HIV drugs and AIDS a non standard view

Belfast

The Chemical Bases Of The Various AIDS Epidemics
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

2Scoops

A totally false idea, unsupported by the data.

tallaght01

Who accepted that for publication??????

2Scoops

Journal of Biosciences, a low-impact offering from India. It's down as an opinion piece rather than actual science and at least his views have been given a fair and open airing, but publication in a peer-reviewed journal gives his weak argument the impression of scientific legitimacy to those less familiar with science. Perhaps an effort by the editor to increase awareness/circulation of his journal?

Belfast

2Scoops wrote: »

A totally false idea, unsupported by the data.

He does point out some holes in current theory on AIDS.
Her own ideas have a lot of holes in them too.
I do not agree with his conclusions.

2Scoops

Belfast wrote: »

He does point out some holes in current theory on AIDS.

Which do you agree with?

Belfast

2Scoops wrote: »

Which do you agree with?

I agree drugs have a role in the spread of AIDS, but are not the cause.
I do not agree that AIDS is only a lifestyle disease.
I agree HIV does not causes AIDS.
I do think there is a Viral cause but is is not HIV.
The virus in volved in AIDS is yet to be discovered.
I agree the drugs used to treat AIDS have caused more problems.

His ideas do show problems with the current theory on AIDS, But his theory is just as flawed as current theory.

No matter who's ideas are right a lot more people are going to Die.

tallaght01

Well, I guess we should start with the first one first....why don't you tell us how AIDS drugs are involved in the spread of HIV....

I'll be particularly interested in how HIV spread like crazy before their invention.

2Scoops

Belfast wrote: »

I agree drugs have a role in the spread of AIDS, but are not the cause.

Recreational drug use or AIDS drugs specifically? The correlation between drug use and HIV is self-evident and not in dispute. I agree that they are not the cause. What role in the spread of AIDS do you think they have?

Belfast wrote: »

I agree HIV does not causes AIDS.

Why then do people with HIV go on to develop immune problems and ultimately AIDS and why do anti-HIV drugs prevent the development of or attenuate symptoms of AIDS? What about all the evidence clearly linking the two? I mean they're practically the same thing: 199 T cells vs. 201!

Belfast wrote: »

I do think there is a Viral cause but is is not HIV.
The virus in volved in AIDS is yet to be discovered.

But why do you think that? What evidence is there?

Belfast wrote: »

I agree the drugs used to treat AIDS have caused more problems.

They're not perfect and have side effects but you can't argue that they haven't reduced morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients, because they have.

Belfast wrote: »

His ideas do show problems with the current theory on AIDS, But his theory is just as flawed as current theory.

It's more flawed than the current theory; incredibly so. How familiar are you with the actual science behind this disease to come to your conclusions?

Bison

Belfast wrote: »

I agree drugs have a role in the spread of AIDS, but are not the cause.
I do not agree that AIDS is only a lifestyle disease.
I agree HIV does not causes AIDS.
I do think there is a Viral cause but is is not HIV.
The virus in volved in AIDS is yet to be discovered.
I agree the drugs used to treat AIDS have caused more problems.

His ideas do show problems with the current theory on AIDS, But his theory is just as flawed as current theory.

No matter who's ideas are right a lot more people are going to Die.

You opened this thread by submitting an article for discussion. Are you going to discuss the content of the article and your views on the topic or are you going to write random bullet points?

I think your intention is to create controversy for your own amusement rather than furthering the research into the treatment of AIDS.

Belfast

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, I guess we should start with the first one first....why don't you tell us how AIDS drugs are involved in the spread of HIV....

I'll be particularly interested in how HIV spread like crazy before their invention.

I do not think he said that AIDS drugs are involved in the spread of AIDS.
He said that AIDS drugs made the condition worse rather than better.

He's point was AIDS was spead by the use of Illegal drugs LSD, poppers, herion, cocaine etc and malnutrition.

He does not say how he thinks Illegal drugs cause AIDS.

It sounds like an idea from the Christian right.

Belfast

2Scoops wrote: »

Recreational drug use or AIDS drugs specifically? The correlation between drug use and HIV is self-evident and not in dispute. I agree that they are not the cause. What role in the spread of AIDS do you think they have?

The use of Recreational drugs tend to make people neglect their general health and engage in reckless behaviour.

2Scoops wrote: »

Why then do people with HIV go on to develop immune problems and ultimately AIDS and why do anti-HIV drugs prevent the development of or attenuate symptoms of AIDS? What about all the evidence clearly linking the two? I mean they're practically the same thing: 199 T cells vs. 201!

Hiv is probably transmitted in the same way are AIDS and people who have HIV also often also have AIDS.
This does not mean that HIV causes AIDS.

2Scoops wrote: »

But why do you think that? What evidence is there?

There is clearly an association between HIV and AIDS, but this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS.

Is AIDS caused by another unknown virus ?
One one can say for sure unless one is found.
As current theory assumes that the HIV is causing AIDS I do not think any is going to look for another virus.

2Scoops wrote: »

They're not perfect and have side effects but you can't argue that they haven't reduced morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients, because they have.

It depends on how the data is interpreted and who paid for the studies.
It could be that the improved survival rates may be due to better diet nutrition and abstinence from Recreational drugs and adopting a healthier life style.[/QUOTE]

2Scoops wrote: »

It's more flawed than the current theory; incredibly so.

I agree his ideas are flawed. He sound like some for the Christian right wing who for some reason I do not understand do not want to accept that AIDS may be caused by a virus, be it HIV or any other Virus.

2Scoops wrote: »

How familiar are you with the actual science behind this disease to come to your conclusions?

I agree with current theory that AIDS is caused by a virus, but I do not think is is AIDS.

Even if a new virus is found it may not help it will be, as current ant-viral drugs seem to be as bad as the disease and are too expensive for many poor countries.

I agree with current theory that AIDS is spread by sparing needles and unprotected sex.

The AIDS epidemics will probably only be stopped by a change in peoples behaviour.

Belfast

Bison wrote: »

You opened this thread by submitting an article for discussion. Are you going to discuss the content of the article and your views on the topic or are you going to write random bullet points?

I think your intention is to create controversy for your own amusement rather than furthering the research into the treatment of AIDS.

The article does not suggest any new treatment for AIDS. it concentrate on what causes AIDS and suggest current treatment is flawed.

You are correct his idea do not contribute any new idea on the treat of AIDS other than the abstinence for illegal drugs and ant-HIV drugs.

I think he needs to come up with a better plan that.

I do not regard the AIDS epidemic as a subject for amusement.

The reason I posted the link was to show there is more than one point of view on the subject.

I believe his point of view is flawed. I could be wrong, maybe in the future his view may be showed to be correct, but doubt it.

Belfast

2Scoops wrote: »

Recreational drug use or AIDS drugs specifically?

Recreational drug use

2Scoops

Belfast wrote: »

Hiv is probably transmitted in the same way are AIDS and people who have HIV also often also have AIDS.
This does not mean that HIV causes AIDS.

HIV and AIDS are virtually the same thing! It just gets a new name once the CD4 T cell count gets sufficiently low. AIDS is not a virus, it's a clinical label for those suffering the effects of the HIV virus.

Belfast wrote: »

There is clearly an association between HIV and AIDS, but this does not prove that HIV causes AIDS.

I think you are confused on what AIDS and HIV are and their relation. In particular, I think you underestimate the impact of HIV in patients who do not yet have AIDS. I think you need to read more on the pathophysiology.

Belfast wrote: »

Is AIDS caused by another unknown virus ?
One one can say for sure unless one is found.
As current theory assumes that the HIV is causing AIDS I do not think any is going to look for another virus.

The current theory is supported by lots and lots of evidence. Why ignore all this in favor of a frivolous flight of fancy with nothing to back it up?

Belfast wrote: »

It depends on how the data is interpreted and who paid for the studies.
It could be that the improved survival rates may be due to better diet nutrition and abstinence from Recreational drugs and adopting a healthier life style.

There are enough controlled trials on this issue to categorically rule out these confounders. You are unfamiliar with the evidence and you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Why not educate yourself as to what the data actually show?

Nonoperational

Belfast your just embarassing yourself by talking the biggest load of rubbish I've read in a long time. No offence.

DrIndy

one point it want to specifically raise to belfast although i do agree with his view of socio-economic circumstances perpetuates this pandemic.

HIV and AIDS are fundamentally linked.

When someone develops AIDS - there is a clear correlation between decrease in CD4 count and rise in HIV viral load. VERY rarely do you see a drop in CD4 without a viral load rise (showing reactivation of the virus). So you DO see HIV virus particles with progression of AIDS. When someone is diagnosed very late in their disease - treating the virus does not result always in normal immune reconstitution because it was too clapped out to begin with - therefore because the immune response does not normalise despite suppressing the virus - people can develop AIDS defining illnesses without viral detection.

REMEMBER - AIDS does not kill, the virus suppresses immune response so OTHER bugs kill you that you would normally be able to fight off. You die from AIDS defining illnesses, not AIDS which is the glorified term for the infections. (The exception to this is that HIV can infect the brain directly and cause dementia - but this is the one of the few direct non-immune ways the virus affects the body).

Lets also look at the connection with another virus causing AIDS. The chance of being infected with one virus such as HIV is very low, the chance of being infected with a second unrelated virus which causes AIDS unless it is waterborne or airborne is also very low.

Therefore the probability of having BOTH is incredibly low. The incidence of HIV in america is 1 in 7000, the incidence of AIDS is also 1 in 7000. Therefore the probability of being infected with both HIV and the probability of being infected with another virus causing AIDS is 1 in 49000000. This is distorted by the fact we consider them separate events and theoretically if there was another virus - people would be co-infected - but even if we say that there is a 1 in 2 chance of getting one of those viruses from another person (which is much higher than reality) then the chance of getting BOTH is 1 in 4 - this is simply not the case.

This proves the connection.

Belfast

gpf101 wrote: »

Belfast your just embarassing yourself by talking the biggest load of rubbish I've read in a long time. No offence.

None taken.

I believe in free speech.

I am be write or wrong, but I am not embarrassed.

Do you think that calling some one else's argument "the biggest load of rubbish I've read in a long time" makes a meaning full contribution to the debate.


if as you say there is are flaw in my argument please point them out.

is the any part of what I said that you agree with ?

Belfast

DrIndy wrote: »

one point it want to specifically raise to belfast although i do agree with his view of socio-economic circumstances perpetuates this pandemic.

HIV and AIDS are fundamentally linked.

When someone develops AIDS - there is a clear correlation between decrease in CD4 count and rise in HIV viral load. VERY rarely do you see a drop in CD4 without a viral load rise (showing reactivation of the virus). So you DO see HIV virus particles with progression of AIDS. When someone is diagnosed very late in their disease - treating the virus does not result always in normal immune reconstitution because it was too clapped out to begin with - therefore because the immune response does not normalise despite suppressing the virus - people can develop AIDS defining illnesses without viral detection.

REMEMBER - AIDS does not kill, the virus suppresses immune response so OTHER bugs kill you that you would normally be able to fight off. You die from AIDS defining illnesses, not AIDS which is the glorified term for the infections. (The exception to this is that HIV can infect the brain directly and cause dementia - but this is the one of the few direct non-immune ways the virus affects the body).

Lets also look at the connection with another virus causing AIDS. The chance of being infected with one virus such as HIV is very low, the chance of being infected with a second unrelated virus which causes AIDS unless it is waterborne or airborne is also very low.

Therefore the probability of having BOTH is incredibly low. The incidence of HIV in america is 1 in 7000, the incidence of AIDS is also 1 in 7000. Therefore the probability of being infected with both HIV and the probability of being infected with another virus causing AIDS is 1 in 49000000. This is distorted by the fact we consider them separate events and theoretically if there was another virus - people would be co-infected - but even if we say that there is a 1 in 2 chance of getting one of those viruses from another person (which is much higher than reality) then the chance of getting BOTH is 1 in 4 - this is simply not the case.

This proves the connection.

First of all thank you for the clearly reasoned and thought out answer.

I agree HIV and AIDS are fundamentally linked.

That does not mean that HIV causes AIDS.

Is it possible that HIV causes AIDS ?

Yes is might be the case, but I doubt it.

Is it a good idea to put all the money into the idea that HIV the cause.

I think that other ideas should also be funded.

I am not say that no money should be spent on the idea that HIV causes AIDS.

I agree AIDS does not kill, the virus suppresses immune response so OTHER bugs kill you that you would normally be able to fight off.

PaddyofNine

Belfast, I'm almost afraid to ask, but out of morbid curiosity - what do you suggest is the cause of AIDS if not HIV? Why, specifically, do you doubt that HIV leads to AIDS?

Belfast

PaddyofNine wrote: »

Belfast, I'm almost afraid to ask, but out of morbid curiosity - what do you suggest is the cause of AIDS if not HIV? Why, specifically, do you doubt that HIV leads to AIDS?

I think AIDS is caused by a virus, but I do not think the virus is HIV.

HIV as a cause of AIDS does not make sense to me.

I could be wrong, I hope I am.

if I am wrong the spending all the money on HIV will eventually solve the problem.

if I am right spending all the money on HIV could to be a wild goose chase that may not solve the problem.

2Scoops

Belfast wrote: »

I think AIDS is caused by a virus, but I do not think the virus is HIV.

Why do you think that?

Belfast wrote: »

HIV as a cause of AIDS does not make sense to me.

How so?

Do you think that briefly providing your opinions without any evidence to support them makes a meaning full contribution to the debate?

tallaght01

Like 2scoops says, why don't you tell us why exactly you don't think HIV causes AIDS, and then we can discuss it.

AtomicHorror

Belfast wrote: »

I agree HIV does not causes AIDS.
I do think there is a Viral cause but is is not HIV.
The virus in volved in AIDS is yet to be discovered.

AIDS denialism is about as credible as creationism. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the people supporting the two often cross over. The big difference is that while creationism is a generally harmless idea, AIDS denial has the potential to kill a whole lot of people. Back the above the above claims up with extraordinary evidence or think twice about making them.

Lemming

Belfast wrote: »

I think AIDS is caused by a virus, but I do not think the virus is HIV.

AIDS is a classification of Immune strength (or lack therein). What kills you is the 24 or so opportunistic virii (the flu, etc.) that can infect your body far more easily and severely.

HIV does not kill you. HIV does not = AIDS. HIV weakens your immune system to the point where you may be marked as having a sufficient weakened immuno-defense system to be classified as an AIDS patient.

One is a virus. One is a syndrome. Do you understand?

HIV as a cause of AIDS does not make sense to me.

Read the above.

AtomicHorror

Belfast wrote: »

I agree HIV and AIDS are fundamentally linked.

That does not mean that HIV causes AIDS.

Is it possible that HIV causes AIDS ?

Yes is might be the case, but I doubt it.

Why the doubt? HIV is a virus which specifically infects dendritic cells and T helper cells. That's a reproducible experiment. It also kills these cells, also easy to demonstrate in vitro. So given that we know this, and given that the resultant decline in T helper count correlates exactly with immune function decline and finally given that all of this correlates with HIV viral load, why the doubt? Finally, why do anti-retrovirals treat AIDS so very well if administered before immune system damage becomes irrecoverable? We can go much more specific than that too. We can show a protective effect against AIDS in animal models when we block the T cell receptors for the HIV virus. That notion has been on the books as a potential new AIDS treatment for years now.

2Scoops

whisper83 wrote: »

A lot of the 'data' you refer to is based on flawed perceptions to begin with.

I would be happy to discuss the scientific data with you. Which data are flawed in your opinion and please give your source (data please, not youtube).

whisper83 wrote: »

you might also be interested in the Padian study by nancy Padian- raises some very interesting questions about transmission of 'HIV'.

I am familiar with the study. What interesting questions do you think it raises?

whisper83 wrote: »

Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the documentaries.

I have seen House of Numbers and I think it was extremely selective in the information it presents and is quite dishonest as a result.

sam34

zombie thread closed

whispered83, please dont spam threads here with YouTube links in place of discussion.