HIV

AARRRGH

Maybe a stupid question... but from what I've read, the HIV virus has never been isolated, so how do you know HIV attacks CD4 helper cells? And how do you know it hides in your lymph nodes, etc.?

Is this belief based on the fact that someone who has HIV antibodies slowly sees a drop in their CD4 levels? Or...?

I just don't understand how you can know this for sure if it is impossible to isolate the virus and watch it attack a CD4 cell. I know recently there was a video of HIV supposedly attacking a cell, but even that was a "molecular clone of infectious HIV" and not actual HIV.

Can someone explain to me why it has so far been impossible to isolate the virus? I just don't understand how this can be possible, and moreover how scientists can be so confident of their theories when they can't actually find the virus...

It just doesn't make sense to me.

/Not a crazy AIDS denialist or whatever

2Scoops

AARRRGH wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question... but from what I've read, the HIV virus has never been isolated, so how do you know HIV attacks CD4 helper cells? And how do you know it hides in your lymph nodes, etc.?

This is simply absurd; it has been isolated. In vitro and in vivo studies as well as the elucidation of the molecular structure of the HIV virion clearly and unambiguously demonstrate its interaction with the CD4 receptor.

AARRRGH wrote: »

but even that was a "molecular clone of infectious HIV" and not actual HIV.

What's the difference?

AARRRGH wrote: »

/Not a crazy AIDS denialist or whatever

You sure talk like one! :pac:

AtomicHorror

AARRRGH wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question... but from what I've read, the HIV virus has never been isolated, so how do you know HIV attacks CD4 helper cells? And how do you know it hides in your lymph nodes, etc.?

What have you been reading? It most certainly has been isolated. As far as I know HIV was isolated as early as 1983. How else would we know its structure and genome sequence? It has been directly imaged by numerous means countless times. It sorta sounds like you've been reading Matthias Rath-style BS.

Kevster

They've even imaged the HIV particle using SEM (scanning electron microscopy); and here it is 'budding' from a lymphocyte (I assume it's a T-4 Lymphocyte):



The HIV particles are the small dots.

AARRRGH

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I don't understand so why there is so much information on the Internet claiming it is has not been isolated, or that the current examples of isolation are incorrect, for example, 'there is no way to confirm it is HIV', or 'the techniques they used were flawed'.

Is this just scientists making this stuff up (that it's not HIV), or is it possible at all they could be onto something?

The reason I am willing to listen to them is because I know the scientific community are quite close minded to anything which sits uncomfortably with them. For example, speak to any scientist and they will say steroids are bad for you, and will probably say it is 'absurd' to think otherwise, when in fact there is no evidence they are bad for you.

And I know science has been wrong about all sorts of things, and I know the AIDS industry is now a massive industry (hundreds of billions) so no one working in the industry is going to be in a hurry to say they might be wrong and lose their funding, or their job.

Basically, I am saying I see no harm in keeping an open mind about things instead of shutting down alternative opinions.

AtomicHorror

AARRRGH wrote: »

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I don't understand so why there is so much information on the Internet claiming it is has not been isolated, or that the current examples of isolation are incorrect, for example, 'there is no way to confirm it is HIV', or 'the techniques they used were flawed'.

Is this just scientists making this stuff up (that it's not HIV), or is it possible at all they could be onto something?

This isn't scientists doing anything. The people who makes these claims not doing so in the scientific journals but to the public. I think the more general claim they make is not that HIV can't be isolated or characterised but rather that it is not the cause of AIDS. So they'd dispute its isolation in relation to that disease and its capacity to cause it.

AARRRGH wrote: »

The reason I am willing to listen to them is because I know the scientific community are quite close minded to anything which sits uncomfortably with them.

How many scientists have you directly spoken to and about what issues? The caricature of the scientist as being either The Establishment or The Maverick is just that- a myth that does not reflect reality. Scientists display scepticism towards new ideas as a matter of course- resistance proportional to the claims made. The mantra is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. But that is appropriate and not at all "closed minded". Closed mindedness is assuming things to be true in the absence of evidence and to the exclusion of other ideas. A good scientist will change his mind if the evidence is compelling and that has be borne out countless times.

AARRRGH wrote: »

For example, speak to any scientist and they will say steroids are bad for you, and will probably say it is 'absurd' to think otherwise, when in fact there is no evidence they are bad for you.

I don't know much about the specifics here, but I do know that some forms of steroids have well-documented side effects which is why they are generally only recommended for use when the benefits outweigh the risks. That's corticosteroids though, which might not be what you're talking about.

Have you read the papers which claim such side effects? The ones that don't? Or is your reading of what the scientist say and what the opposition say based on another source? Can you assess the quality of what each of these sources is telling you?

AARRRGH wrote: »

And I know science has been wrong about all sorts of things,

Of course it has- we have to base our position on the best evidence available at the time and when new evidence becomes available, we need to change our position if appropriate. What sets science apart from other systems is that it requires we (as a community) openly admit to being wrong. There's no other way for us to progress. So Newton was set aside in favour of Einstein and there was no cover up nor hidden agenda. Some agreed, some did not. There was a time of debate and in the end the evidence was not refutable.

This case is nothing like that- the number of qualified persons holding these views about AIDS is tiny. There will be no scientific revolution here, and they know it too. They're trying for something else.

AARRRGH wrote: »

and I know the AIDS industry is now a massive industry (hundreds of billions) so no one working in the industry is going to be in a hurry to say they might be wrong and lose their funding, or their job.

By that logic, the pharmaceuticals companies would never have developed vaccines to eliminate smallpox, to push polio to near extinction and to enormously reduce measles and other diseases in the west. Vaccinations are usually two shots per person for life, and can result in the extinction of the disease entirely, requiring no more vaccine. Of course, they are large, profit-motivated companies who care little for real people, but they rely on being more effective than their competitors and demonstrating to patients that their products work and work well. AIDS is a big industry- but the company that can cure it will make a massive profit. And the company that is shown to have been deceiving it's customers will lose a lot of money.

Also, not all of the scientists working on HIV are a part of "the industry"- many are state employees with no motivation to contribute to a conspiracy of silence. And who have everything to gain by blowing a hole in any such conspiracy. It's all too easy to do so. The problem is that the public have difficulty assessing the difference between these hypothetical credible whistle-blowers and the fake "mavericks" who make up some pseudoscientific fields.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Basically, I am saying I see no harm in keeping an open mind about things instead of shutting down alternative opinions.

But that's what scientists do. That ideas are considered and then dismissed due to lack of evidence or contradictory evidence is not closed minded. But many charlatans like to portray the scientific community in that manner, and it's an act that plays well with the public- perhaps because that's what scientists are like in Hollywood.

You'll note that it's a tactic also used by creationists and homoeopaths. True scientific revolution is not ushered in by convincing the public, yet that seems to be their primary concern. It is also that of the AIDS denialists.

2Scoops

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't understand so why there is so much information on the Internet claiming it is has not been isolated, or that the current examples of isolation are incorrect, for example, 'there is no way to confirm it is HIV', or 'the techniques they used were flawed'.

Is this just scientists making this stuff up (that it's not HIV), or is it possible at all they could be onto something?

People with agendas make this stuff up because they know people like you will accept it uncritically or be unable to access or undertsaand the evidence. It also preys on the idea that the existence of a dissenting view is evidence of its validity. But, oh look! HIV has been isolated. End of story.

AARRRGH wrote: »

The reason I am willing to listen to them is because I know the scientific community are quite close minded to anything which sits uncomfortably with them.

And how do you know that exactly? People people on the internet said so? Come on, just dig a little deeper, please.

AARRRGH wrote: »

For example, speak to any scientist and they will say steroids are bad for you, and will probably say it is 'absurd' to think otherwise, when in fact there is no evidence they are bad for you.

Tell that to the scientists who invented steroids for the good of humanity and the doctors that prescribe them to their patients all over the world. ANd if you're implying they don't have side effects you're sadly mistaken.

AARRRGH wrote: »

And I know science has been wrong about all sorts of things, and I know the AIDS industry is now a massive industry (hundreds of billions) so no one working in the industry is going to be in a hurry to say they might be wrong and lose their funding, or their job.

Yes, it's quite credible that an entire industry of millions of people are covering up the truth about HIV and the millions worldwide with the virus have some other disease and HIV has never even been isolated and it's all about money. Big Pharma - oh noes! :rolleyes:

AARRRGH wrote: »

Basically, I am saying I see no harm in keeping an open mind about things instead of shutting down alternative opinions.

In this case, you have a close mind and have not remained open to the alternative opinion that HIV is real. There is so much evidence out there it's overwhelming, while you have absolutely nothing to support your view. Back to conspiracy theories with you!

AARRRGH

2Scoops wrote: »

In this case, you have a close mind and have not remained open to the alternative opinion that HIV is real. There is so much evidence out there it's overwhelming, while you have absolutely nothing to support your view. Back to conspiracy theories with you!

Why are you being so rude? All I have said is I am willing to listen to alternative opinions without shooting them down. I do not see any harm in that. It is called having an open mind. You should try it. Worst case scenario you might learn something.

AARRRGH

I have two questions which maybe you guys can answer -

1. In the US, the median age for new HIV infections has consistently been around the mid thirties. But the median age for infections like chlamydia has consistently been late teens to early twenties.

Considering there are drastically more new chlamydia infections compared to new HIV infections every year in the US, why isn't the median age for new HIV infections also in the late teens and early twenties?

Surely if so many young people are having unprotected sex (which the chlamydia statistics prove), why aren't a lot of young people getting HIV?

And how are 'older' people somehow getting HIV but not chlamydia?

I can't think of any logical answer to this.

2. Consistently, across all social groups (from college students to the employed to prisoners), black people are more likely (5 to 100 times more likely) to contract HIV than white people. This is true for all countries with black populations such as the US, UK, etc. Why is this? I do not believe it is because black people are more promiscious than white people.

Kevster

Consistently, across all social groups (from college students to the employed to prisoners), black people are more likely (5 to 100 times more likely) to contract HIV than white people. This is true for all countries with black populations such as the US, UK, etc. Why is this? I do not believe it is because black people are more promiscious than white people.

It is because the black people in question do not get the same education that we do, regarding sex.



Surely if so many young people are having unprotected sex (which the chlamydia statistics prove), why aren't a lot of young people getting HIV?

...because they have learned to use protection, perhaps? Also, you must realise that young people - being young - have not had as many sexual partners as older people. Young people can screw each other for as long as they want, but HIV just isn't predominant in that age group. The reason why Chlamydia features more in young people is because it is an airborne infection and therefore spreads more easily in the environment. The reason why some adults don't get it is because they may have beenexposed to a low level of it previously and have thus developed immunity.



Going back to the steroids thing - Steroids cause Calcium ions to be released from the bones and can cause osteopaenia or osteoporosis. I have osteopaenia, as a result of taking steroids for a medical condition.

2Scoops

AARRRGH wrote: »

Why are you being so rude? All I have said is I am willing to listen to alternative opinions without shooting them down. I do not see any harm in that. It is called having an open mind. You should try it. Worst case scenario you might learn something.

I opened my mind, looked for evidence to support your argument and none could be found, for none exists. You have no evidence - that is fact, not merely me being rude. There is no debate here. It is not my intention to be rude, and if you have interpreted it that way then I am sorry. Bring some evidence to the table first, then we can examine it. Maybe you might learn something by looking at the evidence. :pac:

2Scoops

AARRRGH wrote: »

Considering there are drastically more new chlamydia infections compared to new HIV infections every year in the US, why isn't the median age for new HIV infections also in the late teens and early twenties?

Exposure to HIV is the key. Younger people have had less time to come into contact with a source of HIV infection.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Consistently, across all social groups (from college students to the employed to prisoners), black people are more likely (5 to 100 times more likely) to contract HIV than white people. This is true for all countries with black populations such as the US, UK, etc. Why is this? I do not believe it is because black people are more promiscious than white people.

