AIDS (hah)

[kellyb]

Do you believe that the HIV virus impares the human immune system sometimes? Yes, but the question is: to what extent?

Just to be clear, you agree that being infected with HIV makes some people sick eventually?
That the HIV virus can and does negatively effect some people's immune systems?

Would you agree with this statement?
"There are people who are dead, who would be alive had they not been infected with HIV".

 

[Dabljuh]

Just to be clear, you agree that being infected with HIV makes some people sick eventually?
That the HIV virus can and does negatively effect some people's immune systems?

Would you agree with this statement?
"There are people who are dead, who would be alive had they not been infected with HIV".

I'd say this post reveals several fallacies, most importantly it assumes that HIV is infectious. Which it is only barely.

 

[kellyb]

I'd say this post reveals several fallacies, most importantly it assumes that HIV is infectious. Which it is only barely.

If it's not infectious, how does it spread?

Do you think some people spontaneously generate the virus in their own bodies or something?

 

[JQH]

Basically, what I'm saying is that "AIDS" probably doesn't exist, at least not in the way I was told in sex ed.

So how do you explain the millions who have died of it?

In the townships of South Africa (I don't know about the rest of the continent) AIDS is a plague on a par with the worst medieval European epidemics.

 

[Dabljuh]

If it's not infectious, how does it spread?

Do you think some people spontaneously generate the virus or something?

No, the HI Virus has a prevalence of about 0.35% amongst the north american population. its most important venue for spreading is human reproduction: it is spread from mother to child. It is almost impossible to get the HI Virus by sexual contact.

The problem that you probably don't understand, is, the HIV tests, and how they are performed, are complete ****.

 

[Wings]

HIV is a virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), AIDS is a syndrome (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

You can be HIV positive and not have AIDS, Dabljuh. While HIV is acknowledged as the underlying cause of AIDS, HIV can remain in a dormant state and thus not cause the person to have AIDS, at least for a period of time.

AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome. Look at the acronym, Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS is the label we put on an immune system that has been damaged by HIV.

 

[kellyb]

It is almost impossible to get the HI Virus by sexual contact.

ALL sexual contact? How do you define "almost impossible" there?
What about blood transfusions and needle sharing among IV drug users?

its most important venue for spreading is human reproduction: it is spread from mother to child.

You know that's considered a form of "infectiousness" don't you? A virus that passes from a mother to a child is an infectious disease.

The problem that you probably don't understand, is, the HIV tests, and how they are performed, are complete ****.

I agree that they're imperfect.

Do you think PCR testing is "complete bull****", too?

 

[Dabljuh]

ALL sexual contact? How do you define "almost impossible" there?

Say... There's only the ~4 weeks time between infection and consecutive immunization in which an HIV host can really infect someone.

What about blood transfusions and needle sharing among IV drug users?

If you're getting blood transfusions or take IV drugs, then the immunodepressive effect of those actions will far outweight that of a virus.

You know that's considered a form of "infectiousness" don't you? A virus that passes from a mother to a child is an infectious disease.

I said "barely". People tend to assume, because of **** learned in sex ed classes, that HIV can be sexually transmitted just like gonnorhoe, or syphillis. Which is not the case. Those are real STI.

Do you think PCR testing is "complete bull****", too?

Especially PCR testing. Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR test, says its unsuitable for HIV tests and does not believe HIV causes AIDS.

 

[Dabljuh]

HIV is a virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), AIDS is a syndrome (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

You can be HIV positive and not have AIDS, Dabljuh. While HIV is acknowledged as the underlying cause of AIDS, HIV can remain in a dormant state and thus not cause the person to have AIDS, at least for a period of time.

AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome. Look at the acronym, Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS is the label we put on an immune system that has been damaged by HIV.

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".

 

[kellyb]

Say... There's only the ~4 weeks time between infection and consecutive immunization in which an HIV host can really infect someone.

What do you mean by "really infect someone"???
ETA:
Do you not agree that the HIV viral load is high in many people who qualify as "AIDS"?

If you're getting blood transfusions or take IV drugs, then the immunodepressive effect of those actions will far outweight that of a virus.

Yeah, that's not what we're talking about, though.
And getting a single blood transfusion is not immunosupressive anyway.

Do you agree that HIV can be transmitted by blood transfusion and needle sharing?

I said "barely". People tend to assume, because of **** learned in sex ed classes, that HIV can be sexually transmitted just like gonnorhoe, or syphillis. Which is not the case. Those are real STI.

It's not my fault that your highschool sex ed teacher sucked, or that you misunderstood something. Also, it might have been a long time ago that you were in school for all we know, so maybe there wasn't a lot of data in at that time on exactly how transmissible HIV is under various circumstances and through various modes of transmission.

Especially PCR testing. Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR test, says its unsuitable for HIV tests and does not believe HIV causes AIDS.

Why would PCR be unsuitable for testing for HIV?
Why do you think PCR and the antibody tests usually agree?

 

[JoeEllison]

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".

Here we go with the woo-woo conspiracy nonsense.

How about you stop for a second, and use whatever critical thinking skills you have. Forget what you think you know(which is all wrong) and think about the consequences if what you are claiming is true. And then ask yourself why the entire world doesn't know it, but somehow you are magically the smartest, most knowledgeable person alive, and you know all the secrets that no one else can figure out.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[kellyb]

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".

The definition is not used to "prove" that HIV causes AIDS. Some of the best proof is in the cell biology. The epidemiology also "works" very well, but would be debateable without the cell biology/virology. Robinson a while back located a good "logical thought experiment" that you might like.

 

[JoeEllison]

There was never any proof offered that HIV, on its own, as a causative agent, does destroy the immune system. All we got instead was a circular AIDS definition, which was in turn used to "prove" how HIV causes "AIDS".

Really? The whole world just made it up?

 

[Dabljuh]

What do you mean by "really infect someone"???
ETA:
Do you not agree that the HIV viral load is high in many people who qualify as "AIDS"?

"Viral Load" is a ******** PCR term.

Why would PCR be unsuitable for testing for HIV?
Why do you think PCR and the antibody tests usually agree?

I think it's better if you ask those questions to Kary Mullis, since he is far more suitable to elaborate.(Linky)

Here we go with the woo-woo conspiracy nonsense.

How about you stop for a second, and use whatever critical thinking skills you have. Forget what you think you know(which is all wrong) and think about the consequences if what you are claiming is true. And then ask yourself why the entire world doesn't know it, but somehow you are magically the smartest, most knowledgeable person alive, and you know all the secrets that no one else can figure out.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Imagine, for a second, that 1000 years ago people believed diseases were caused by demons and stuff. But they werent! How could everyone believe it was demons when it wasn't? Since the majority of people obviously is always right, and the truth can be democratically voted for, Demons must be the real cause for diseases. Right? Thanks for this revelation Mr. Critical Thinker. Also: If you do think that I'm the only person in the world who thinks that way, do your research, and until you did, shut up.

The definition is not used to "prove" that HIV causes AIDS. Some of the best proof is in the cell biology. The epidemiology also "works" very well, but would be debateable without the cell biology/virology. Robinson a while back located a good "logical thought experiment" that you might like.

I'd like to see that experiment. There is no mechanism known to molecular biology that explains how HIV is supposedly destroying the immune system. It is just assumed it does, but it has to, since after all, it does cause AIDS, right?

 

[JoeEllison]

Imagine, for a second, that 1000 years ago people believed diseases were caused by demons and stuff. But they werent! How could everyone believe it was demons when it wasn't? Since the majority of people obviously is always right, and the truth can be democratically voted for, Demons must be the real cause for diseases. Right? Thanks for this revelation Mr. Critical Thinker. Also: If you do think that I'm the only person in the world who thinks that way, do your research, and until you did, shut up.

I'd like to see that experiment. There is no mechanism known to molecular biology that explains how HIV is supposedly destroying the immune system. It is just assumed it does, but it has to, since after all, it does cause AIDS, right?

LOL, thanks for confirming everything we know about conspiracy theorists.

We're talking about evidence-based medicine. Why do the VAST MAJORITY of doctors and scientists in relevant fields accept the evidence, and a tiny minority pretend the evidence simply doesn't exist? Why is it that besides that tiny number of medical experts, the vast majority of AIDS/HIV deniers are people who have no idea about science, and are simple conspiracy crackpots?

I'm not talking about "democracy"... I'm asking what special insight into the evidence you claim to have, that the entire world has missed?

 

[strathmeyer]

Just to be clear, Dabljuh, you would have unprotected intercourse with someone with AIDS?

 

[calebprime]

Kary Mullis, the nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR test, says its unsuitable for HIV tests and does not believe HIV causes AIDS.

"Viral Load" is a ******** PCR term.
I think it's better if you ask those questions to Kary Mullis, since he is far more suitable to elaborate.(Linky)

Kary Mullis is an interesting guy. Loves to surf. Loves to get high--weed and acid, mostly. Loves to be a contrarian. He's had some good ideas, but isn't right if he thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

But what I want to know: There were a lot of gay men in the U.S. dying of AIDS. Then multi-drug anti-viral therapy came along, and the same population of men is now living much longer. So much so, that we say that AIDS is no longer a death sentence. So we have a fairly effective therapy. What's your theory about what is actually happening in this case?

 

[Dabljuh]

Just to be clear, Dabljuh, you would have unprotected intercourse with someone with AIDS?

Someone with AIDS is probably very sick and/or malnourished. Not the kind of person you'd want sex with, regardless of HIV/AIDS.

Maybe your question would be: Would I do someone who merely tested positive on HIV? Yes, if they were hot.

 

[kellyb]

"Viral Load" is a ******** PCR term.

Hmmm...so I'll take that as a "no".
Let me rephrase it, then. Do you think lots of HIV virons are infecting immune system cells in people with AIDS?

I think it's better if you ask those questions to Kary Mullis, since he is far more suitable to elaborate.(Linky)

He doesn't explain there why PCR would not be good for finding HIV.
The interview is also from 10 years ago, and he says some things there I think he'd recant now, like this:

interviewer:They say it's a blood-borne disease.

Mullis:Well, they don't have any proof of that. There's no proof of it at all.

So, why wouldn't PCR be good for detecting the HIV virus, Dabljuh?

There is no mechanism known to molecular biology that explains how HIV is supposedly destroying the immune system.

No, the mechanisms are known and understood fairly well now.
Would you like for me to find some of the current research for you?

It is just assumed it does

Incorrect. What makes you think that?

 

[Dabljuh]

Kary Mullis is an interesting guy. Loves to surf. Loves to get high--weed and acid, mostly. Loves to be a contrarian. He's had some good ideas, but isn't right if he thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

But what I want to know: There were a lot of gay men in the U.S. dying of AIDS. Then multi-drug anti-viral therapy came along, and the same population of men is now living much longer. So much so, that we say that AIDS is no longer a death sentence. So we have a fairly effective therapy. What's your theory about what is actually happening in this case?

The drugs against HIV/AIDS don't work. None of them have, ever, except as active placebos. If you have a placebo that makes you puke, **** blood and so on, it has hell of a stronger placebo effect than a sugar pill. The reality of those drugs is, that they do not >at all< prolong the lives of "AIDS" victims. The only reason the FDA allows them to be used for AIDS treatment is because the AIDS victims "feel better" when using them, not because they actually cured anything or even prolonged the lifespan.