HIV deniers...

Can anyone shed light on the science?
Thats exactly what I m trying to do, but as a matter of fact, i m not that qualified to do so since i am not a bio-medical scientist(but a good friend of mine is, so we debate fierecley but friendly)...anyway i am trained to read scientific evidence, and from what i have seen, there are a lot of cracks in the orthodox scientific research on aids/hiv. The same can be said about the dissidents, of course, but as far as i can see, they are not doing bad science,have no vested interests (in fact dissent is the strongest predictor for career-downfall) and they are not just a few - but in any case i think this debate is good for science, since it was most of the time debate, not numbing consensus, which brought upon new and better scientific knowledge...

You raise some very good questions here, and i am inclined to try to answer them, but as my time is very limited, please hold on...

Also i have seen the GN video too - pretty amazing stuff, that can serve as a starting point, i think....on a more personal note, have you seen how the members of HEAL, the dissident HIV-positive self-help group, pointexter and this lady, looked like? To me like physically very ill people. In fact pointdexter died of lymphoma recently...so, this is troublesome, if it wasnt for HIV or drugs, as duesberg points out, what then?(of course this is only anecdotal!)...anyway, later!
 
Well, i did quite a lot of research on this topic as of lately, its very confusing, to say the least. Whats sure though seems to be, that the introduction of a new deadly virus as the cause of aids in the '80s was uncalled for. First of all, the purificatrion (of HIV, at that time called HTLV-III)by robert gallo was, and is, as far as i can see , very questionable. He couldnt actually see the virus, but exerted a lot of chemicals to the specimen (from a tissue of an aids patient) so that the cells exerted proteins, that he deemed a new virus.

So? He is hardly the only person the identify HIV. Not even the first in fact. You are forgetting Luc Montagnier's work. Then of course there was the reanalyisis the National Institutes of Health funded that supported the results (and confirmed that Montagnier and Gallo were looking at the same thing).

Also the commentators say that electron-photographs supposedly showing HIV in fact look more like cell debris (and the 'HIV' doesnt show the 'knobs' there with which it could contact other cells). Then Gallo went on to test if this virus could be found in other aids patients, but he found it in only 40% of them.

HIV is a retovirus. So it wont show up a lot of the time. You ever had chickenpox? The chickenpox virus DNA is still in you although you won't find the virus

Also, the dissidents, as i rather prefer to call them, dont seem to be some internet-conspiracy nut jobs, as it was also suggested here - in fact there are several members of the National Academy of Sciences who question it and some 2000+ academics, doctors and a nobel price winner (Kary Mullis) too. (see some quotes: hxxp://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm)

How may are called steve?

So yes, there is a debate,

Was. Up untill about the early 90s yes there could be legit debate. Now the case for the link between HIV and AIDs is far far to solid:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm
 
Cuddles, the video I posted seems to suggest that AIDS has three causes. Being a syndrome rather than a disease, this is not quite as silly as it sounds.

Cause 1: Lifestyle. Homosexuality, drugs, constant partying. At some point, they say, this started to weaken people's immuine systems.

Cause 2: Poor living conditions. Dirty water, malnutrition, etc. In Africa, this suddenly, at some point, started to weaken people's immune systems.

Cause 3: Anti-retroviral drugs. These drugs supposedly cause the symptoms they're suppose to cure.


Please explain how these apply to cats.
 
Was. Up until about the early 90s yes there could be legit debate. Now the case for the link between HIV and AIDs is far far to solid:

niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm

Well, whether they are wrong or right - as my own analysis of the data isnt finished yet, i just cant say - in any case, duesberg et al wont agree:

The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational
drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition
PETER DUESBERG†, CLAUS KOEHNLEIN* and DAVID RASNICK
J. Biosci. | Vol. 28 | No. 4 | June 2003 | 383–412 |
h**p://*ww.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf

But here is something else i want to present, its related to above study on SLE, who found that both patients and mice with induced SLE very often test positive for HIV:

Rheumatology 2000; 39: 1047-1048
© 2000 British Society for Rheumatology
Letters to the Editor
Presence of HIV infection in patients diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus
D. J. Clutterbuck, J. Watson1, A. De Ruiter1, T. Godfrey2 and C. Bradbeer1

Department of GU Medicine, Level 1, Lauriston Building, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW and
1 Department of GU Medicine and
2 Louise Coote Lupus Unit St. Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK

SIR, Young females, the population in whom systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is most commonly diagnosed, are not regarded as being at high risk of HIV infection in the UK. We describe two cases in which a diagnosis of seronegative SLE was made on clinical grounds some time before the detection of HIV infection.

Case 1 was a 35-yr-old white Colombian-born woman who presented in November 1996 with knee and elbow pain, dry eyes and mouth and symptoms suggestive of Raynaud's phenomenon. She had been diagnosed with SLE elsewhere in 1995, when she had been found to have a florid butterfly rash and hair loss. Investigations revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 88 mm/h, a low C4 level and lymphopenia of 0.8 x 109/l (normal value >1.5 x 109/l). Antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), antiphospholipid antibody and lupus anticoagulant were negative. The diagnosis of active seronegative SLE was agreed and prednisolone was added to her hydroxychloroquine therapy. She developed difficulty in walking. MRI appearances were felt to be suggestive of transverse myelitis. She was treated with pulse cyclophosphamide and prednisolone and later azathioprine. She developed dysarthria, dysphagia and urinary retention, and at this stage had finger–nose ataxia and horizontal nystagmus in addition to spastic paraparesis, with no evidence of a sensory level. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings were consistent with inflammatory myelopathy. At this time she had oesophageal candidiasis, chronic, pathogen-negative diarrhoea and orolabial herpes. She had lost 7 kg in weight.

Pancytopenia persisted despite discontinuation of azathioprine. When bone marrow trephine revealed mycobacteria she underwent an HIV test, which was HIV-1 antibody-positive. The CD4 count was 1/mm3. CSF contained cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus, varicella zoster virus and Mycobacterium avium intracellulare (MAI). With antiviral, antimycobacterial and antiretroviral therapy, there was limited improvement in her confusion but no improvement in spastic paraparesis. She had had no malar rash or arthralgia for over 1 yr after starting HIV/AIDS antiretroviral therapy (HAART). She died in July 1999.

Case 2 was a 44-yr-old, single, white, UK-born woman who was seen by an oral surgeon with a history of oral ulceration, loss of taste, a tender tongue, fatigue, patchy alopecia and amenorrhoea. Her only significant medical history was of a single epileptic seizure, after which she had been commenced on sodium valproate 600 mg daily. At that time she had developed some dysphagia and vaginal soreness and had lost 13 kg in weight. She was noted to have generalized erythema of the palate and buccal gingivae, cervical lymphadenopathy and ulcers at the vaginal introitus. Investigations revealed a normal haemoglobin concentration, platelet count and total white blood count, with mild lymphopenia (1.4 x 109/l) and a raised ESR of 56 mm/h. Renal and liver function tests were normal. ANA were negative and C3 was normal but C4 was low. IgG, IgA and IgM were raised. Biopsy of oral mucosa showed microulceration with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate and a single fungal hypha. The appearances were consistent with the clinical diagnosis of seronegative SLE. The patient was referred to a rheumatologist, but before being seen she attended the emergency department with right lobar pneumonia. Bronchoscopy revealed the presence of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Pneumocystis carinii in bronchial washings. She tested positive for HIV antibody. Her CD4 count was 20/mm3. Six-drug anti-tuberculous therapy and HAART was initiated. She has had no oral ulceration or rash for over 1 yr.

There are many similarities between the clinical and laboratory manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and those of HIV infection. Very few cases have been reported of the coexistence of SLE and HIV in the same individual [1], which appears to occur far less commonly than the relative prevalences of the two diseases would lead us to predict [2].

SLE involves disease of the lymphoid organs, skin, joints, central nervous system, kidneys and lungs, as does HIV. Malar rash, oral ulceration, sicca syndromes, alopecia, arthralgia and arthritis, fever and neuropathies are features of both conditions [3]. A number of laboratory findings may occur in both diseases, including leukopenia, lymphopenia, hypergammaglobulinaemia and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. ANA and rheumatoid factor occur, albeit less frequently, in HIV-infected individuals, but the presence of anti-dsDNA has not been described [4].

In both of the above cases, laboratory findings showed raised ESR, low C4 levels and negative ANA. Symptoms and signs at presentation suggested SLE, and in case 1 the patient fulfilled the ARA criteria for SLE. Both individuals were single, white women with a low number of sexual partners and no history of injecting drug use. A retrospective review of risk factors revealed that heterosexual intercourse in the UK was the probable mode of acquisition in both women. As heterosexual transmission of HIV now accounts for the largest proportion of new HIV diagnoses in the UK, it cannot be excluded in young women on the grounds of lack of risk factors alone. The test should be considered particularly in seronegative SLE, which accounts for less than 5% of SLE diagnoses [5], and before the institution of immunosuppressive therapy.

My Comment: Compare that to the first study. These patiernt where put on - very toxic ARV - and where presumed to be HIV - infected , although SLE patients very frequently test positive anyway (according to the first study). Of course the author muses over why this person have contracted hiv anyway with only a low number of lifetime sexual partners... The first person died on HAART, i note he didnt say what caused the death. Number one killer on HAART is liver failure (although its true that people on HAART live longer as they did on AZT back in the '80 - but, sadly, there is, as far as i know no placebo-controlled study, both for HAART and AZT-Monotherapy, so the fact that they now live longer could be just due to less toxicity of HAART)

comments welcome.
still analyzing...
 
In my last post i stated "Number one killer on HAART is liver failure(...)"
In fact, this is not entirely true, although, in some studies, fatal side effects outweigh AIDS-related morbidity.

Quote:
"One recent study showed an increase in the death rate of HIV-positive patients from liver disease, although this was masked by the increasing diagnosis of people with healthier immune systems [1]. Another showed that HAART was associated with liver fibrosis, particularly the drug Nevirapine [2]. The increasing mortality from liver disease has been noticed for some time among people taking HAART [3]. Liver disease is an important indicator of drug effects because none of the 30 or so AIDS-defining diseases target the liver so there is confusion between HIV or AIDS drugs as the cause.

1. Mocroft A et al. Is there evidence for an increase in the death rate from liver-related disease in patients with HIV? AIDS. 2005 Dec 2; 19(18): 2117-25.
2. Macias J et al. Effect of antiretroviral drugs on liver fibrosis in HIV-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C: harmful impact of nevirapine. AIDS. 2004 Apr 12; 18(5): 767-774.
3. Bica I et al. Increasing mortality due to end-stage liver disease in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Feb 1; 32(3): 492-7. "
Unquote. Source: rethinkingaids.com

Note: Well, toxicity in effective drugs is not the problem here. The problem is the question whether positive effects outweighing side-effects were unanimously shown in a placebo-controlled study. Dissidents claim there is none, and i couldnt find such a study either. Maybe this claim can be refuted, anyone?
 
fraorlando:

When you've previously quote mined, and you don't reference your information, there aren't many people who will respond to you.

Perhaps if you provide some references?
 
Note: Well, toxicity in effective drugs is not the problem here. The problem is the question whether positive effects outweighing side-effects were unanimously shown in a placebo-controlled study. Dissidents claim there is none, and i couldnt find such a study either. Maybe this claim can be refuted, anyone?

No, I think the question arising from the papers you have quoted is how to manage HIV patients coinfected with Hepatitis B or C.

Oh, and analyse this.
 
I'd really like to hear how these deniers explain FIV.

And for that matter the similar viruses found in many other animals which have now evolved to resist them.
 
Tempting, but I think we should avoid going down this route. We wouldn't challenge a legitimate scientist who claimed to have found a cure for AIDS to prove it by deliberately infecting himself, so perhaps we should avoid doing it to the woo-woos.

But it's not really the same thing, is it? No scientist should be asked to test an unproven cure by applying it to themselves (although historically, I believe many have). Any cure needs to undergo all sorts of testing for efficacy, side effects, and so on. Even an effective cure might not work all the time, or cause severe symptoms that an AIDS patient might be willing to risk. To give the doctor a fatal disease just to test her conviction that her cure works would certainly not be justified.

On the other hand, those who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS are placing millions of people at potential risk if they are wrong. Thus if they truly believed this theory, they should be willing to put it to the test. I liken it to Randi consuming homeopathic remedies in quanitities that if effective would kill him. Randi doesn't consider this any risk at all, because he's utterly convinced homeopathic treatments have no effect. If HIV deniers felt the same confidence in their beliefs that Randi does in his, they should have no problem pursuing a similar course of action.
 
I honestly for the life of me can't remember. I would say definitely within the last 4 years. Other than that...Sorry.

-Gumboot

ETA. I also remember it was definitely a high profile figure saying it - that's the reason I remembered it. I was quite shocked to see someone in government saying stuff I'd expect to hear from a rural witchdoctor.

Quite likely was Tshabalala-Msimang, who is South Africa's Health Minister. She's also a great one for "natural" remedies - beetroot and lemon-juice to cure AIDS and generally regarded "Western" medicine as some sort of post-colonial Western plot...

...until she went down with hepatitis - then she decided Western medicine was wonderful and had a liver transplant.
 
I've experienced this theory in my health and human rights class last term. It hasn't been scientifically proven to be true, so good riddance to that garbage.

PS: My professor for that class is a medical researcher and extreme left winger, and even he says that this is crap.

What does his being "an extreme left winger" have to do with this?
 
There was a doctor who injected himself with blood from an HIV+ guy, on TV. He is that sure that the two aren't causal. I'll find some articles about it, and post them in an hour or two.
 
Quite likely was Tshabalala-Msimang, who is South Africa's Health Minister. She's also a great one for "natural" remedies - beetroot and lemon-juice to cure AIDS and generally regarded "Western" medicine as some sort of post-colonial Western plot...

...until she went down with hepatitis - then she decided Western medicine was wonderful and had a liver transplant.

Curious - I thought Mbeki was quite outspoken in parliament re his HIV/AIDS views. His attempts to prevent AIDS medication from being widely available and distributed were blocked by his own cabinet, IIRC.
 
Isn't Robert Mugabe an HIV denier as well? He claims AIDS originates from the evil white man and not HIV, or something like that.
 
Isn't Robert Mugabe an HIV denier as well? He claims AIDS originates from the evil white man and not HIV, or something like that.

Yep. But I assume Gumboot was talking about a South African politician, not a Southern African politician.
 

Back
Top Bottom