kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Would you recieve a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV+?
AIDS (hah)
- Thread starter Dabljuh
- Start date
Would you recieve a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV+?
Irrelevant.
PCR multiplies genes. For HIV testing purposes, it multiplies RNA. The problem is: it doesn't specifically multiply HIV genes, but any sort of RNA. And it does not multiply it by any consistent factor, but rather randomly in fact. The Result? "Viral Load" doesn't say anything and you can't test for HIV either.
Yes Please. How does the HI-Virus destroy the Immune system, again?
Nope.
It screws over important populations of T-cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Citation&field=Title&DateField=MeshDate
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
I think your placebo theory could not be true--we're not talking about feeling a little better or worse, we're talking about living or dying. Placebos don't work for that.
here's a study:
A dramatic increase in life expectancy for people infected with HIV has been achieved since the introduction of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), say Medical Research Council (MRC) scientists today (Friday 17 October 2003).
New research conducted at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit in London and published in this week’s issue of The Lancet shows that in the first four years after the introduction of HAART, death rates from AIDS fell by over 80%.
More than 50,000 people in the UK are living with HIV and worldwide, more than 40 million people have been infected with the virus.
Anti-retroviral drugs work by attacking the virus (HIV) that causes AIDS, slowing the progression of the disease and prolonging life. HAART is the name given to anti-retroviral combination treatments that include three or more drugs.
Using data from CASCADE*, a large collaboration of 22 different studies across Europe, Australia and Canada, scientists led by Dr Kholoud Porter of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit assessed the effect of HAART on life expectancy and development of AIDS in people with a known date of HIV infection.
The researchers found that when HAART was introduced in 1997, death rates immediately halved. By 2001, death rates had been cut by over 80%. Over this four year period, use of HAART therapy increased from one in five patients to over half the people infected with HIV.
Before 1997, the risk of developing AIDS was much higher in those aged 45 years or older when they were infected with HIV compared with people who were 16-24 years old. The study found that older people infected with HIV no longer appear to have a reduced life expectancy compared with younger people.
However, the researchers also found that people with HIV who were infected through injecting drug-use were four times more likely to die of AIDS than men infected through sexual contact. Similarly, people infected through other routes, such as haemophiliacs, were three times more likely to die. The researchers suggest that these findings could be due to these groups of people spending less time on HAART, or benefiting less from therapy because of reduced adherence or other existing infections such as Heptatitis.
Dr Porter said: “The introduction of highly active anti-retroviral therapy has been a tremendous success. Before this therapy was introduced, about half of those infected were expected to live for ten years after diagnosis, much less if they were, say, 40 years old when infected. Now, people treated with these combinations of drugs can almost all expect to live at least ten years after diagnosis, regardless of their age at infection.
“However our findings do point to the importance of an early diagnosis so that people can access the best treatments at the right time. We also need to continue to explore what happens when therapy starts to fail, for example due to resistance to anti-retroviral drugs, if we are to maintain improved life expectancy for people living with HIV.”
The collaboration is funded through a grant from the European Union and has received additional funding from GlaxoSmithKline.
The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a national organisation funded by the UK tax-payer. Its business is medical research aimed at improving human health; everyone stands to benefit from the outputs. The research it supports and the scientists it trains meet the needs of the health services, the pharmaceutical and other health-related industries and the academic world. MRC has funded work which has led to some of the most significant discoveries and achievements in medicine in the UK. About half of the MRC’s expenditure of over £413 million is invested in its 40 Institutes, Units and Centres, where it employs its own research staff. The remaining half goes in the form of grant support and training awards to individuals and teams in universities and medical schools. Web site at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk.
Source: alphagalileo
Further information: www.mrc.ac.uk
here's a study:
A dramatic increase in life expectancy for people infected with HIV has been achieved since the introduction of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), say Medical Research Council (MRC) scientists today (Friday 17 October 2003).
New research conducted at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit in London and published in this week’s issue of The Lancet shows that in the first four years after the introduction of HAART, death rates from AIDS fell by over 80%.
More than 50,000 people in the UK are living with HIV and worldwide, more than 40 million people have been infected with the virus.
Anti-retroviral drugs work by attacking the virus (HIV) that causes AIDS, slowing the progression of the disease and prolonging life. HAART is the name given to anti-retroviral combination treatments that include three or more drugs.
Using data from CASCADE*, a large collaboration of 22 different studies across Europe, Australia and Canada, scientists led by Dr Kholoud Porter of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit assessed the effect of HAART on life expectancy and development of AIDS in people with a known date of HIV infection.
The researchers found that when HAART was introduced in 1997, death rates immediately halved. By 2001, death rates had been cut by over 80%. Over this four year period, use of HAART therapy increased from one in five patients to over half the people infected with HIV.
Before 1997, the risk of developing AIDS was much higher in those aged 45 years or older when they were infected with HIV compared with people who were 16-24 years old. The study found that older people infected with HIV no longer appear to have a reduced life expectancy compared with younger people.
However, the researchers also found that people with HIV who were infected through injecting drug-use were four times more likely to die of AIDS than men infected through sexual contact. Similarly, people infected through other routes, such as haemophiliacs, were three times more likely to die. The researchers suggest that these findings could be due to these groups of people spending less time on HAART, or benefiting less from therapy because of reduced adherence or other existing infections such as Heptatitis.
Dr Porter said: “The introduction of highly active anti-retroviral therapy has been a tremendous success. Before this therapy was introduced, about half of those infected were expected to live for ten years after diagnosis, much less if they were, say, 40 years old when infected. Now, people treated with these combinations of drugs can almost all expect to live at least ten years after diagnosis, regardless of their age at infection.
“However our findings do point to the importance of an early diagnosis so that people can access the best treatments at the right time. We also need to continue to explore what happens when therapy starts to fail, for example due to resistance to anti-retroviral drugs, if we are to maintain improved life expectancy for people living with HIV.”
The collaboration is funded through a grant from the European Union and has received additional funding from GlaxoSmithKline.
The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a national organisation funded by the UK tax-payer. Its business is medical research aimed at improving human health; everyone stands to benefit from the outputs. The research it supports and the scientists it trains meet the needs of the health services, the pharmaceutical and other health-related industries and the academic world. MRC has funded work which has led to some of the most significant discoveries and achievements in medicine in the UK. About half of the MRC’s expenditure of over £413 million is invested in its 40 Institutes, Units and Centres, where it employs its own research staff. The remaining half goes in the form of grant support and training awards to individuals and teams in universities and medical schools. Web site at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk.
Source: alphagalileo
Further information: www.mrc.ac.uk
It presents a model. A hypothesis. Not tested for validity, not proof for anything. It just postulates the theory that HIV destroys important populations of T-Cells. It does not explain how it does that in detail or how it somehow stops the production of new T-Cells.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Where's the proof that AZT causes liver failure?
If they die of liver failure without AZT, it is liver failure.
If they die of liver failure with AZT, it is the AZT.
Seems that you accept the majority viewpoint, developed by experts, when it supports your conspiracy theory. However, you reject the majority viewpoint, developed using the exact same methods and techniques, when it comes to HIV/AIDS.
Would you like to explain the apparent hypocrisy?
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
No, it's actually quite relevant to the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS.
You're sort of all over the place here, man.
I'm asking you why you're assuming PCR isn't good for detecting HIV.
Do you think PCR is useful for detecting other viruses?
If so, why would you see HIV as different?
Do you think PCR is useful for detecting influenza viruses?
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
How about this one?
(It's only one piece of the picture, but a good start).
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aid...nkyXsY1t6XMyMJKlb!675572714!181195628!8091!-1
Well, you probably don't understand what "Liver Failure" means. It usually means "poisoned" - The liver is there to neutralize poisons in the body. For example Alcohol. So you die drinking too much alcohol, causing a catastrophic liver failure. A large number of poisons can thus cause a lethal liver failure, for example certain mushrooms, the toxins produced by a few bacteria, and very importantly: most pharmaceutical drugs, such as paracetamol, can strain and cause liver failure.
The liver doesn't just fail randomly as far as I know. There is always a toxin, a bacteria or a virus involved. Hence
Is a fallacy. They always die of liver failure. The question is merely: which was the toxin that caused that?
Liver failure is not a known/suspected effect of HIV. But it is a *known* adverse effect of antiretroviral therapy.(source)
This means when people with HIV die of liver failure, then this may well mean they may have survived *longer* without the treatment.
Last edited:
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
You still haven't explained your apparent hypocrisy. You accept science when it supports your claims, and reject science when it refutes your claims. You cannot have it both ways... unless you have a very good explanation for it.
This is hilarious:
Translation: "We found that people who have HIV-1 experienced a deteroriation of their immune system when we gave them C-ADE"
It doesn't even pose the question of whether HIV has adverse effects on the immune system in the first place. They don't even use a real control group. Trash Science.
LMAO
"Science: You are either for us, or against us"
Right... but the Hepatitis A-Z are viruses, and being too lazy to read up on how exactly they harm the liver, I assume its not purely mechanical.
Last edited:
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
How did they give them C-ADE?
No, it demonstrates a mechanism you claimed did not exist.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Whatever. You accept science when it suits you, and reject it when it doesn't, with no logic or evidence to support your choices.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Is this you?
from the Wiki:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
[edit]WP:CIV
04:55, December 16, 2005: "You may fool the regular ****tard here that easily. I want arguments. ... I want real arguments why circumcision is good, other than "I have studies that..." I want a priori, theoretical, rational arguments why circumcision would be medicinally beneficial, as well as why it would preferrably be done on infants rather than consenting adults. No weaseling around, I demand the answers, now!"
15:16, December 16, 2005: "Since you continously fail to provide any argument pro (infant) circumcision, I make you an ultimatum: Argue with me, convince me, or I will add both a disputed and an npov flag to the article's header."
05:01, January 9, 2006: "Screw prudes"
[edit]WP:NPA
02:13, January 7, 2006: Describes user as a 'lunatic' (note - also demonstrates assumption of bad faith)
07:32, January 12, 2006: In response to (requested) criticism: "I'm not going to let me being filibustered by fringe view POV pushers."
21:33, January 8, 2006: (likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
02:09, January 11, 2006: "You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. ... User:Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from."
02:47, January 11, 2006: (likens editor to Adolf Hitler) (See also what provoked this)
09:35, January 11, 2006: "Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in #consensus?. You're certainly all sane otherwise"
19:25, January 12, 2006: "Jake, seriously, stop worrying and take a wikibreak, you know why. This here is just distracting you from your real life problems"
00:49, January 11, 2006: (playground diagnoses)
from the Wiki:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
[edit]WP:CIV
04:55, December 16, 2005: "You may fool the regular ****tard here that easily. I want arguments. ... I want real arguments why circumcision is good, other than "I have studies that..." I want a priori, theoretical, rational arguments why circumcision would be medicinally beneficial, as well as why it would preferrably be done on infants rather than consenting adults. No weaseling around, I demand the answers, now!"
15:16, December 16, 2005: "Since you continously fail to provide any argument pro (infant) circumcision, I make you an ultimatum: Argue with me, convince me, or I will add both a disputed and an npov flag to the article's header."
05:01, January 9, 2006: "Screw prudes"
[edit]WP:NPA
02:13, January 7, 2006: Describes user as a 'lunatic' (note - also demonstrates assumption of bad faith)
07:32, January 12, 2006: In response to (requested) criticism: "I'm not going to let me being filibustered by fringe view POV pushers."
21:33, January 8, 2006: (likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
02:09, January 11, 2006: "You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. ... User:Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from."
02:47, January 11, 2006: (likens editor to Adolf Hitler) (See also what provoked this)
09:35, January 11, 2006: "Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in #consensus?. You're certainly all sane otherwise"
19:25, January 12, 2006: "Jake, seriously, stop worrying and take a wikibreak, you know why. This here is just distracting you from your real life problems"
00:49, January 11, 2006: (playground diagnoses)