• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AIDS (hah)

Dabljuh said:
God, what a waste of time. OK: the RT-PCR test is 100% sensitive and 100% specific to detect HIV in humans, even when it is performed by badly trained countryside hospitals in 15 minutes, dozens of times, daily.
Click to expand...

Straw man.

PCR can be done incorrectly. Let's look at when it's done by people who are experienced and competent, ok?
 
92% of those "lab/hospital HIV infections" are men. Just the same quota as the HIV cases in the general public.

Listen: I don't care about PCR. I don't have to. Because the validity and accuracy of the PCR test is in no way important to my argument.

the basic plausibility behind my claim is that the AIDS definition is circular.
Click to expand...
Which is why you need to dig a little deeper, dude.
Click to expand...
Like what? A circular definition is a circular definition. No way around it.

edit: Everything else, such as crappy HIV tests, (which you acknowledge), is just corroborative evidence.
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
To clarify, HIV is the retrovirus. AIDS is a label for a set of diseases combined with HIV being detected. Neither HIV nor AIDS kills you, it is some disease that kills you, not HIV. Semantics. HIV leads to AIDS leads to some disease, or combination of diseases, which leads to death, which means you don't breath anymore, and your body starts to decompose. Does that help?


Damn you troll. Damn you to hell! :mad:
Click to expand...

:D Robinson has learned sooo much since this was discussed in detail last. I have to say I'm quite proud of the way you worded that.

Yeah, if you have no immune system left to fight diseases (because HIV took over your T cells), then your body can't fight the diseases we all come into contact with every day. This inability to fight disease because of the HIV infection is called AIDS (acquired immune deficiency). You acquire immune deficiency by acquiring HIV. You will quite readily be killed or weakened by things that your body needs its Tcells to fight off. Your body gets weakened by the infections, then you can even get killed off by even simpler infections (opportunistic).
 
Dabljuh said:
92% of those "lab/hospital HIV infections" are men. Just the same quota as the HIV cases in the general public.

Listen: I don't care about PCR. I don't have to. Because the validity and accuracy of the PCR test is in no way important to my argument.

Like what? A circular definition is a circular definition. No way around it.
Click to expand...


What is your argument exactly? HIV exists, and it infects T-cells. No argument needed.
 
Listen: I don't care about PCR. I don't have to. Because the validity and accuracy of the PCR test is in no way important to my argument.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "The natural age of retraction has nothing to do with my 12 month old's diagnosis of phimosis".

Seriously. That's what I feel like trying to argue with you about HIV.

Like what? A circular definition is a circular definition. No way around it.
Click to expand...

If you knew which diagnostic tests were accurate for finding the HIV virus, you could look at populations who aren't on "toxic" meds, aren't starving, aren't infected with other horrible diseases, aren't on drugs and leading otherwise "unhealthy lives", etc.

But if you don't ''believe in" the tests that find the HIV virus, you have nothing to work with, and are only going to see a circular definition.

ETA:
I'm saying this gently, so don't get pissed off, but you're coming at this question of "Does HIV cause AIDS?" from a position of ignorance. Not stupidity, but you don't have the information at this point to really figure it out. This is a fixable situation. You CAN learn about it. It might take a few months, but it's not that hard. All it takes is curiosity and motivation.
 
Last edited:
Weak arguments, when bringing up false positives and such. It is so very rare, and the tests keep getting better:

http://www.aidstruth.org/debunking-denialist-myths.php

In recent years many HIV rapid tests that deliver results within 45 minutes have been developed. When two of these tests are used to measure HIV status they are very accurate (both sensitive and specific). In high HIV prevalence populations they provide an accurate and affordable means for pregnant women to determine their HIV status. See:

Evaluation of rapid tests in pregnant women in Cameroon

Evaluation of rapid tests in pregnant women in Côte d'Ivoire

Review of evidence for screening pregnant women in the United States
Click to expand...
 
Dabljuh said:
92% of those "lab/hospital HIV infections" are men. Just the same quota as the HIV cases in the general public.
Click to expand...
:confused:
Sorry, I don't follow your argument here. 100% of the lab workers with HIV got AIDS.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Originally Posted by robinson View Post

To clarify, HIV is the retrovirus. AIDS is a label for a set of diseases combined with HIV being detected. Neither HIV nor AIDS kills you, it is some disease that kills you, not HIV. Semantics. HIV leads to AIDS leads to some disease, or combination of diseases, which leads to death, which means you don't breath anymore, and your body starts to decompose. Does that help?


Damn you troll. Damn you to hell!
Click to expand...
:D Robinson has learned sooo much since this was discussed in detail last. I have to say I'm quite proud of the way you worded that.

Yeah, if you have no immune system left to fight diseases (because HIV took over your T cells), then your body can't fight the diseases we all come into contact with every day. This inability to fight disease because of the HIV infection is called AIDS (acquired immune deficiency). You acquire immune deficiency by acquiring HIV. You will quite readily be killed or weakened by things that your body needs its Tcells to fight off. Your body gets weakened by the infections, then you can even get killed off by even simpler infections (opportunistic).
Click to expand...
That is the general idea. That's what I basically was tought in Sex Ed.