First of all, are you sure that it is 'consistent' and 'across all social groups?' Anyway, it boils down to shared needle use and sex with HIV infected partners, which are greater in black men - in the US, at least.

AARRRGH

Kevster wrote: »

Consistently, across all social groups (from college students to the employed to prisoners), black people are more likely (5 to 100 times more likely) to contract HIV than white people. This is true for all countries with black populations such as the US, UK, etc. Why is this? I do not believe it is because black people are more promiscious than white people.

It is because the black people in question do not get the same education that we do, regarding sex.

But even black people in the US who are university educated also get infected at a much higher rate. Surely they are better educated (or at least, equally as educated) as the average white person?

Kevster wrote: »

Surely if so many young people are having unprotected sex (which the chlamydia statistics prove), why aren't a lot of young people getting HIV?

...because they have learned to use protection, perhaps? Also, you must realise that young people - being young - have not had as many sexual partners as older people. Young people can screw each other for as long as they want, but HIV just isn't predominant in that age group. The reason why Chlamydia features more in young people is because it is an airborne infection and therefore spreads more easily in the environment. The reason why some adults don't get it is because they may have beenexposed to a low level of it previously and have thus developed immunity.

Hmmm perhaps, but I don't think you can develop immunity to chlamydia? Might be wrong, but from what I've read about it I've never come across any mention of immunity.

Your theory on 'HIV not being common amongst young people' might be a factor alright. But if young people are as promiscuous as the statistics suggest (i.e. lots of new chlamydia infections) surely the median age of new HIV infections should be a little lower than the mid thirties? If I recall, the median age has been creeping up every year (in the US at least) and is now in the late thirties.

Kevster wrote: »

Going back to the steroids thing - Steroids cause Calcium ions to be released from the bones and can cause osteopaenia or osteoporosis. I have osteopaenia, as a result of taking steroids for a medical condition.

Sorry to hear that. I am talking about testosterone and HGH in the context of bodybuilding. Might be different than the steroids you took?

Kevster

Ah right - yeh - the steroid I took was prednisolone. It has many bad side-effects. As a side note, Testosterone injections have been use to treat depression and manic depression.

You are probably right when you say that the median age for HIV infections should have been gradually reduced over time, given the promiscuity of young people. Maybe it has already done so, in fact, but young people just don't go to the doctor because they (i.e. - young people) don't think about these things like adults do. You have to remember also that HIV can remain in a person's body theoretically for an entire person's life without ever developing into AIDS. The virus can just 'reside' there.

What's your background, AARRRGH? I mean, what do you do or where did all of this questioning come from? One thing's for sure, you won't get slated here by me like you would (and have) by others. I've been doing science for 7 years now and I'm the type who actually appreciates questioning about it.

Kevin

AtomicHorror

AARRRGH wrote: »

I have two questions which maybe you guys can answer -

1. In the US, the median age for new HIV infections has consistently been around the mid thirties. But the median age for infections like chlamydia has consistently been late teens to early twenties.

Considering there are drastically more new chlamydia infections compared to new HIV infections every year in the US, why isn't the median age for new HIV infections also in the late teens and early twenties?

Surely if so many young people are having unprotected sex (which the chlamydia statistics prove), why aren't a lot of young people getting HIV?

And how are 'older' people somehow getting HIV but not chlamydia?

What's the probability of contracting HIV during unprotected sex versus the probability of contracting chlamydia? At a guess I'd say the answer lies there. 2scoops hinted at that- you need time and multiple exposures for an improbable event to occur. Thus if the risks differ, the median age of infection will also differ. Also, as suggested by Kevster, chlamydia is an infection that is generally diagnosed quite soon after contraction. HIV is often asymptomatic for some considerable time.

AARRRGH wrote: »

2. Consistently, across all social groups (from college students to the employed to prisoners), black people are more likely (5 to 100 times more likely) to contract HIV than white people. This is true for all countries with black populations such as the US, UK, etc. Why is this? I do not believe it is because black people are more promiscious than white people.

There could be many reasons, but failing to believe one plausible generalisation without actually checking first is not the way to go. Cultural differences between black and caucasian populations do exist so perhaps it is a promiscuity issue or perhaps there is a general stigma against barrier contraceptives (this is certainly true in parts of Africa). IV drug use is generally higher in US blacks, so that's another element. The more poorly educated and and less affluent black population form a pool of infection and since most ethnic groups favour their own ethnicity as social and sexual partners (broadly favouring crossing social divides within ethnicity versus crossing ethnicity at equal social standing), the infection tends to spread. Had whites been the generally poorer population when HIV emerged, perhaps things would be very different today. Another possible explanation is the CCR5d32 gene which is more common in caucasians than any other race. This gene confers HIV resistance and is found in 5-14% of caucasians.

Prime Mover

Kevster wrote: »

The reason why Chlamydia features more in young people is because it is an airborne infection and therefore spreads more easily in the environment. The reason why some adults don't get it is because they may have beenexposed to a low level of it previously and have thus developed immunity.

Are you thinking of Chlamydophila pneumoniae? I am pretty sure Chlamidia trachomatis is spread by person to person contact.

tallaght01

HIV is common in the black community for a huge number of reasons. Poverty and gender inequality being right up there, particularly in developing countries.

The problem in the states, to my mind, lies in general economic inequality. If a black guy grows up in a rich white community and hangs out with rich white people, he won't have a higher chance of catching HIV. Even a black guy in college might go back to his community at the end of the day or in holidays. If his community is predominantly a black community, then the pool of HIV will be (much) higher.

But the black community in the states is much more disadvantaged than the white community. Economic inequality is, I believe, worse in the states than in any other developed country (by gini coefficient).
Some study I read before claimed that blacks had more sex than whites, but rates are also very high in the Hispanic and some Asian communities, do I don't think promiscuity explains it.

With regard to age, it's much more likely to be the result of the amount of exposure needed to contract HIV. It's very hard to work out your exact risks of catching HIV. But, we do know it's probably about a 1 in 200+ chance per consensual vaginal sexual encounter (some people even say 1 in 1000). Rates are higher for anal sex and rape.

But we know the rates of transmission of chlamydia are about 1 in 3.

So, if you have sex 3 times you might catch someone's chlamydia, while you might have to have sex 200 times to catch HIV. That's oversimplifying it, but I'm sure you get the point.

norrie rugger

guys this is off topic but came to mind, when I tried to click the NEJM link.

People always ask, "How is this quack idea spreading?"

Quack ideas are all over the net, every one has access to Billy Public and Sally Sob Story crying, about how MMR gave their kid autism.

Official, peer reviewed sites and access to papers costs quite a lot of money.
I had all access to them in college, not so much now.

It can actually be really hard to get the "trump card" evidence to quash a quack

Kevster

Prime Mover wrote: »

Are you thinking of Chlamydophila pneumoniae? I am pretty sure Chlamidia trachomatis is spread by person to person contact.

You're right, actually: Chlamydia trachomatis is the STD organism in the Chlamydia genus, and it isn't airborne. My mistake!

I think that norrie rugger's comment pretty much sums up this entire thread: People can postulate many things that seem - to some - aloof/crazy, but finding proof against their postulation can be trivky. Just go to the Astronomy board and claim anything you want about the Universe. Can they refute it? - yes. Can they prove it? - No.

xmac1x

Well back to the original topic, I was doing a little more reading into combatting HIV and it seems that a flavonoid called ECGC found in green tea can competitively bind to the CD4 receptor, apparently it can temporarily reduce HIV-CD4 cell binding by 40%. Natural medicine is completeley overlooked to be honest. Less than 2% of plants have been tested for medicinal properties! :eek:

AtomicHorror

xmac1x wrote: »

Well back to the original topic, I was doing a little more reading into combatting HIV and it seems that a flavonoid called ECGC found in green tea can competitively bind to the CD4 receptor, apparently it can temporarily reduce HIV-CD4 cell binding by 40%.

Sure, but can it do it when you drink it? Your digestive tract likes to chop up pretty much everything that comes it's way so oral bioavailablity is a major consideration. Getting it to work in cell culture would certainly be nice data but unless there's in vivo work and clinical trials that data alone means little.

xmac1x wrote: »

Natural medicine is completeley overlooked to be honest. Less than 2% of plants have been tested for medicinal properties! :eek:

Isn't that more to do with the fact that there are an incredible number of plant species to test and an incredible number of ailments to test them on? The big pharma companies have been sniffing around the rainforests for new chemical entities for decades. The notion that "natural" remedies are ignored my mainstream medicine is a bit of a myth. See if you can get a handle on how many mainstream medicines are based on naturally-occurring substances including plant-derived ones. The WHO estimate that 25% or so of medicines used in the USA are commercial plant-derived drugs. That's just plant stuff. Take into account antibiotics (mostly fungal and bacterial-derived) and recombinant proteins like insulin (human derived) and the natural brigade have a pretty fair representation.

AtomicHorror

norrie rugger wrote: »

guys this is off topic but came to mind, when I tried to click the NEJM link.

People always ask, "How is this quack idea spreading?"

Quack ideas are all over the net, every one has access to Billy Public and Sally Sob Story crying, about how MMR gave their kid autism.

Official, peer reviewed sites and access to papers costs quite a lot of money.
I had all access to them in college, not so much now.

It can actually be really hard to get the "trump card" evidence to quash a quack

Probably true. Do public libraries carry journal subscriptions at all? If not I think they should.

Some journals are quite accessible though- the Cochrane Library is free in Ireland and covers a wide subject range with regard to health science. It's all systematic meta-analyses too, which makes it very much trump card material.

norrie rugger

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Probably true. Do public libraries carry journal subscriptions at all? If not I think they should.

Some journals are quite accessible though- the Cochrane Library is free in Ireland and covers a wide subject range with regard to health science. It's all systematic meta-analyses too, which makes it very much trump card material.

TBH I usually just swing by the college and print off some papers, when the mood takes me. I really should look towards the library but again this is me going to trouble to find facts, where as the quacks have open time on the net.

Kevster

xmac1x wrote: »

Well back to the original topic, I was doing a little more reading into combatting HIV and it seems that a flavonoid called ECGC found in green tea can competitively bind to the CD4 receptor, apparently it can temporarily reduce HIV-CD4 cell binding by 40%. Natural medicine is completeley overlooked to be honest. Less than 2% of plants have been tested for medicinal properties! :eek:

Interesting.. ...but can the CD4 cell then functional in its normal capacity in the immune system? The receptors on its surface are basically what allows it to do its job.

AARRRGH

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Kevster wrote: »

What's your background, AARRRGH? I mean, what do you do or where did all of this questioning come from? One thing's for sure, you won't get slated here by me like you would (and have) by others. I've been doing science for 7 years now and I'm the type who actually appreciates questioning about it.

Kevster, the reason I am interested in this subject is because I know absolute power absolutely corrupts.

The HIV/AIDS industry are judge and jury on all their findings; the people who peer review each others papers work alongside each other. No outsiders get to question their findings (or if they do, they are ridiculed.) And the fact that it is in the industries interest to maintain the status quo (so their near endless funding will continue) they don't have a very strong motivation to question their current findings.

I guess I just find it scary that people ignore the fact that the industry might be corrupt (considering every other industry which has vested interests are totally corrupt) and that no one questions the experts.

For example, the housing bubble which went on in Ireland for the past few years. Practically every 'expert' or vested interest (house sellers, estate agents, banks, politicians) chanted the same mantra that you can't lose money when you buy property. They were either lying or incompetent, but certainly very greedy and close minded. The few economists who questioned them were seen as crazies.

This sort of thing happens in every industry where there is lots of money. I don't see why it can't be happening in the medical industry.

Not enough people question things, even though the expects are frequently wrong. As scientists you should know science has been wrong many times and that the big pharma companies (who fund so much of current day science) are only interested in profit.

So... to answer your question, I am suspicious of the HIV/AIDS industry as human nature and past experience suggests it is probably quite corrupt. Certainly it is very arrogant and close minded.

I think the experts and current thinking should always be questioned, and those doing the questioning should be listened to.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

Thanks for the replies everyone.





The HIV/AIDS industry are judge and jury on all their findings; the people who peer review each others papers work alongside each other. No outsiders get to question their findings (or if they do, they are ridiculed.) And the fact that it is in the industries interest to maintain the status quo (so their near endless funding will continue) they don't have a very strong motivation to question their current findings.

.

I'm all for you asking questions on this forum, and I think it's good to have non scientists asking scientists questions here.

But what you've written above is utterly utterly untrue.

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm all for you asking questions on this forum, and I think it's good to have non scientists asking scientists questions here.

But what you've written above is utterly utterly untrue.

Are you saying people who don't work within the HIV/AIDS industry, or who don't rely on funding from pharma companies who make HIV/AIDS drugs, peer review papers on HIV/AIDS?

Can you give me an example of this?

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

Thanks for the replies everyone.



Kevster, the reason I am interested in this subject is because I know absolute power absolutely corrupts.

The HIV/AIDS industry are judge and jury on all their findings; the people who peer review each others papers work alongside each other. No outsiders get to question their findings (or if they do, they are ridiculed.) And the fact that it is in the industries interest to maintain the status quo (so their near endless funding will continue) they don't have a very strong motivation to question their current findings.

I guess I just find it scary that people ignore the fact that the industry might be corrupt (considering every other industry which has vested interests are totally corrupt) and that no one questions the experts.

For example, the housing bubble which went on in Ireland for the past few years. Practically every 'expert' or vested interest (house sellers, estate agents, banks, politicians) chanted the same mantra that you can't lose money when you buy property. They were either lying or incompetent, but certainly very greedy and close minded. The few economists who questioned them were seen as crazies.

This sort of thing happens in every industry where there is lots of money. I don't see why it can't be happening in the medical industry.

Not enough people question things, even though the expects are frequently wrong. As scientists you should know science has been wrong many times and that the big pharma companies (who fund so much of current day science) are only interested in profit.

So... to answer your question, I am suspicious of the HIV/AIDS industry as human nature and past experience suggests it is probably quite corrupt. Certainly it is very arrogant and close minded.

I think the experts and current thinking should always be questioned, and those doing the questioning should be listened to.

Even when the people from the sources giving you information like the following?

AARRRGH wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question... but from what I've read, the HIV virus has never been isolated, so how do you know HIV attacks CD4 helper cells? And how do you know it hides in your lymph nodes, etc.?

.......

Hmmm perhaps, but I don't think you can develop immunity to chlamydia? Might be wrong, but from what I've read about it I've never come across any mention of immunity.

Anyway reading your posts I am not even sure what you are getting at in your posts. Do you believe that Aids doesn't exist, or that we do not know how it works? Perhaps the drug companies are suppressing a cure for Aids?

What are you driving at exactly?

All I can determine for sure is your complete ignorance of Science and the sceintific method.

People like you and the conspiracy theorists nutters you get your false information from, who go around spreading mistrust of science, are the primary reason that in the 21st century kids are needlessly dying of measles and mumps these when they are perfectly safe and effective vaccines available.

tallaght01

My subspecialty is HIV.

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about.

Papers are reviewed by academics and clinicians.

Important findings are debated over and over again. What is the "HIV industry"?

Which of the important HIV research do you dispute? The preventative role of circumcision?

The association with ulcerative STIs?

The efficacy of antiretrovirals?

These would be the big breakthroughs in HIV over recent years.

Why don't you tell us what you're talking about using specific examples.

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

Are you saying people who don't work within the HIV/AIDS industry, or who don't rely on funding from pharma companies who make HIV/AIDS drugs, peer review papers on HIV/AIDS?

Can you give me an example of this?

Ever heard of a thing called a University?

There are probably tens of thousands worldwide of people working in AIDs research in some form and you are suggesting that they are all funded directly by pharma companies (not that there is even anything wrong with this) and are maintaining a vast worldwide conspiracy of something or other (since you don't even seem to know what) ?

tallaght01

marco_polo wrote: »

Ever heard of a thing called a University?

Or a hospital?

Or a public health unit?

Or the WHO :P

AARRRGH

marco_polo wrote: »

All I can determine for sure is your complete ignorance of Science and the sceintific method.

People like you and the conspiracy theorists nutters you get your false information from, who go around spreading mistrust of science, are the primary reason that in the 21st century kids are needlessly dying of measles and mumps these when they are perfectly safe and effective vaccines available.

Are you for real?

Because I ask a couple of questions I am completely ignorant of science and scientific methods?

There is no need to be so rude and arrogant.

I have a degree in applied science and masters degree in computer science.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Papers are reviewed by academics and clinicians.

Or a hospital?

Or a public health unit?

Or the WHO :P

But do those people work within the HIV/AIDS industry?

I'm not sure you are getting what I am saying.

If the people who come up with the theories and the people who verify the theories both work in the same industry and have the same vested interest in maintaining the status quo, can you not see how that is a recipe for collusion and fraud?

I don't really understand the hostility I am receiving for pointing out that the system could be improved, and that alternative theories should be considered instead of dismissed. Surely this would only lead to better science.

I am not saying HIV/AIDS doesn't exist or anything like that. I am saying, as a few of you have thankfully proven, the science world is very close minded when it comes to anything which challenges their beliefs.

tallaght01 wrote: »

What is the "HIV industry"?

The Universities, organisations and companies who receive billions in funding to research HIV/AIDS.

Don't fool yourself into think it's not an industry.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Which of the important HIV research do you dispute? The preventative role of circumcision?

The association with ulcerative STIs?

The efficacy of antiretrovirals?

These would be the big breakthroughs in HIV over recent years.

Why don't you tell us what you're talking about using specific examples.

Basically, I am willing to listen to alternative theories. I do not feel threatened by them.

For example, this study showed uncircumcised men were less likely to be HIV+ than circumscised men. The only theory they could come up with were the hospitals must be using dirty equipment when performing the circumcisions. This may be true, but considering HIV only lives for a few minutes outside the body, it seems a bit optimistic.

I am not saying circumcision doesn't protect against HIV, I am saying people should be aware there is conflicting data, so they should keep an open mind.

I don't understand why the concept of keeping an open mind is so difficult.

tallaght01

Unhygienic circumcision is a different kettle of fish to hygienic circumcision.

The data on circumcision very clearly states that the procedure performed under safe and sterile conditions reduces the risk of HIV by about 60%.

That is not some kind of "industry" conspiracy. It's been accepted by pretty much everyone who knows anything about HIV.

Condoms also protect against HIV. But slapping on the same johnny that someone else has just used puts you at risk of getting HIV. Doesn't mean condoms don't work. Circumcision with HIV infected instruments doesn't protect you from HIV. I'm confident most academics would agree with that

Especially considering HIV can live for up to 2 weeks outside the body!

So, were rolling out circumcision programmes out around the world. I'm going to papua new guinea to help with one in a few months time. But it's pretty revolutionary over there. So...am I "preserving the status quo"? Or helping introduce a programme that is different to anything ever tried before?

As an aside, do you think everyone who works in HIV gets funding from drug companies who make anti retrovirals? If you stick your figures up I'd be grateful, as I have a big interest in drug company bias. As much as I'd love to see interesting figures, i suspect you're doing what you claim to be against...ie forming opinions without any basis in fact.

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

As an aside, do you think everyone who works in HIV gets funding from drug companies who make anti retrovirals? If you stick your figures up I'd be grateful, as I have a big interest in drug company bias. As much as I'd love to see interesting figures, i suspect you're doing what you claim to be against...ie forming opinions without any basis in fact.

The funding doesn't have to come from drug companies, but it comes from somewhere. The point being that if you know you can get funding for saying x, you are less likely to say y.

Come on, everyone knows corruption sets in once there is money at stake. I just think people should acknowledge this and should do everything possible to make sure it is minimised. A start would be ensuring the people (or some of the people) who review your scientific findings are motivated to fail it rather than pass it.

I have never stated any of my opinions are fact though. I just know that for every study you can show me which proves x, with enough digging around I could find another which proves your study is flawed. Therefore, and I think this is healthy, I do not think scientists should think in absolutes: you do not know for certain your beliefs are right.

Surely you know, throughout history, science which was considered totally correct was eventually proven incorrect. All I'm saying is keep an open mind and don't be so quick to dismiss alternative theories.

tallaght01

AARRRGH wrote: »

The funding doesn't have to come from drug companies, but it comes from somewhere. The point being that if you know you can get funding for saying x, you are less likely to say y.

I'm sorry. I'm as sceptical about drug funded research as anyone. But if you're talking about a widespread problem of HIV data being actually fabricated, then please provide some evidence. I'm not continuing to have a conversation that basically consists of you just going "ah sure ya know it happens", to allow you make any claim you like.

AARRRGH wrote: »

. I just know that for every study you can show me which proves x, with enough digging around I could find another which proves your study is flawed. .

No offence intended, but in this case, you couldn't be further from the truth.

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm sorry. I'm as sceptical about drug funded research as anyone. But if you're talking about a widespread problem of HIV data being actually fabricated, then please provide some evidence. I'm not continuing to have a conversation that basically consists of you just going "ah sure ya know it happens", to allow you make any claim you like.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I am saying because it would be so easy to collude with your colleagues so your findings are given the green light, scientists should be more skeptical about the papers they religiously believe.

tallaght01 wrote: »

No offence intended, but in this case, you couldn't be further from the truth.

But haven't I already done it in this thread? You said circumcision prevents HIV, and I showed you a paper which showed circumcised men were more likely to contract HIV. Their postulation that it must have been due to some other factor (e.g. dirty hospital equipment) was just a theory. The point is, you said x, and I showed you a paper which contradicted x.

Therefore, it does not make sense to have such an absolute view that x is definitely right.

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

Are you for real?

Because I ask a couple of questions I am completely ignorant of science and scientific methods?

Yes. As evidence I present the rest of your post.

If the people who come up with the theories and the people who verify the theories both work in the same industry and have the same vested interest in maintaining the status quo, can you not see how that is a recipe for collusion and fraud?

I don't really understand the hostility I am receiving for pointing out that the system could be improved, and that alternative theories should be considered instead of dismissed. Surely this would only lead to better science.

They do consider alternative theories all the time. They are accepted if they are prove to be more correct than existing theories, and dismissed if not. You realise that all credible research gets published in Journals all scientists can see the results for themselves. So EVERYONE would have to be in on it, correct?

The reason people are hostile is that you are banging on about people being closed minded when you have clearly read absolutely nothing on the subject that is not from crank CT websites.

I am not saying HIV/AIDS doesn't exist or anything like that. I am saying, as a few of you have thankfully proven, the science world is very close minded when it comes to anything which challenges their beliefs.

There are no scientific beliefs, only theories and supporting facts.
Again which scientific AIDs theories are being "suppressed".

The only suppressed theories ones I can think of are the nutty ones like "AIDs does not exist" and "HIV does not cause AIDs".

The Universities, organisations and companies who receive billions in funding to research HIV/AIDS.

Don't fool yourself into think it's not an industry.

Yes and they recieve there funding from many many different sources.

How is it in drugs companies interests to fund bogus research? A cure will never be possible without an accurate theory the disease. (And of course there would be money to be made out of such a cure)

Basically, I am willing to listen to alternative theories. I do not feel threatened by them.

For example, this study showed uncircumcised men were less likely to be HIV+ than circumscised men. The only theory they could come up with were the hospitals must be using dirty equipment when performing the circumcisions. This may be true, but considering HIV only lives for a few minutes outside the body, it seems a bit optimistic.

I am not saying circumcision doesn't protect against HIV, I am saying people should be aware there is conflicting data, so they should keep an open mind.

Everyone who is scientifically literate is aware that there is conflict theories in all areas. And AIDS research is no different.

I ask again what is it you proport is being hidden?

I don't understand why the concept of keeping an open mind is so difficult.

I still don't know what you want me to keep an open mind about exactly? That medical science is corrupt? The evidence suggest otherwise. It is you with the closed mind my friend.

You are beginning to sound like a Creationist TBH.

I sell lots of catchy scary soundbytes about BIG BUSINESS :eek: but little substance.

AARRRGH

marco_polo wrote: »

You realise that all credible research gets published in Journals all scientists can see the results for themselves. So EVERYONE would have to be in on it, correct?

But that's my whole point. The findings of people who attack the HIV/AIDS papers are automatically dismissed. If you do any research on this topic you will see a number of science professors (including Nobel laureates) who disagreed with some of the current theories lost their funding for speaking out.

marco_polo wrote: »

The only suppressed theories ones I can think of are the nutty ones like "AIDs does not exist" and "HIV does not cause AIDs".

I don't believe the concepts that AIDS does not exist or HIV does not cause AIDS, but I do think there is a lot of bogus information being published. For example, I constantly read that HIV is growing dramatically in the heterosexual community, but if you look at the figures (excluding Africa) you will see this is simply not true. HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly confined to gays, IV drug users and people who have received blood transfusions. The figures for the heterosexual community have remained consistent.

marco_polo wrote: »

How is it in drugs companies interests to fund bogus research? A cure will never be possible without an accurate theory the disease. (And of course there would be money to be made out of such a cure)

It is in the drug companies interest to fund research which will keep their current drugs on the shelves, and put new drugs on the shelves. That's it. Therefore they will not have any interest in research which might suggest their drugs are dangerous or unsuitable in certain circumstances.

Every industry works like this. This is not a problem confined to the pharma companies.

marco_polo wrote: »

You are beginning to sound like a Creationist TBH.

Grow up. :rolleyes:

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I am saying because it would be so easy to collude with your colleagues so your findings are given the green light, scientists should be more skeptical about the papers they religiously believe

So you say that you are not are suggesting that HIV data is fabricated and then in the next line suggest that HIV data is fabricated. Ok.

But haven't I already done it in this thread? You said circumcision prevents HIV, and I showed you a paper which showed circumcised men were more likely to contract HIV. Their postulation that it must have been due to some other factor (e.g. dirty hospital equipment) was just a theory. The point is, you said x, and I showed you a paper which contradicted x.

Therefore, it does not make sense to have such an absolute view that x is definitely right.

The point is that the the paper you point to has obvious flaws in its methodology.

Seriously did you really do science?

AARRRGH

marco_polo wrote: »

So you say that you are not are suggesting that HIV data is fabricated and then in the next line suggest that HIV data is fabricated. Ok.

No! I am saying "you don't know for certain that the data is correct" whether it be because the scientists were biased, corrupt, or because there is conflicting data. And there is always conflicting data.

Thinking in absolutes is close minded and is not good for science.

If you can't grasp the above, please don't reply, because your rude posts are just going to drag this topic to playground insults.

marco_polo wrote: »

The point is that the the paper you point to has obvious flaws in its methodology.

You can apply the "flaws in its methodology" argument to every science paper, but I'd be curious to know your opinion on the paper I linked to.

marco_polo wrote: »

Seriously did you really do science?

Your constant need to insult me is pathetic. I'm finding it hard to take you seriously.

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

But that's my whole point. The findings of people who attack the HIV/AIDS papers are automatically dismissed. If you do any research on this topic you will see a number of science professors (including Nobel laureates) who disagreed with some of the current theories lost their funding for speaking out.

Examples please.

I don't believe the concepts that AIDS does not exist or HIV does not cause AIDS, but I do think there is a lot of bogus information being published. For example, I constantly read that HIV is growing dramatically in the heterosexual community, but if you look at the figures (excluding Africa) you will see this is simply not true. HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly confined to gays, IV drug users and people who have received blood transfusions. The figures for the heterosexual community have remained consistent.

Why exclude Africa apart from it doesn't suit your point? In any case has bogus reporting got to do with science?
Did you read it in scientific journals?

What has this got to do with the suggestion of suppressed AIDS research theories?

It is in the drug companies interest to fund research which will keep their current drugs on the shelves, and put new drugs on the shelves. That's it. Therefore they will not have any interest in research which might suggest their drugs are dangerous or unsuitable in certain circumstances.

Every industry works like this. This is not a problem confined to the pharma companies.


Grow up. :rolleyes

I have a healthy distrust of drug companies with regard to drug trials.

But what has this got to do with the suggestion of suppressed AIDS research theories?

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

No! I am saying "you don't know for certain that the data is correct" whether it be because the scientists were biased, corrupt, or because there is conflicting data. And there is always conflicting data.

Thinking in absolutes is close minded and is not good for science.

If you can't grasp the above, please don't reply, because your rude posts are just going to drag this topic to playground insults.




You can apply the "flaws in its methodology" argument to every science paper, but I'd be curious to know your opinion on the paper I linked to.




Why do you keep trying to insult me? It's pathetic and is just making you lose credibility. And you could cut back on the arrogance. You might be wrong. Certainly you don't have all the answers you think you do.

In your next post perhaps could get back to addressing in detail how, when, where and why the entire field of AIDs research is manipulated and directed by big pharmaceuticals companies.

Tell us about the AIDs research that has been suppressed. I am very curious and open minded on this matter.

AARRRGH

Before I go any further with you, am I right in thinking you come from a computing background and currently work in IT?

Prime Mover

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't really understand the hostility I am receiving for pointing out that the system could be improved

Firstly, people are getting annoyed with you as you are laying into a system you obviously don't fully understand, judging by your posts.

If you had ever tried to get research funding you would know there are many options out there for funding apart from big scary pharma.

If you had ever submitted a paper to a journal or read the letters section you would know that there are plenty of people out there only too happy to point out potential flaws in your research.

If you had ever worked in a lab you would know that it is often hard to get they guys down the hall to let you borrow their equipment for 5 minutes let alone organise global medical domination.

Secondly, people who work in medicine tend to get annoyed by insinuations that they are part of some secret society that is out to harm people just to make money. This is a strategy used continuously by "alternative" medicine chancers to enrich themselves.

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

Before I go any further with you, am I right in thinking you come from a computing background and currently work in IT?

