's not that simple!
My understanding is HIV is not that easy to catch.
Sexually transmitting the virus even more so.
My understanding is receiving anal sex is the activity that puts any man or women at the most risk.
It is the easiest way for the virus to enter the blood stream.
There are stats out there somewhere like you have a 1 in N chance by doing etc... I am not entirely sure how they come up with these numbers.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You seem to have an axe to grind?
Science is not political but I see you are trying to make it political, events in South Africa are of no concern to me and too put it bluntly I don’t care.
I care not for the sexual orientation of people or whether they engage in same sex, opposite sex, fruit, vegetable or animal.
But I do find it funny the minute a question around lifestyle is asked you somehow construe this as an attack? Please explain?
You remind me of a guy I met is a shop once.
He was drunk and shop owner phoned the cops as he just seemed to be wandering around.
Cops land and ask him was he buying anything he said he was just looking so the cops asked him to leave (This was petrol station at 2am)
At which point he went nuts started shouting he was being discriminated against for being Gay!
Right ok so the fact that hundreds of thousands of people died prematurely in South Africa because of AIDS denialist policies is completely of no concern to you. Grand so. You keep asserting dangerous policies that cause death
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?referrer=
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/26/aids-south-africa
http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/legitimate-rape-todd-akin-and-other-politicians-who-confuse-science/slide/questioning-the-origin-of-aids/It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »Right ok so the fact that hundreds of thousands of people died prematurely in South Africa because of AIDS denialist policies is completely of no concern to you. Grand so. You keep asserting dangerous policies that cause death
You're wasting your time!
I am not sure you are getting this, you might need to get off your pulpit and let the red mist settle!
I care not for policy or for what a country decides to do based on what they believe.
85% of the population believe in a god, there is no science that can back up this assumption but never the less people believe in magic!
HIV maybe the cause AIDS, I am asking what evidence do we have that HIV is the cause of AIDS and of these so called "denialists" which there appears to be many is there any weight to what they are saying?
Listening to a number of scientists on the subject some are saying although they would not say HIV is not 'a' cause of AIDS they have stressed a lot of the data is very misleading and no coherent and scientific study has been carried out that definitively shows HIV is the cause despite being the most studied syndrome/disease ever....
Let me stress this again, political ramifications, what a country decides to do with this doubt is of no concern to what I am asking...0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
Let me stress this again, political ramifications, what a country decides to do with this doubt is of no concern to what I am asking...
You can stress it all you like but the truth is that we have seen the catatstrophic consequences of denialism and they are of major concern.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
Joeytheparrot wrote: »You can stress it all you like but the truth is that we have seen the catatstrophic consequences of denialism and they are of major concern.
And the sky is blue.
Definition of Science:
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
What we think we know is always being challenged and always should be else we would never get too far!
The terms denialist is being used in the same manner religion uses terms like "non believer" all logic and intelligent reasoning is lost.
I can look at the study you posted it and think, well 300,000 people died due to not getting anti viral drugs it's pretty comprehensive so that's it then it's proven!
Even if anti viral drugs helps reduce the spread of HIV or even if it prolongs the life expectancy of someone with AIDS this in itself is not enough evidence to say well "HIV definitely is the cause of AIDS!"
Some might read it and think these stats are based on people they think they "could" of helped. And you could look at the stats around the 60,000 children born into HIV and argue that men and women on strong anti-viral meds could of been less likely to become pregnant in the first place so that can skew figures, or that the author of the paper George R. Seage has been awarded over 135 million in funding around his research into HIV so it could be argued the study is looking at an assumed cause first and working it's way back... But maybe his research is spot and this is a clear indication that HIV is the cause or at very least the a major reason why people develop AIDS.0 -
Just on the flip side of any argument as I have been watching a few documentaries in the debunking of Myths around HIV and AIDS.
I think the lack of trust in Pharmaceutical companies is somewhat responsible for peoples antitrust in the accepted treatments.
ART's seem to be effective at different stages whereas in the early days of HIV AZT trails appear to have been toxic and carried out on HIV+ patients who where asymptomatic albeit I see little information where the Pharmaceutical companies actually come and admit any liability for poisoning these people.
From a scientific point of view listening to virologist (James Gurney) who talks in some details about how the HIV virus works talks about how it infects the body.
In short:
The HIV virus will attach itself to CD4+ receptor then it will need to attach to a secondary receptor usually CRC5 or in some cases CXCR4 once it attaches to the secondary receptor it folds back on itself pulling the cell together and effectively infecting the cell with the HIV virus.
People with no CRC5 or low CRC5 are usually seen as HIV resistant.
There is a whole process of then how it changes DNA/RNA and attaches itself to the host DNA.
What is interesting from this is knowing when the virus becomes active.
I think some of the ambiguity around this is perhaps what is causing some differences of opinion around the HIV virus.
The virologist does say there is less known about when or how the virus becomes active once infected and this is the reason why some people are asymptomatic for long periods of time.
I think there are some questions still be be answered around the HIV virus and at what point does it get going in playing havoc in the body, I have looked at a few things but I still do not know exactly how it decimates the T-Cells in the body.
People like Peter Duesberg will argue little to no evidence has been given to show how it does this.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »And the sky is blue.
Definition of Science:
I'm not sure why you keep referring to "science" - AIDS denialism is nonsense dressed up as scienceIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »I'm not sure why you keep referring to "science" - AIDS denialism is nonsense dressed up as science
Because I am a Scientist granted a completely different field.
I find the subject matter interesting I am trying to objectively look at a number of different view opinions and what science has actually proven with regards the HIV virus.
You really have added nothing intellectual to this thread.
I was listening to the radio this morning then this came on
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33542749
An 18-year-old French woman is in remission from HIV - despite not having taken any drugs against the virus for 12 years..
Weird hey?0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »I'm not sure why you keep referring to "science" - AIDS denialism is nonsense dressed up as science
Just to drive my point home.
It seems to be the case if you question something that does not fall into popular opinion or out of the current understanding then certain words get banted about!
Conspiracy theory's, denialism, nut-job (I said this)...
Are there people who believe in complete nonsense? Of course there is! People believe all sorts of crap without question.
But there is also people who deliberately go out there way to discredit people even if they are asking somewhat intelligent questions.
It seems even if you ask a question about evidence where the consensus is set then it turns into a joke... HIV causes AIDS... Are we sure? Ohhh look another denialist nutjob!
Peter Duesberg maybe incorrect in his assumptions most scientists can only ever be proven wrong that is the nature of any hypothesis, but the guy still holds a PHd in Chemistry and has devoted his career to Science much of which has been spent at Berkeley University, he was doing this even before the HIV virus was identified.
This idea that because he has been labelled a "denialist" you then have to completely ignore everything he says is to quote a phrase "Throwing the baby out with the bath water"...
You seem to want to discuss the ramifications of someone with his credentials saying "HIV is not the cause of AIDS"...
That is a different thread, but in science it is important to look all the alternative hypothesis.
I often ask religious people "What if God doesn't exist?" Many get very upset that I could even propose the question.0 -
So now it's fair game to patronise posters who go with the overwhelming consensus on HIV/AIDS? The story you posted is nothing groundbreaking - some rare cases show that people have either a natural immunity to the virus or that all the variables of taking the drugs at a certain time was able to prevent further growth. I have no idea what you are trying to prove but what does denying a virus/syndrome real people live through actually do to help anyone? Very concerning that people would believe this stuff
By the way, saying you are a scientist (and in another field) and expecting to suddenly be infallible is just showing you up.0 -
Advertisement
-
So now it's fair game to patronise posters who go with the overwhelming consensus on HIV/AIDS? The story you posted is nothing groundbreaking - some rare cases show that people have either a natural immunity to the virus or that all the variables of taking the drugs at a certain time was able to prevent further growth. I have no idea what you are trying to prove but what does denying a virus/syndrome real people live through actually do to help anyone? Very concerning that people would believe this stuff
By the way, saying you are a scientist (and in another field) and expecting to suddenly be infallible is just showing you up.
I am not sure you are being deliberately obtuse or being selective to make a pointless point?
The poster originally started on some crusade that my intention was to bash gay men then jumped to events in South Africa, perhaps some emotional response but really had nothing to do with what was being asked.
Also let's be careful with what is actually being said.
Who is denying a real virus or syndrome?
You are doing exactly what I posted about in the last post, you get hold of a word like denialist and run with it and never really look at what has been said.
When I look at some of these "denialists" I see that most of then do not deny HIV exists or that AIDS exists or that they are connected but some question the studies that have been carried out that show how HIV progresses to AIDS.
You say.
"Some rare cases show that people have either a natural immunity to the virus or that all the variables of taking the drugs at a certain time was able to prevent further growth..."
Really?
You are making a statement here statements that experts in the field do not even make.
If looking into this has shown me anything there is still a lot unknown about how and why this virus seems to act differently.
The BBC news report that was reported yesterday says.
"It is the world's first report of long-term remission from HIV in a child."
Ground breaking.
"Experts say big studies are needed to determine why some patients can continue to control the virus after stopping treatment."
So experts say more studies are needed, but sure they can just ask you as you seem to know all about it... Some people are just immune and the use of drugs can stop growth - Why do you mean by growth explain this? What grows?
"With this first, highly documented case of this young woman, we provide the proof of concept that long-term remission is possible in children, as in adults."
Pretty ground breaking I would of thought.
As for your last comment.
My stance really is that we do not have all the information on what HIV and AIDS is and that what people think they know about HIV and AIDS is perhaps skewed.
Why you think this can be construed as thinking I am infallible makes me question your ability to comprehend basic English.
I don't know all there is to know about this, I look at papers and reports and in areas I am seeing some conflicting ideas around the "facts".0 -
From the Charter:
10. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e. constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.
This is less a discussion than a shouting match, ShowMeTheCash you have shown little interest in learning, more in repeating your initial position.
This thread has run it's course.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement