• 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.

Do HIV and AIDS exist

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
58,010
Location
Melbourne
I had no idea there was a serious debate about this (although I recall denial by the South African President), but there is an interesting court case in South Australia, reported in Melbourne's Age (sorry I cant post a link). A man convicted of knowingly infecting two women with HIV, and receiving 15 years jail, has appealed on the grounds that HIV and AIDS do not exist. He has the support of a medical physicist (I didn't know there was such an occupation) Elani Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, who testified that she would happily have unsafe sex with a HIV positive man.

The article quoted a couple of sceptical scientists, Dr Mary Mullis, a Noble Prize winner, and Dr Harry Rubin.

The article was headed "25 million dead people can't be wrong. Or can they?". Is there any real doubt about HIV or is this criminal clutching at straws?
 
Sigh.

HIV is a virus with two strands of RNA. When HIV leaves the T-cell, it takes some of its cytoplasm with it. That way, the body really doesn't recognize it, and doesn't really fight it. HIV also then readily recognizes the body's T-Cells and happily invades it to make more of itself.

When the virus enters the cell, it uses revese transcriptase to make itself some dna, then with its own HIV genes in it, the dna can insert itself in the T-Cell dna. Then the HIV dna makes the T-Cell manufacture more HIV viruses instead of allowing the T-cell fight infections.

So, you can't fight infection anymore, since your T-cells are making HIV viruses.

Why do we know all this? Because it can be OBSERVED, and the reverse transcriptase is one of the ways we can test for HIV presence in the body. WE don't make reverse transcriptase, the HIV virus does. We also have pictures of HIV budding from T-cells. T-cells don't replicate this way, so it's not just a picture of T-cell cell replication:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HIV-budding.jpg

Give me a second to look up the dumm dumb claims of HIV deniers. That crap isn't as easy to remember right off the top of my head, because it is so stupid. Weak claims of no HIV virus ever bein seen, and other lies as ridiculous:
Professor Moore, who has written and co-written more than 200 peer-reviewed articles on HIV and AIDS, said: "They are not experts except in their own minds. They have never worked on HIV, with HIV patients, or studied it first-hand. It is the equivalent of me saying I'm an expert in astrophysics because I've read some books on it."
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21171021-2702,00.html

While deniers rigidly believe that HIV is nonexistent or incidental, they have yet to articulate a coherent explanation for its nearly universal presence in people with AIDS. Nor have they explained the documented efficacy of drugs that specifically suppress HIV in prolonging AIDS patients’ lives and preventing infection in newborns of HIV-infected women. Furthermore, in the face of such data, they have not articulated a moral defense for their advice against anti-retroviral treatments that actually work to save human lives. At best, their position is surreal; at worst, it is blatantly immoral…
Click to expand...
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/07/28/aidsdeniers/index.html
 
Last edited:
Medical-Physicist? There is a medical-physics program at my university. As far as I know they are trained to understand how to work with medical machines related to imaging and chemotherapy.

I would think they would have the same authority on the subject as an auto-mechanic.
 
Depends on your definition of "serious debate", lionk. There is no serious debate among any legitimate scientists. There are a couple of scientists off their rocker and a small group of "believers" who deny HIV-AIDS. It's really a shame the beliefs of so many people in the third world (and a few in every country) who still have such magical thinking as to believe in witches, curses, black magic and these beliefs spill over into disease beliefs with results such as the So. African President and a Nobel Prize winner (for her tree planting program, not for her scientific achievements) believing AIDS is caused by HIV drugs and general poor nutrition. It is incredibly ignorant. In fact, it's mind bogglingly ignorant.

Give me a minute and I'll find your link for you.
 
The prosecution intends to call many eminent virologists and infectious disease experts to counter the defence's proposition that there is doubt about the existence of HIV. If there is some doubt and the existence of the virus is even debatable, the prisoner could walk. If there is not direct evidence of the virus, but only inferences, the judge may find that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

I am not in the HIV deniers camp at all, but wonder why so much money is being spent on this case is there is nothing to debate.
 
I don't know why the claim isn't just dismissed. Maybe this is an opportunity for notoriety. Bring attention to the issue, and get famous for being the first to prove it is complete hooey in court.

I remember the mom whose daughter died because she denied that her infection could harm her child. She still doesn't believe she infected her daughter and caused her death. Shut her up though, since I don't hear of her anymore. She should have been convicted of murder.
 
lionking said:
I am not in the HIV deniers camp at all, but wonder why so much money is being spent on this case is there is nothing to debate.
Click to expand...

Who is spending the money? What does the spender have at stake? If he has the money to spend, he may as well spend it on this.
 
25 million dead people can't be wrong. Or can they?

Not all experts, of course, but enough to occupy the witness box at the District Court for a week. That's right — experts arguing in a court of law that unprotected vaginal intercourse with a suspected HIV carrier is safe. In fact, the climax of last Tuesday's testimony was an exchange between prosecutor Sandi McDonald and defence witness Eleni Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos. "Would you have unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV-positive man?" McDonald asked. "Any time," Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos replied.

Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, a slight, middle-aged bachelor of science and a medical physicist at Royal Perth Hospital, knows the importance of her evidence. Another witness for the defence is emergency doctor Val Turner, from the same hospital.

Seldom did Parenzee look at Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos as she was giving the evidence he hopes will save him....


....Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos says AIDS is a disease caused by the inside of the body becoming oxidised following repeated exposure to semen through passive anal intercourse. It cannot be transmitted from one person to another during vaginal sex.

Yet thousands of people have shown signs of the virus after receiving contaminated blood. So are the HIV doubters visionaries like Galileo or lunatics like the Flat Earthers?

Doubters of HIV and AIDS are despised by their opponents. Experts called by the Crown were emphatic — HIV is a specific virus, and vaginal sex passes it on. From the public gallery, though, Parenzee's supporters — his mother has reportedly spent $250,000 on the defence — saw even professors make some concessions under Borick's penetrating cross-examination.

At least a few scientists are in the anti-HIV camp.

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability," Nobel prize-winning chemist Dr Kary Mullis said in 1993. "There is no such document."

Even University of California's Dr Harry Rubin, professor of molecular and cell biology, has expressed doubts. "It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome," he said in 1994.
Click to expand...

So this reporter dug up two scientific opinions from > 10 years ago? That's what he claims are scientists who don't agree with the experts today? The virus was only identified in the mid 80s. I sincerely doubt Dr Mullis and Dr Rubin still maintain the same opinion.

And the testimony by this Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos? She's not only not a PhD., she doesn't even have a master's degree! But the convicts mother had $250,000 dollars. Gee, isn't that interesting. Oh, and I wonder how you missed that, lionk.? HIS MOTHER is spending the money.

Bold added for a good laugh. :cs: Do you think the jury and/or judge kept a straight face when that was said?
 
Last edited:
Interesting point Eos about the case not being dismissed. In Australia, the judge can dismiss appeals if the grounds are deemed trivial, but it would be a brave judge who did not even listen to the defence's arguments, however stupid, as it would invite an appeal to a higher court and the judge could be accused of denying the appellant justice. Anyway, I will let you know of the outcome of the trial.
 
Rob Lister said:
Who is spending the money? What does the spender have at stake? If he has the money to spend, he may as well spend it on this.
Click to expand...
Reportedly the mother is spending $A250,000. The defence lawyer, an expensive QC, is working pro bono.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
I don't know why the claim isn't just dismissed. Maybe this is an opportunity for notoriety. Bring attention to the issue, and get famous for being the first to prove it is complete hooey in court.

I remember the mom whose daughter died because she denied that her infection could harm her child. She still doesn't believe she infected her daughter and caused her death. Shut her up though, since I don't hear of her anymore. She should have been convicted of murder.
Click to expand...
You have a legitimate question of how did this qualify for an appeal? I'm not familiar with Aussie criminal appeals rules. It's a waste of taxpayer money though.
 
lionking said:
Interesting point Eos about the case not being dismissed. In Australia, the judge can dismiss appeals if the grounds are deemed trivial, but it would be a brave judge who did not even listen to the defence's arguments, however stupid, as it would invite an appeal to a higher court and the judge could be accused of denying the appellant justice. Anyway, I will let you know of the outcome of the trial.
Click to expand...
No need, unless it's to tell us the judge lost his mind. Then I'd expect to be reading how the judge was caught taking a bribe from that idiot mother.
 
Yes, no doubt. But the Deniers want attention, so will welcome this chance. The Judge will get famous too. The mom has the money to throw around. Why not delve in and chase this silly tale?

:D
 
skeptigirl said:
25 million dead people can't be wrong. Or can they?



So this reporter dug up two scientific opinions from > 10 years ago? That's what he claims are scientists who don't agree with the experts today? The virus was only identified in the mid 80s. I sincerely doubt Dr Mullis and Dr Rubin still maintain the same opinion.

And the testimony by this Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos? She's not only not a PhD., she doesn't even have a master's degree! But the convicts mother had $250,000 dollars. Gee, isn't that interesting. Oh, and I wonder how you missed that, lionk.? HIS MOTHER is spending the money.

Bold added for a good laugh. :cs: Do you think the jury and/or judge kept a straight face when that was said?
Click to expand...
I didn't miss it skeptigirl, I just didn't see the revelence. Still dont.
 
Yeah, maggiore and duesberg.
An autopsy was performed. The Los Angeles County coroner found that Eliza Jane was markedly underweight and underheight, consistent with a chronic illness, and that she had had pronounced atrophy of her thymus and other lymphatic organs. Examination of her lungs showed infection with Pneumocystis jiroveci, a common opportunistic pathogen in people with AIDS. The post-mortem examination of Eliza Jane's brain showed changes consistent with HIV encephalitis; protein components of the HIV virus itself were identified in Eliza Jane's brain tissue via immunohistochemistry.
Click to expand...

Maggiore and her HIV denial pal tried to say the daughter died of an allergy to amoxicillin. If that was the case, then some idiot didn't notice her first reaction to amoxicillin, which is hardly lethal. Funny how her dead body showed no signs of any kind of allergy, but had all the signs of dying of HIV infection. Funny that. I can only wish that mother all the hell of dying of untreated HIV infection when she does get flown blown AIDS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom