HIV = AIDS - Fact Or Fraud?

Oracle

I've been watching this video about AIDS, it presents some interesting and challenging ideas about AIDS; its' origins, causes and treatment.

For the most part it made sense to me; almost every idea proposed in the video seems reasonable and at the very least, worthy of further research. The scientist Peter Duesberg, gives his opinions, along with other contributors who are opposed to the current thinking on AIDS.

I found one aspect of this film very disappointing, not the subject matter itself but the ending credits that say it was made in 1996; if so then 10 years on there's still no cure. To my mind it adds more crediblity to the ideas proposed in the film; why keep doing the same things based on the same theories if you're getting no results?

Just to let you know this video is almost 2 hours long. It can be medically technical at times, although I found it worth watching until the end: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563

Boston

Oracle wrote:

Iwhy keep doing the same things based on the same theories if you're getting no results?

When Aids first hit, people where dying relatively quickly in there thousands/hundreds of thousands. Now you can live for decades with HIV and may never develope AIDS. So there has been some results. Things like AIDS arn't cured quickly.

Stark

Moved to Conspiracy theories.

Lemming

To answer the thread heading, asking the correct question might be a better place to start considering HIV is not AIDS. Nor is AIDS HIV.

Statements like "HIV == teh AIDS" do nothign for any sort of credible foundation on which to have a realistic debate. It's like saying an apple is an orange because it has a similar shape (which is admittedly also a poor analogy since HIV and AIDS are not even remotely similar. Look at the names. One is a syndrome, the other a virus. Go figure ... )

aidan_walsh

To answer the thread heading, asking the correct question might be a better place to start considering HIV is not AIDS. Nor is AIDS HIV.

I don't think the OP is deliberatly trying to be misleading. The thread title is the name of the video.

mike65

Constipation Theories? Not the best home for this thread I'd say.

Mike.

Nevyn

You get infected with hiv whichstops your body from producing the T cells needed to fight off infection.
When the number of these cells is reduced to a level where your immune system is conprimised and can not fight back then you have AIDS.

monkeyfudge

Is it even possible to cure any virus?

I thought you can only vacinate or treat the symptoms.

The common cold is still with us, so it's a bit much to expect HIV to have been cured.

Stark

No, I don't think there's ever been a cure found for a virus other than helping the body's own immune system do the work. Of all the known viruses, I think HIV is the one that's closest to a cure.

Stark

If it's not the people with HIV getting AIDS, then who's getting AIDS?

How many incidents of AIDS have there been in HIV-negative people?

Aoife-FM104

LiouVille wrote:

When Aids first hit, people where dying relatively quickly in there thousands/hundreds of thousands. Now you can live for decades with HIV and may never develope AIDS. So there has been some results. Things like AIDS arn't cured quickly.

The reason people used to die so quickly was because they were being given the anti-cancer drugs (up until the 70's we thought cancer was a virus.) These drugs have been proven to be lethal.

Recently, AZT, the main anti-HIV drug, has been proven to be -
a. totally ineffective
b. extremely toxic

Research this yourself. Don't believe the lazy journalism you read in the newspapers. thebody.com is sponsored by the drug companies, so more bull**** there too. Stick to the public medicine databases.

Zillah

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

You need blood contact to get infected (it's a myth that you can catch HIV from vaginal sex.)

Thats absolute crap and you better have some damn good references to back up such an idiotic and irresponsible claim. I'm reporting that post and reccomending it be edited unless/until you can prove what you've just said.

Aoife-FM104

Stark wrote:

If it's not the people with HIV getting AIDS, then who's getting AIDS?

How many incidents of AIDS have there been in HIV-negative people?

AIDS is t-cell count less than 200, plus a common infection like pneumonia, plus a HIV+ antibody test result.

If you get a t-cell count less than 200, plus a common infection like pneumonia without the HIV+ test, then you just have pneumonia.

Seems strange?

Stark

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

Recently, AZT, the main anti-HIV drug, has been proven to be -
a. totally ineffective
b. extremely toxic

If that's the case, it's something that a person should discuss with their doctor.

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

AIDS is t-cell count less than 200, plus a common infection like pneumonia, plus a HIV+ antibody test result.

If you get a t-cell count less than 200, plus a common infection like pneumonia without the HIV+ test, then you just have pneumonia.

Seems strange?

So AIDS is defined as the severe effects of HIV and if you have an impaired immune system that's not caused by HIV, then it's not considered AIDS. So how does that disprove HIV->AIDS?

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

You need blood contact to get infected (it's a myth that you can catch HIV from vaginal sex.)

Like Zillah said, absolute crap. What happens when a woman has tiny cuts?

Aoife-FM104

Zillah wrote:

Thats absolute crap and you better have some damn good references to back up such an idiotic and irresponsible claim. I'm reporting that post and reccomending it be edited unless/until you can prove what you've just said.

Search for the padian study. If you had read my post rather than closing your eyes and blindly sticking to your "facts" you'd see I gave proof.

Read the padian study and then get back to me.

Aoife-FM104

Stark wrote:

So how does that disprove HIV->AIDS?

I'm not saying definitivily HIV or AIDS don't exist. I'm just saying there is way more to this story than the media tells you. I'm saying we should question the "facts" because there's serious holes.

I'm open to HIV causing AIDS, and also to HIV and AIDS being bull****. I'm open to both.

Stark wrote:

Like Zillah said, absolute crap. What happens when a woman has tiny cuts?

Yes I said direct blood contact is how it is transmitted. But, again, read the padian study. It was a 10 year study. No transmission of HIV.

billy the squid

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

I know a lot about this subject.

In summary -

HIV tests only test for HIV anti-bodies. No "HIV Virus" has ever been found (every "photo" has been proven false.) You can get a false positive for all kinds of reasons.

People who do not take the anti-HIV drugs generally don't die.

You need blood contact to get infected (it's a myth that you can catch HIV from vaginal sex.)

It is a multi-factored infection. This is why Africa have such large problems and Europe doesn't.

The 10 year paedian study where hundreds of couples were monitored (1 HIV+/1 HIV-). There were ZERO cases of both partners becoming infected.

In summary, we know hardly anything about what is really going on, and it is nearly impossible to catch.

AIDS is big business, scientists are notoriously close minded and "afraid" to speak out against the general consensus. Too many people have their reputations on the line, too many businesses have billions on the line. No one will admit they have half the facts wrong.

I could go on forever.

and your proof of this is?

Considering the seriousness of your claim, a failure to provide solid proof will be dealt with severely.

billy the squid

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

Search for the padian study. If you had read my post rather than closing your eyes and blindly sticking to your "facts" you'd see I gave proof.

Read the padian study and then get back to me.

I have warned another user about telling people to google stuff rather than providing the evidence themselves.

Aoife-FM104

OK I'm having to repeat myself a lot here.

1. Read the padian study. Do a google search for it. It is a 10 year study which proved HIV cannot be passed through sexual contact. It is a full scientific study, not some hocus pocus nonsense.

2. The only people who don't think HIV is a multifactored disease is the media. Talk to any independent HIV experts (who do not get their funding from HIV drug companies) and they will tell you this. This is the reason Africa has such a large problem (malnutrition, indoor fires, reusing needles in hospitals, outdated HIV tests) and Europe doesn't.

3. AIDS is big business. You cannot deny that.

4. HIV test only test for HIV anti-bodies. This is fact. No one has ever been able to isolate the HIV virus. This is fact.

5. Considering they just realised AZT, THE MAIN ANTI-HIV DRUG, is completely ineffective and extremely toxic, people who DID NOT take this drug would not have died.

All of the above is easily googled. www.pubmed.org has lots of the above too.

EDIT: just saw your no googling thing. I will get direct links tomorrow. I need to go offline. If you have time yourself, do a quick google and you will see.

Zillah

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

Read the padian study and then get back to me.

Yes, here's the study:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/146/4/350

And heres an analysis:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/4/350

Overall, 68 (19%) of the 360 female partners of HIV-infected men and two (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected women were infected.

So no, you're talking nonesense. Its known that there are small amounts of blood during normal vaginal sex, and by your own admission blood transmits it.

Aoife-FM104

That's incorrect. I will get the original study tomorrow. Have to go offline!!

I have a quick quote from the original author of the paper -

We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up. The longest duration of follow-up was 12 visits (6 years). We observed no seroconversion [to HIV positive] after entry into the study.

But I promise I will follow this up for you tomorrow.

Zillah

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

That's incorrect.

Oh.

It must have been the other ten year HIV infection study by a different Padian et al.

I greatly look forward to your defense of this position.

Oh, and you might like this, too: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

fasterkitten

Lemming wrote:

To answer the thread heading, asking the correct question might be a better place to start considering HIV is not AIDS. Nor is AIDS HIV.

Statements like "HIV == teh AIDS" do nothign for any sort of credible foundation on which to have a realistic debate. It's like saying an apple is an orange because it has a similar shape (which is admittedly also a poor analogy since HIV and AIDS are not even remotely similar. Look at the names. One is a syndrome, the other a virus. Go figure ... )

AIDS isn't strictly a syndrome

Lemming

fasterkitten wrote:

AIDS isn't strictly a syndrome

Well, no, you're quite right. I was more tryign to make the point that HIV and AIDS are not the same thing. You don't "catch" AIDS. You catch HIV. It's probably better to think of AIDS (in lay terms for explanation purposes at least) as a 'classification' of HIV sufferer whose ability to fight infection has plummetted into the realms of high-risk mortality.

miju

god knows why this threas was moved here , whipped over to another forum

Jimoslimos

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

3. AIDS is big business. You cannot deny that.

I wouldn't say so. For most drug companies it makes more sense to research and develop treatments against conditions suffed in richer western countries, i.e. diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

4. HIV test only test for HIV anti-bodies. This is fact. No one has ever been able to isolate the HIV virus. This is fact.

Not true, many HIV tests test for both antibody and antigen (generally viral protein/coat)

Talliesin

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

I'm open to HIV causing AIDS, and also to HIV and AIDS being bull****. I'm open to both.

No, you see those of us who are open to both look at all the evidence, not just one study.

Some of us remember the days before the current treatments.

Some of the studies done are done in areas where there is little or no treatements available of any kind.

It is going with good principles of scientific investigation to allow for the possibility that link between HIV and AIDS is not causal - agnostic science should always be prepared to scrap current hypotheses for new ones. This does not entail dropping a large body of evidence from many different types of study just because one study seems to say different.

The hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is sound. For most of us it's just a matter that HIV causes AIDS, end of story. No hypothesis is 100% in science, but in our lifestyle choices we can do well in avoiding AIDS by not exposing ourselves to HIV.

AIDS is big business, there isn't a disease that isn't (hey, I'm no fan of the drug companies, but I sure as hell don't want to go back to the days when no-one could be bothered to invest in researching "GRID" as it was known). If anything this means that if the link between HIV and AIDS isn't as currently understood then there are businesses with the potential to win first-innovator advantages in the market.

When there's bad **** happening it is indeed a good idea to look at where the money goes, but it isn't always a simple matter of the people making the most money being to blame.

bonkey

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

2. The only people who don't think HIV is a multifactored disease is the media.

Thats simply not true. There are no shortage of medically-qualified people who also subscribe to this point of view. One can claim they're wrong, but claiming they don't exist would be difficult.

1. Read the padian study.

No.

You argued in point 2 (I know I'm taking these out of order) that the only people to think its not a multifactored disease is the media. Therefore, I can read any medical study on the disease and expect to find results consistent with your position.

I'll allow that results funded by major drug companies should be excluded, but unless I have the freedom to read any study, then your claims of unanimity of agreement are bogus.

3. AIDS is big business. You cannot deny that.

Your point being?

The use of casts to fix broken bones is big business.
The use of paracetamol to cure headaches is big business.
The use of antibiotics to fight off virtually any infection is big business.

Am I to take it that this means that casts don't actually help broken bones heal, that paracetamol isn't a pain killer and that antibiotics are a scam?

Indeed, I'm hard-pushed to think of an aspect of medicine that isn't big business. Does this mean its all a scam?

4. HIV test only test for HIV anti-bodies. This is fact. No one has ever been able to isolate the HIV virus. This is fact.

At best, its a highly disputed fact.

Those who issued the challenge deny that its ever been satisfied. Those who've answered the challenge argue that it has. THe link I will supply below also argues that it has.

To be honest, claiming it as a fact is a bit like claiming that its a fact that 757 impacts couldn't have resulted in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and that no-one has proven otherwise.

5. Considering they just realised AZT, THE MAIN ANTI-HIV DRUG, is completely ineffective and extremely toxic, people who DID NOT take this drug would not have died.

More-or-less correct, but misleading. See the link below.

www.pubmed.org has lots of the above too.

Its interesting that you should quote this site to back up your argument.

This is from a comparable* source and argues that the evidence is there and that its not in question in any significant way at all.

* Comparable in the sense that both are NIH-related websites.

from a post that no longer appears to be in the thread wrote:

In summary, we know hardly anything about what is really going on,

This doesn't seem to be the summary of your claims at all. You're claiming that we know a hell of a lot of things for a fact, and that another large set of claims are unequivocably wrong.

Other than your insistence that you're not saying AIDS and HIV are or aren't related, in fact, there seems to be nothing that you're not presenting as unequivocal fact. And you tell us to believe you cause you know this stuff.

So which is it? Should we believe you that these things are known as fact, or should we believe you that virtually nothing is known as fact?

Emerson

Here's what some I met in the alternative AIDs hypothesis group theorised as the cause to me whilst I was in California last year:

The disease affects mainly gay men, drug users and the malnourished of Africa.

For the average westerner:
You spend every other night out all night and get little sleep over many years. You have a diet of fast food, drink excessively, use recreational drugs, use poppers (common in the gay community.. these destroy the immune system more than all). Your immune system is suppressed and you are open to infections.. You sleep around and begin to feel anxious as you know that this is risky.

You go to an STD clinic
The test comes back and you have bad t-cell counts due to your lifestyle, and as a result of this tcell imbalance, your system has been weakened and you have acquired many common passenger viruses and bacteria during this duration. The assumption is made from your high antibody response to these infections that you have a HIV infection. This prognosis implies to you that you are going to die in the next 10 years.
Your body is intensively flooded with adrenaline and fear hormones. This is unlike any other incident of fear. It has no known solution and thus is chronic and never ceasing. From the moment you wake up to the moment you go asleep. Your immune system is now on it's knees.

You spend the next week vomiting with fear. You eat, sleep and drink fear.
You return to the doctors and get another test.
Unsurprisingly, your T-Cell count is down again.

You are in a state of bolstered fear. You are led to believe you are in a downward spiral. Who are you to argue? You've started to be severely affected by things like colds and cold sores. You fear more. You are led to believe these are symptoms of one virus (HIV) and not fear induced suppressed immunity.

You are eventually advised to go on an anti-retro virus drug called AZT or a concoction of various similar man made chemicals. These are highly damaging to the body.
These drugs influence your blood test results positively. But you feel sick. You know you are not well.
The downward spiral accelerates rapidly.

In Africa:
People are so chronically malnourished, they are vulnerable to all infections in the same way as immune system abusers in the west are. It is interesting that Africa had a high rate of TB before, but now it is classified as AIDs related TB.

In drug users:
Clearly, drug use destroys a persons immune system. In addition, shared needles leave them open to a variety of infections.

Gallo wanted to link cancers to retro viruses for years and deeply wished for his area of expertise to become relevant and make his buck.
People wanted to hear a single cause of aids, not that it was self inflicted. This single cause was said to have a vacine within 2 years. People rejoiced in the idea. The usual vetting methods of new theories was bypassed.

abetarrush

well AIDs means
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

and HIV means
Human Immunodeficiency Virus

They ARE too ocmpletely different viruses, but I think they do the same thing, and AIDs acts a hell of a lot faster than HIV

HIV is like a backdoor for any infection, and anything like a cold is bad

AIDs is the same, but more, as u can develop tumors n all

Zillah

abetarrush wrote:

well AIDs means
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

and HIV means
Human Immunodeficiency Virus

They ARE too ocmpletely different viruses, but I think they do the same thing, and AIDs acts a hell of a lot faster than HIV

HIV is like a backdoor for any infection, and anything like a cold is bad

AIDs is the same, but more, as u can develop tumors n all

No. HIV is a viral infection. AIDS is a severe symptom of that infection. One cannot catch AIDS, one catches HIV which then progresses to AIDS. If you get infected by someone who has AIDs, you've been infected with HIV.

Emerson wrote:

Here's what some I met in the alternative AIDs hypothesis group theorised as the cause to me whilst I was in California last year:
<snip>

Yes thats all very nice but whats the point? Its clearly unscientific musings that have no research or experimentation to support them.


<not at anyone in particular>
This is really starting to get ridiculous. Could people please check their info before they go presenting their notions as fact on such a serious issue?

Emerson

Just because those "in the know" said the world was flat doesn't mean you can't try and explain why you think from what you've observed that it's actually round.

People should go and watch the above video for themselves.
Until I see a thorough rebutal on this video, I will not be happy. I've not seen anything very substantial in this thread to rebuke it. The content of this video puts into question everything we have been led to believe.

Chemical, drugs and food companies profit on inconclusiveness and the public's ignorance consistently.

Educate yourself.. but not from company press releases. Follow the money trail on information and research studies for an indication on what to believe and why.

Stark

In my alternative AIDS hypothesis class, we learned that ****ing a virgin could cure you of AIDS. It challenged conventional beliefs and was something worth thinking about.

oleras

Emerson wrote:

Just because those "in the know" said the world was flat .

never happened, was never said......urban myth.

Oracle

There's millions being spent on AIDS research, by national governments and private organisations; it's unbelievable if, what the video says is true, that no money has been spent investigating Duesbergs' proposals. If only to vindicate their own hypothesis the AIDS research establishment should fund research into Duesbergs' ideas. Funds should be given to this scientist as a matter of urgency to allow him do to his research. This could have been done ten years ago; that's plenty of time to carry out wide-scale, longitudinal epidemiological studies (Long term studies, stretching over several years, that research the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population.) These studies would have shown conclusively if this hypothesis has a basis or not. It's still not to late to do them.

Peter Duesberg is professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. This is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, with a reputation for innovation and leading-edge scientific discoveries. Some of this university’s achievements include the isolation of the human polio virus and eighteen members of the Berkeley faculty have been awarded Nobel Prizes. I noticed all the other scientists contributing to the video are over the age of 50; these men are not recent science graduates, looking to make a name for themselves. They're experienced and reputable scientists who know what they're talking about and what they’re saying is clear and unambiguous.

The most disturbing thing about this video is the feeling it could have been made yesterday, such is the lack of progress in this area. We’re still talking about facts that don’t add up about the HIV virus and AIDS, still talking about a not yet researched alternative hypothesis, still talking about the only available treatment being AZT and tragically, still talking about thousands dying annually, with gay men being hugely over represented in the statistics.

All of this leads to some very important questions; why the lack of action in researching this plausible and well-founded hypothesis emanating from a very reputable source? What’s there to be afraid of, what’s there to lose? And who’s making the decisions about were the funding should go?

DrIndy

abetarrush wrote:

well AIDs means
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

and HIV means
Human Immunodeficiency Virus

They ARE too ocmpletely different viruses, but I think they do the same thing, and AIDs acts a hell of a lot faster than HIV

HIV is like a backdoor for any infection, and anything like a cold is bad

AIDs is the same, but more, as u can develop tumors n all

Good Lord! No, no, no.

HIV or human immunodeficiency virus is the infection, it enters the blood stream and is indeed a very fragile virus and difficult to transmit (I am much more concerned I will catch Hepatitis C than HIV from my patients)

Within about 6 weeks, people will seroconvert or not after the initial infection. People get a flulike illness and swollen glands and feel really rotten for a couple of weeks. The virus attacks CD4 T-Cells which are specialised immuno-activating cells which recognise other infections and mount an immune response. These may not initially drop in the first stage of the infection.

When the body mounts an immune response to HIV, the HIV antigens are present in the blood and the HIV antibody are also present, but the problem is the very CD4 cells that fight off infection (including HIV) are specifically targetted by HIV so the greater the infection, the less able the immune system is to fight it off. At this stage HIV antigen is HIGH

Subsequently people enter the latent stage where HIV hides in the dendritic cells of the lymphnodes and other places. Virus particles are shed and smoulder on the infection, but are kept in check by the immune system. at this stage HIV antigen is LOW but HIV antibody is HIGH

Subsequently for an unknown reason, years afterwards, the infection reoccurs. No one knows why some people can have latent HIV for years and others for decades. This reactivation is called AIDS - or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, where the immune cells are depleted (specifically CD4 cells) and the body cannot mount a normal immune response.

At this stage CD4 count is LOW, HIV antigen is HIGH and HIV antibody may be LOW. The level of the infection depends on amount of CD4 cells and HIV particle load.

As the CD4 count drops, people get strange and unusual infections or normal infections in a strange and unusual way as the immune system does not work well. Infections that are impossible to get in a normal person such as PCP or toxoplasmosis become more common as well as fungal infections such as thrush being able to spread around the blood stream and go to various organs.

The likelyhood of certain infections is well studied and can be predicted on the basis of the CD4 count.

The other issue is particle load or the infectiousness of the host. People with a low particle load are unlikely to spread HIV, but people with a huge particle load who have full blown AIDS will spread it readily.

There are huge numbers of drugs out there and AZT is very much in the background. Therapy is called HAART or highly active antiretroviral therapy and it involves 3 or four drugs or more to suppress the virus. The problem with HIV is it is very mutagenic and resistance to drugs occurs very quickly if a single agent is used and also occurs if people stop taking their drugs, even for a few days. Most drugs are designed for HIV B which is the commonest in the developed world, unfortunately in africa, HIV A and C are more common and the drugs are less effective and less well studied.

These newest regimens are capable of suppressing HIV INDEFINITELY but cannot cure it completely.

HIV does NOT cause cancer at all, however, other viruses that can cause cancer such as herpes virus or human papilloma virus are allowed to propagate unchecked as the immune system is suppressed. the best example is Kaposi Sarcoma, normally a disfiguring, limited skin disease, however it becomes a cancer in people with AIDS as the immune system cannot prevent is spreading to other organs.

Finally, it is really important to stop looking at HIV as a social issue and a disease of homosexuals and africans and start to look at it as a disease like any other. A disease that is readily recognised and readily treatable.

AARRRGH

Interesting article about the AIDS non believers: http://www.sex.ie/2006/10/15/aids-denialists/

Safe to look at, but be careful browsing around the site if you're in work.

Big_G

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

The reason people used to die so quickly was because they were being given the anti-cancer drugs (up until the 70's we thought cancer was a virus.) These drugs have been proven to be lethal.

Recently, AZT, the main anti-HIV drug, has been proven to be -
a. totally ineffective
b. extremely toxic

Research this yourself. Don't believe the lazy journalism you read in the newspapers. thebody.com is sponsored by the drug companies, so more bull**** there too. Stick to the public medicine databases.

Absolute rubbish. The current treatment of choice for HIV is HAART, or Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy, of which AZT may form a part. This is otherwise known as triple therapy. It is true that AZT was mildly effective in reducing viral load and concordantly increasing T-cell counts, but only in relative comparison to the now more effective triple therapy.

Medical science never thought cancer was a virus. Some cancers are known to be caused by viruses (such as cervical cancer and HPV) and new thinking in oncology theorises that many more cancers previously thought to be of standard aetiology may be caused, or have a contribution to their aetiology from viruses. To say that it was thought that cancer was a virus up to the 70's is rubbish. To say that anti-cancer drugs have proven to be lethal, absolute nonsense. Like anything else, if given in the correct dosage chemotherapy can aid in the reduction in size of tumours and contribute to the reduction in spread of malgnancy. Otherwise we wouldn't be giving them to millions of people everyday and having much success in the fight against cancer.

This video and some of the posts are conspiracy theories at best, absolute garbage at worst. No evidence has been presented to support their claims.

BTW Aoife FM-104, HIV particles have been isolated - we even have a protein structure for them. Also, virions have been isolated in other bodily fluids such as saliva and semen, not just blood. Admittedly, the load in other fluids is much lower generally speaking than that in blood, but it is theoretically possible to transmit in other ways than blood-blood contact.

Big_G

DrIndy wrote:

Good Lord! No, no, no.

HIV or human immunodeficiency virus is the infection, it enters the blood stream and is indeed a very fragile virus and difficult to transmit (I am much more concerned I will catch Hepatitis C than HIV from my patients)

Within about 6 weeks, people will seroconvert or not after the initial infection. People get a flulike illness and swollen glands and feel really rotten for a couple of weeks. The virus attacks CD4 T-Cells which are specialised immuno-activating cells which recognise other infections and mount an immune response. These may not initially drop in the first stage of the infection.

When the body mounts an immune response to HIV, the HIV antigens are present in the blood and the HIV antibody are also present, but the problem is the very CD4 cells that fight off infection (including HIV) are specifically targetted by HIV so the greater the infection, the less able the immune system is to fight it off. At this stage HIV antigen is HIGH

Subsequently people enter the latent stage where HIV hides in the dendritic cells of the lymphnodes and other places. Virus particles are shed and smoulder on the infection, but are kept in check by the immune system. at this stage HIV antigen is LOW but HIV antibody is HIGH

Subsequently for an unknown reason, years afterwards, the infection reoccurs. No one knows why some people can have latent HIV for years and others for decades. This reactivation is called AIDS - or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, where the immune cells are depleted (specifically CD4 cells) and the body cannot mount a normal immune response.

At this stage CD4 count is LOW, HIV antigen is HIGH and HIV antibody may be LOW. The level of the infection depends on amount of CD4 cells and HIV particle load.

As the CD4 count drops, people get strange and unusual infections or normal infections in a strange and unusual way as the immune system does not work well. Infections that are impossible to get in a normal person such as PCP or toxoplasmosis become more common as well as fungal infections such as thrush being able to spread around the blood stream and go to various organs.

The likelyhood of certain infections is well studied and can be predicted on the basis of the CD4 count.

The other issue is particle load or the infectiousness of the host. People with a low particle load are unlikely to spread HIV, but people with a huge particle load who have full blown AIDS will spread it readily.

There are huge numbers of drugs out there and AZT is very much in the background. Therapy is called HAART or highly active antiretroviral therapy and it involves 3 or four drugs or more to suppress the virus. The problem with HIV is it is very mutagenic and resistance to drugs occurs very quickly if a single agent is used and also occurs if people stop taking their drugs, even for a few days. Most drugs are designed for HIV B which is the commonest in the developed world, unfortunately in africa, HIV A and C are more common and the drugs are less effective and less well studied.

These newest regimens are capable of suppressing HIV INDEFINITELY but cannot cure it completely.

HIV does NOT cause cancer at all, however, other viruses that can cause cancer such as herpes virus or human papilloma virus are allowed to propagate unchecked as the immune system is suppressed. the best example is Kaposi Sarcoma, normally a disfiguring, limited skin disease, however it becomes a cancer in people with AIDS as the immune system cannot prevent is spreading to other organs.

Finally, it is really important to stop looking at HIV as a social issue and a disease of homosexuals and africans and start to look at it as a disease like any other. A disease that is readily recognised and readily treatable.

Sorry, J, should have read your post first!
G

Big_G

Stark wrote:

In my alternative AIDS hypothesis class, we learned that ****ing a virgin could cure you of AIDS. It challenged conventional beliefs and was something worth thinking about.

sarcasm noted and appreciated.

bonkey

Emerson wrote:

People should go and watch the above video for themselves.
Until I see a thorough rebutal on this video, I will not be happy. I've not seen anything very substantial in this thread to rebuke it. The content of this video puts into question everything we have been led to believe.

Chemical, drugs and food companies profit on inconclusiveness and the public's ignorance consistently.

So let me see if I understand you...

1) This video has made you to question the popular beliefs about how certain medicine is about HIV, AIDS and all the rest of it.

2) Inconclusiveness, ignorance, and uncertainty are traits that the big industries thrive on.

3) Therefore, you conclude that the big businesses etc are behind the spreading of the false certainty about HIV/AIDS, and that the video based on independant thinking which reintroduces uncertainty is worth thinking about.

Educate yourself.. but not from company press releases. Follow the money trail on information and research studies for an indication on what to believe and why.

Well, I would, except that what you're saying is contradictory. If uncertainty etc. is what the big businesses thrive on, then they are the ones who should be telling us that we don't know for sure, and that the causes etc. are unknown and so on and so forth. They certainly shouldn't be trying to push a single, unified, consistent, no-real-uncertainty-at-all-as-to-whats-happening position.

Similarly, if your independantly-made video is telling us that uncertainty is a tool of the bad guys, why is it concluding that we've been duped into believing a far-more-certain picture than we should?

I also take exception to the suggestion that one should watch the video to educate oneself. You haven't established that its educational - you've only established that it challenges the currently accepted world view.

Would you consider it credible for me to simply tell you that you should educate yourself by watching something that says you've been conned into believing a popular myth and that any real scientist could tell you the jury was really out on the issue? Say...if the video was arguing that the world was flat?

On principle, I don't buy any argument that says that a widely-held scientific belief is actually a myth and any "real" scientist will tell you otherwise. Its an admission that there are scientists who will tell you otherwise, but that they're somehow "unreal".

If you can't explain scientifically why the science is wrong, then you can't show that the science is wrong. You can only ask people to trust a non-scoentific argument about a scientific subject. Thats generally a bad idea. I can't think of when science was last "defeated" by such an approach, if it ever was.

Its a bit like homeopathic medicines. If people want to argue or believe in them, thats fine. Until they put them through a double-blind test, however, they haven't a scientific leg to stand on. Even a single test won't be definitive, but its a start. Arguing that the lack of acceptance is because of corporate greed, or scientific closed-mindedness is easy....but still doesn't explain why a double-blind test can be failed, or why it doesn't need to be taken.