That is what my profile says. I could have fabricated it for all you know.

AARRRGH

Prime Mover wrote: »

If you had ever submitted a paper to a journal or read the letters section you would know that there are plenty of people out there only too happy to point out potential flaws in your research.

I have published a paper in a computing journal.

From what I've been reading on the web though, the scientists who point out potential flaws in HIV/AIDS research are ignored.

These include professors from serious Universities such as Berkeley.

My whole argument comes back to all dissenting opinions should be considered. From my layman's observation, it seems the HIV/AIDS establishment are not interested in anything which challenges any of their 'established' opinions.

I am not saying the current HIV=AIDS theory is wrong (I doubt it is), but there is a chance *some of it* could be. Therefore, there should be more rigorous attempts at proving it wrong.

marco_polo wrote: »

That is what my profile says. I could have fabricated it for all you know.

Just answer the question please. I want to know if you're just suffering from the 'little bit of knowledge' arrogance, or if you actually are an expert scientist who is entitled to be as arrogant as you've been so far.

marco_polo

AARRRGH wrote: »

I have published a paper in a computing journal.

From what I've been reading on the web though, the scientists who point out potential flaws in HIV/AIDS research are ignored.

These include professors from serious Universities such as Berkeley.

Are you talking specifically about Peter Duesberg?

My whole argument comes back to all dissenting opinions should be considered. From my layman's observation, it seems the HIV/AIDS establishment are not interested in anything which challenges any of their 'established' opinions.

My point is that extraordinary claims require extraodinary proof. There are numerous examples in science where the orthadoxy was eventually overturned because a contraversial theory proved to be the most accurate. Evoultion and Plate Techtonics are two that spring to mind. If a theory is ultimately correct it will not be silenced for very long.

I am not saying the current HIV=AIDS theory is wrong (I doubt it is), but there is a chance *some of it* could be. Therefore, there should be more rigorous attempts at proving it wrong.

Well we know for a fact that some of our current understanding of HIV / Aids is wrong. Where we differ is that I believe AIDs reseacher very much acknowledge this point. There have always been isolated cases of dubious research in scienceand there will continue to be in the future no doubt, but it is always fellow scientist that uncover them, and I categorically reject the notion that it widespread.

Just answer the question please. I want to know if you're just suffering from the 'little bit of knowledge' arrogance, or if you actually are a scientist who works in the HIV/AIDS industry.

Ok fair enough, you are indeed correct in your first assumption.

I am just a regular joe who is sick and tired of negative public attitude towards science in the modern world fulled by any groups whos agenda it suits, be they religious, political or new age therapists. And frankly it is not helped by stuff like this.

Prime Mover

AARRRGH wrote: »

From what I've been reading on the web though, the scientists who point out potential flaws in HIV/AIDS research are ignored.

Actually thats not quite true. In certain countries their theories have been embraced with pretty bad outcomes. Look at what happened in South Africa.

Actually here's an essay recently touching on that topic
http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/#more-1088

The reason scientists try to ignore a lot of crackpot HIV ideas is because those ideas can kill people.

2Scoops

AARRRGH wrote: »

the scientists who point out potential flaws in HIV/AIDS research are ignored.

Examples plz.

DrIndy

I normally let conversations roll on their own when people with expertise are debating the topic - but I have been watching this one closely.

AARRRGH - please precisely and unambiguously state what your concerns are regarding HIV therapy and the associations that exist between pharmaceuticals.

Please be also mindful that there is a lot of research which is founded by foundations and NGO's whose units are from a monetary and administrative viewpoint separated from other academic units which are pharmaceutically funded.

Is your concern because so many drugs are very rapidly being thrown out onto the market? HIV therapy research is one of the few areas where phase III trial results pre drug approval by regulatory bodies are relaxed simply to get the drugs out there before the virus mutates to complete resistance (HIV needs triple therapy - give one drug and it will mutate very rapidly - give it 3 and the chance of it mutating 3 times correctly at the same time is significantly reduced). Therefore a number of side effects (some very serious) do appear after the drugs are licensed - but on balance the need for constant new and different agents (you need 3 new drugs on the market if the virus becomes resistant to the 3 already there).

This is regulatory push as well as pharma push - all to treat people.

There are AIDS denialists (I am not saying you are) - have you been reading their websites or people who quote from their websites?

Finally - this is a scientific forum. Many of our active posters come from a biomedical degree background and we deal with scientific research on a daily basis , you need to provide evidence when you engage in controversy. This is not one paper which can be googled to give a desired result - but ideally phase III placebo controlled trials, large demographic trials or meta-analysis.

In that vein - this debate will become scientific or this topic will be locked. I also am concerned you are posting to try incense other members of this forum - this will not be tolerated.

AARRRGH

DrIndy wrote: »

Is your concern because so many drugs are very rapidly being thrown out onto the market?

This is definitely a concern of mine. My uncle who tested postive for HIV died from the medication he was taking. He was not ill prior to starting treatment.

DrIndy wrote: »

There are AIDS denialists (I am not saying you are) - have you been reading their websites or people who quote from their websites?

I have been reading the website of 'Henry Bauer'. He is a professor who writes about alternative HIV theories. I don't agree with everything he says, but he backs up all his arguments with data from the CDC etc.

DrIndy wrote: »

AARRRGH - please precisely and unambiguously state what your concerns are regarding HIV therapy and the associations that exist between pharmaceuticals.

I have been reading a lot about HIV, both from the mainstream science angle, and from the 'dissident' angle. For example, this sort of stuff.

While I don't agree with a lot of what the 'dissident' scientists say, I find it a bit startling that they are either ignored or ridiculed.

We know from history that mainstream science is often totally wrong, and it takes decades before these wrongs are rectified. I just find it scary that if *some* of what the dissidents are saying is correct, then needless amounts of people will have died because of the oft-poisonous medication they are taking. For example, the studies which show people who have TB have a good chance of getting a false positive on their HIV test url=http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102199871.html]link[/url. Obviously if these people then take HIV medication (which they do) they are just further damaging themselves.

I don't consider myself a 'dissident' btw - I just have an open mind.