But, the CDC definition of AIDS is the following:
You have been tested HIV+, and
- You have one of over 20 diseases, some of them actually common
*OR*
- A CD4 cell count of below 200/ml

Essentially, if we remove the HIV+ requirement, we have a pretty basic definition of "Immune deficiency" that says "If you are sick, get one of those diseases, you have a weakened immune system". And the CD4 cell count has never been proven to show anything about the state of the immune system, in fact, before the CDC's AIDS definition was enhanced by this criterion in 1993, a paper was published that said that there was no correlation between someone's "state of the immune system" and their CD4 cell count.

Basically the problem is there is no way to test for a "immune deficiency" - so to make up for that, the CDC's definition for this immune deficiency is that you get sick while you are HIV+.

That's a circular definition right there. If you, based on this definition, try to find empirical evidence that HIV "causes" AIDS, then you will find it. You will not find a single AIDS case without HIV, and you will find that all (or nearly all) HIV cases eventually develop AIDS.

But the definition is circular! Thus, the "empirical evidence" to that effect is worthless.

What is your argument exactly? HIV exists, and it infects T-cells. No argument needed.
Click to expand...
Hundreds of viruses exist that infect hundreds of different, human cells, which do not cause any harm or problems. Yes, there are viruses that cause disease, but these are the minority - they are simply not adapted to the human being yet. But if you claim a specific virus causes a disease, you will have to offer proof for that. This proof was never offered for HIV. Only empirical evidence that "HIV causes AIDS" using CDC's definition of AIDS was proven, which, due to it being circular, doesn't prove anything.

Using the CDC definition of "AIDS" without the HIV requirement, calling it "Immune deficiency" instead of "AIDS", I can make the following statements, which are all true:

- There is "Immune Deficiency" without HIV
- There is HIV without "Immune deficiency"
- There is no causal link proven between HIV and "Immune Deficiency"

How do you know someone who has the flu and is HIV+, does not just have the flu? Why do you insist they have AIDS now and are going to die within months?
 
- There is no causal link proven between HIV and "Immune Deficiency"
Click to expand...

And again, remedy your lack of information and you'll change your mind there.
 
kellyb said:
That's like saying "If you knew which diagnostic tests were accurate for finding the HIV virus, you could look at populations who aren't on "toxic" meds, aren't starving, aren't infected with other horrible diseases, aren't on drugs and leading otherwise "unhealthy lives", etc.

But if you don't ''believe in" the tests that find the HIV virus, you have nothing to work with, and are only going to see a circular definition.
Click to expand...
I ask for a double-blind RCT to be performed on whether HIV causes complications. Use influenca or a similiar virus for the control group. What you are doing is, drawing arguments from cohort and population studies, which are not very scientifically meaningful. A large scale, double blind, randomized controlled trial could convince me. But using sorry excuses of cohort studies and case studies doesn't do it for me. I request better evidence. And to that end, the validity of HIV tests is irrelevant.
 
I ask for a double-blind RCT to be performed on whether HIV causes complications. Use influenca or a similiar virus for the control group.
Click to expand...
Have fun getting an ethics committee to approve that one.
What you're proposing is another Tuskegee experiment, you know?

What you are doing is, drawing arguments from cohort and population studies, which are not very scientifically meaningful.
Click to expand...
To be completely fair, I bet we learned a lot from the Tuskegee experiments!


But using sorry excuses of cohort studies and case studies doesn't do it for me. I request better evidence. And to that end, the validity of HIV tests is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You'll say that for HIV, but I'm assuming you buy it for the other infectious diseases. NONE of them have been studied in the way you're proposing. Because it's unethical nowadays. So science has jumped through a bunch of hoops to find alternative ways of studying stuff. But you don't believe in it, because you don't understand it.

I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
A scanning electron micrograph of the AIDS virus attacking T4 lymphocytes.

We have pictures, the actual specimens, the RNA codes, the fact that RNA uses reverse transcriptase (and samples of that enzyme) to make dna strands that enter the T-cell dna to make the TCELL make more HIV rna that leaves the cell by taking T-cell cytoplasm with it to go invade more T-cells.

We have everything, and aren't a bunch of ignorant buffoons the way dab is suggesting. We can go to the expense of isolating the HIV virus from every victim, but the more practical testing we utilize is far more cost effective.

http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/AIDS.html
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Complete and utter baloney. Again, as with the rest of your misinformed post (about CDC definitions and other hooey), where are you getting this from? It's utter crap.

Here is actual information and studies:

http://www.aidstruth.org/scientific-studies.php

I suggest you study them and leave all the other crap you "learned" behind.
Click to expand...
Oh, you call the CDC definition crap? Well, I agree there. if you're now asking me for the link, confusedly, I offer it: Link
 
Eos of the Eons said:
A scanning electron micrograph of the AIDS virus attacking T4 lymphocytes.

We have pictures, the actual specimens, the RNA codes, the fact that RNA uses reverse transcriptase (and samples of that enzyme) to make dna strands that enter the T-cell dna to make the TCELL make more HIV rna that leaves the cell by taking T-cell cytoplasm with it to go invade more T-cells.

We have everything, and aren't a bunch of ignorant buffoons the way dab is suggesting. We can go to the expense of isolating the HIV virus from every victim, but the more practical testing we utilize is far more cost effective.

http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/AIDS.html
Click to expand...
That picture is an in vitro infected sample, not from a live AIDS patient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom