• 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)

kellyb said:
How did they give them C-ADE?



No, it demonstrates a mechanism you claimed did not exist.
Click to expand...
Somehow, the evidence is good enough for the scientists, and for the people funding the scientists... and not good enough for conspiracy crackpots.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The Hepatitis viruses are not genetically related, except that they're viruses and from earth. (well, unless you're a panspermiest, I guess).
They each "work" differently. It has nothing to do with "viruses that excrete toxins". There's no such thing.
 
calebprime said:
Is this you?

from the Wiki:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was edit-warring on the circumcision article complex. Jayjg and Jakew are the local pro-circumcision-propagandists, being that jayjg is an administrator he eventually removed me.
 
kellyb said:
The Hepatitis viruses are not genetically related, except that they're viruses and from earth. (well, unless you're a panspermiest, I guess).
They each "work" differently. It has nothing to do with "viruses that excrete toxins". There's no such thing.
Click to expand...

Viruses don't have a metabolism on their own. But they can infect cells and have them produce toxins. I don't know the details of the hepatitis viruses, I simply assumed that the destructive process was more toxic than mechanical in nature.
 
Dabljuh said:
You don't "Demonstrate" a mechanism by assuming it is there and then testing whether you can "alter" the supposed mechanism. That is bad, bad science.
Click to expand...

You already agreed earlier that the HIV virus infects immune system cells.
Do you wish to change your position now?
 
kellyb said:
You already agreed earlier that the HIV virus infects immune system cells.
Do you wish to change your position now?
Click to expand...
Um... Infecting Immune system cells != Destroying the Immune system. Especially not irreversibly. Do you wish to wisen up now?

kellyb said:
Here's part of how hepB does it.
Do you think this is junk science, too?
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v24/n27/abs/1208628a.html
Click to expand...
Don't know, don't care about hepatitis B. Is hepatitis B interesting?
 
Dabljuh said:
Um... Infecting Immune system cells != Destroying the Immune system. Especially not irreversibly. Do you wish to wisen up now?

Don't know, don't care about hepatitis B. Is hepatitis B interesting?
Click to expand...
What is interesting is how you can accept parts of reality, and reject other parts. You accept that HIV attacks the immune system, right? You accept the evidence supporting that HIV attacks the immune system?
 
Um... Infecting Immune system cells != Destroying the Immune system. Especially not irreversibly. Do you wish to wisen up now?
Click to expand...

I guess I do need to wisen up since I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you or do you not still agree that the HIV virus infects human immune system cells?

Don't know, don't care about hepatitis B. Is hepatitis B interesting?
Click to expand...
All viruses that infect humans are interesting. :)
I was wondering if you saw PCR and thought "junk science".
 
JoeEllison said:
What is interesting is how you can accept parts of reality, and reject other parts. You accept that HIV attacks the immune system, right? You accept the evidence supporting that HIV attacks the immune system?
Click to expand...
Reality? You're talking about reality? I'm talking about the NHI/CDC opinion of HIV/AIDS that currently dominates mass media and sex ed. Reality? Are you high?

Secondly: Attacking? I never talked about attacking. I said HIV infects immune system cells. I said there is no mechanism known to science by which HIV destroys the immune system, or even the T-Cells it infects. It doesn't destroy them, it doesn't stop new cells from being generated. And neither is HIV immune to the antibodies that are generated to immunize the body after 2-4 weeks of infection.

So, what are you on about? That, unlike SCIENCE, you found some magical way by which HIV destroys the entire immune system?

kellyb said:
All viruses that infect humans are interesting. :)
Click to expand...
There's too many of them to consider all of them interesting.
I was wondering if you saw PCR and thought "junk science".
Click to expand...
PCR isn't junk science, its used every day. PCR to detect HIV infection is junk science.
 
Dabljuh said:
Reality? You're talking about reality? I'm talking about the NHI/CDC opinion of HIV/AIDS that currently dominates mass media and sex ed. Reality? Are you high?

Secondly: Attacking? I never talked about attacking. I said HIV infects immune system cells. I said there is no mechanism known to science by which HIV destroys the immune system, or even the T-Cells it infects. It doesn't destroy them, it doesn't stop new cells from being generated. And neither is HIV immune to the antibodies that are generated to immunize the body after 2-4 weeks of infection.

So, what are you on about? That, unlike SCIENCE, you found some magical way by which HIV destroys the entire immune system?

There's too many of them to consider all of them interesting.PCR isn't junk science, its used every day. PCR to detect HIV infection is junk science.
Click to expand...
More proof of my initial impression of you.

Science is all over this one. You just reject all of the science. You accept PCR, except where it confuses your conspiracy theory. You accept HIV infecting the immune system, yet you fail to see that infection as an attack on the immune system.

Do you think a viral infection is some sort of positive thing?
 
JoeEllison said:
More proof of my initial impression of you.

Science is all over this one. You just reject all of the science. You accept PCR, except where it confuses your conspiracy theory. You accept HIV infecting the immune system, yet you fail to see that infection as an attack on the immune system.

Do you think a viral infection is some sort of positive thing?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that every human has between 30 and 70 retroviruses inside them, and none of them cause any problems? That every human has around 10'000 retroviral genes in his genome, but only the HIV one supposedly causes any problems?

Yes of course, any viral infection is a strain for the immune system. after all, the immune system has to produce an immunological reaction to it. But when even 100's of viruses at the same time don't cause problems, why do you believe that HIV, which is only different from other retroviruses in that its target cell is the immunologically relevant T-Cell, where other retroviruses infect othercell types such as muscle cells, nerve cells, fat cells etc is the only retrovirus that destroys the immune system and kills its host?

Don't you understand that a retrovirus requires its host to live and reproduce? Any retrovirus that would kill its host would soon die out.
 
PCR isn't junk science, its used every day. PCR to detect HIV infection is junk science.
Click to expand...

Why?

Is PCR good for detecting influenza?
 
Dabljuh said:
But when even 100's of viruses at the same time don't cause problems, why do you believe that HIV, which is only different from other retroviruses in that its target cell is the immunologically relevant T-Cell, where other retroviruses infect othercell types such as muscle cells, nerve cells, fat cells etc is the only retrovirus that destroys the immune system and kills its host?
Click to expand...
If you can't puzzle my answer out of your own post, I seriously doubt you'd understand me if I told you.

You're abnormal psychology is immensely fascinating, however, so please keep posting.
 
Don't you understand that a retrovirus requires its host to live and reproduce? Any retrovirus that would kill its host would soon die out.
Click to expand...

Unless it kills it's host slowly.
If HIV had emerged in a way that led to a quick death for it's host, it, too, would have probably killed itself off. Or attenuated itself over time to become less lethal.
It survives because it acts slowly, though.

ETA:
Same with Hepatitis B. If it killed it's chronic carriers quickly, it wouldn't have made it vary far.
Come to think of it, there are a few similarities between HIV and HepB. If you're into "conspiracy theories", you should look into the "serial passage" theory of HIV. (It's not exactly a conspiracy theory, but it's "juicy" like one).
 
Last edited:
You never considered that a virus can be completely harmless and just propagate itself? Without causing its hosts any harm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom