HIV=AIDS?

[Falcon]

For (i), the rates of infection of other STDs have risen, but not for HIV infection(not the same as AIDS). Maybe it wasn't sexually transmitted, or even a virus at all?

For (ii), it has been at least 18 years since AIDS was first discovered. One would think that a virus capable of attacking any and all persons would have spread to the general population, but it hasn't. Instead, a large percentage of AIDS victims are still male homosexuals, a disproportionate number with regards to the population demographics. Even if we allow for HIV=AIDS, the HIV positive numbers are still heavily skewed in favor of homosexuals and drug users getting the disease, when a real STD virus would have attacked any and all targets it comes into contact with, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is definately sexually transmitted, however, because it first appeared in the gay community it is slower to spread. Why you ask, well because it only transmits through blood or sex and most people are not gay, it is slow to move into the big population. STDs were already common in the regular population, so rampant sexual activity spreads them around far easier. If you want to see how AIDs can run through a general population look at africa.

More importantly, there are cases of AIDS without HIV being detected at all, which really suggests that there might be, even if the HIV hypothesis is accepted, other factors at work which can cause AIDS.

The Nice Guy

AIDs is immunity deficiency which isn't the same as the immunity virus HIV

[Lagmonster]

Nice_Guy, really. Before the discovery of HIV, evidence from epidemiologic studies (check the cdc website) involving tracing of patients’ sex partners and cases occurring in persons receiving transfusions of blood or blood clotting products had clearly indicated that the underlying cause of the condition was an infectious agent.

Infection with HIV has been the sole common factor shared by AIDS cases throughout the world among homosexual men, transfusion recipients, persons with hemophilia, sex partners of infected persons, children born to infected women, and occupationally exposed health care workers.

Sorry, kid. The conclusions are pretty much inescapable after 15 years of research. Read more. Those of us who are real immunologists or virologists are actually laughing ourselves into a coma reading statements like, "If it were a virus, EVERYONE would get it, period." Please, please, please, learn more about spread of infection models, and don't just quote snippets of conspiratorialists who have been largely snubbed by the legitimate medical society. Farr, an excellent epidemiologist in the late 1800's, was very quick to study spreads of disease outbreaks, but was actually wrong on many points of how disease was actually spread.

Farr attempted to trace a cholera epidemic over time and space and investigated the roles of sex, age, seasons, day of the week and soil elevation. This material led him to propose a "law" that could predict in mathematical terms human mortality from cholera according to soil elevation. Farr’s law did not reflect causation, and more generally his theory that diseases were caused by zymotic factors (that is, produced by fermentation) was wrong. But his activity laid the ground to what we call today surveillance of disease. Farr, at his best, was a statician, nothing more.

HIV cannot survive long enough outside the body to do anything. It is NOT an airborne or food-borne virus. So unless everyone is swapping blood, semen, or spinal fluids, Farr's Law won't apply.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Then why is sexual transmission known to work?

It doesn't. Not in any of the scientific literature. There is no empirical proof that AIDS is transmitted by having sex. If sex really was involved, then the general population would have been a lot harder hit in recent years. Comparing to other STDs, there really is no correlation with the data that AIDS is being sexually transmitted. The epidemiology data of the disease in north America and Europe does not jive with the data for any other sexually transmitted disease.

Furthermore, infectious diseases are equal opportunity killers. No exceptions. So far, only AIDS is the exception, which means we either have to change the rules, or admit that the HIV hypothesis is the exception that proves it, that there is no virus involved.

There was more about how the CDC tried to spread awareness about AIDS. Whether the info here is true or not, I have no idea. It could all be slander, so take it with a hefty pinch of salt.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/abaswsjcdc.htm

One word: Africa.

Your theories and your attempt to pin the blame on the drugs used to TREAT AIDS (yes, everyone who has AIDS is taking the drug, therefore the drug causes AIDS ) are not consistent with Africa, where the disease is running rampant through the straight community, among people who cannot even afford drugs like that.

How accurate are the data from Africa? When you have infamously inaccurate HIV tests(Western blot, ELIZA, etc) being carried out in a region known for being rife with other diseases(which result in false positives), and only one test even in South Africa(and none in others), the chances of real HIV infection, not to mention of AIDS, is overly exaggerated. Ever heard of the Bangui definition? Explain these, if you can.

Also, HIV-positive people NOT taking the AIDS drugs are alive! Just think of Christine Maggiore and the crackpots of ACT-UP San Francisco. What about Valerie Emerson and her healthy HIV-positive son? They bought into the drugs=AIDS line. And they are now in far better health than many of those HIV-positives taking the prescribed medicines.

In contrast, there're those who took AZT, a drug that literally has the poison label on the bottle. Nobody who took large dosages of the drug remained alive for long. And where the authorities were advocating hit early, hit hard, now they're advising drug vacations?

In the beginning, it was poppers with their nitrite content. After that, came AZT. All these kill. In fact, I consider protease inhibitors a lot better than AZT for this reason alone, that they don't terminate all DNA replication. The less toxic drugs that are now given to HIV-positive people should see a general increase in survival rates. However, the risk group which still indulges in recreational drugs will continue to have AIDS.

Good news? Well, if you don't take drugs, then you don't have to worry about AIDS.

Please define AIDS (this is trickier than you may think).

Definitely tricky. I think AIDS is the state where the CD4 T-cells in a person's body are depleted to a certain extent. Some people might think it refers to general immune deficiency and general depletion of the white blood cells, not just the CD4 T-cells. I don't think so, though general immune deficiency is definitely a bad thing!

However, the CDC apparently thinks that a general depletion, and I quote, "less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/uL" means AIDS. Which means the population of this particular cell can be taken in isolation and the other T-cells discounted, even if they are depleted as well. The other two criteria, one of which does take into account the general T-cell level, and the last, which uses three other disease to diagnose for AIDS are alternative criteria.

There is the comprehensive list here.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/gkaids.htm

Then why did a man who injected his 11-month old son with HIV-tainted blood (don't ask; the motherfucker is currently serving a life sentence) cause his son to get AIDS? Coincidence?

Did his son exhibit AIDS symptoms(including lack of the aforementioned T-cells) before or after he took AIDS drugs? Or was he only identified as HIV positive? These are very important distinctions. I believe the son was only identified as having HIV, and not AIDS. However, if he starts taking AZT, then...

Some more stuff. If the son did develop immune deficiency before he started taking AIDS drugs, then yes, there is every possibility that there was something in the blood that caused him to have AIDS! Because not even drugs act that quickly in a single dose!

But still, you're right. The guy's a motherfucker. Why didn't they execute him?

Or you are using an overly generalized definition of AIDS. There are more diseases than the common cold which can cause the sniffles; does this mean that the common cold does not cause the sniffles? Immunodeficiency problems are not unique to AIDS; there have been people who have suffered from immune system disorders since long before AIDS was identified. AIDS is a specific form of immunodeficiency disorder which is linked to the HIV virus. The existence of other immunodeficiency syndromes does not mean that HIV does not cause AIDS. Please re-examine the logic through which you arrived at your conclusions.

My logic is simple. AIDS is when the CD4 T-cells reach a certain level. So what can kill those cells, and only those cells?

We have several contenders. HIV, other viruses, drugs, some proteins, repeated infection, and any combination of the above. Of course, there could also be more than one killer.

Drugs(nitrites) have been proven to cause the CD4 T-cell count to go to the level identified as AIDS. Therefore, they can cause AIDS, by the CDC's definition (a), that less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/uL are found.

HIV, on the other hand, has never been proven to cause AIDS. Not by any stretch of the imagination, since they have to fulfill Koch's Postulates. And most damning of all, they haven't even isolated it yet, which alone would convince me that it exists and can therefore cause AIDS. Right now, HIV is still science fiction.

And even if the data suggests a viral cause, then why HIV, a virus that cannot even be isolated according to the accepted procedure for all retroviruses? Could it be some other virus at work?

Or maybe, it's not even a virus at all!

The Nice Guy

[The_Nice_Guy]

Nice_Guy, really. Before the discovery of HIV, evidence from epidemiologic studies (check the cdc website) involving tracing of patients’ sex partners and cases occurring in persons receiving transfusions of blood or blood clotting products had clearly indicated that the underlying cause of the condition was an infectious agent.

AIDS or HIV infection? The CDC website here?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts.htm

Note that they automatically equated HIV with AIDS. For all we know, those patients were only HIV positive, and would not develop AIDS symptoms if they went on as normal in their lives.

Thanks for pointing me to the CDC site. Hmmm... 42% are still homosexuals, and that's from HIV positive figures alone... And the marginal majority of HIV positives are also black. Strange...

The decrease in deaths is encouraging. However, in the absence of any viral cure or vaccine, what could possibly be causing that decrease? People having safer sex:roll: ? Better medicines? Or maybe, they just wised up and kicked AZT off the shelves! Good move.

Infection with HIV has been the sole common factor shared by AIDS cases throughout the world among homosexual men, transfusion recipients, persons with hemophilia, sex partners of infected persons, children born to infected women, and occupationally exposed health care workers.

AIDS cases, or HIV-positive cases? Don't confuse the two; it only muddies the waters. AIDS, for all intents and purposes, is still restricted to the risk groups of drug users and gays. HIV is supposed to be equal opportunity.

Sorry, kid. The conclusions are pretty much inescapable after 15 years of research. Read more. Those of us who are real immunologists or virologists are actually laughing ourselves into a coma reading statements like, "If it were a virus, EVERYONE would get it, period." Please, please, please, learn more about spread of infection models, and don't just quote snippets of conspiratorialists who have been largely snubbed by the legitimate medical society. Farr, an excellent epidemiologist in the late 1800's, was very quick to study spreads of disease outbreaks, but was actually wrong on many points of how disease was actually spread.

And are other STDs, venereal diseases, as restricted as AIDS? I don't think so. After more than fifteen years, we still haven't seen a general spread of HIV to the general population(thru sex, of course), when it should have.

Read this.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdphth3.htm

Scientists have bent over backwards to accomodate HIV=AIDS. So are the classical criteria for infectious disease wrong?

More importantly, since you are a professional in this field(wow!), I hope you can point me to any article that shows that HIV has been isolated according to the accepted criteria for retroviruses, and that the sample used there has been used to prove Koch's Postulates 1 and 2(forget about 3, there're ethical issues there).

The Nice Guy

[Wicked Pilot]

I have never seen a worse case of denial.


Are you some kind of homo?

[Darth Wong]

Definitely tricky. I think AIDS is the state where the CD4 T-cells in a person's body are depleted to a certain extent. Some people might think it refers to general immune deficiency and general depletion of the white blood cells, not just the CD4 T-cells. I don't think so, though general immune deficiency is definitely a bad thing!

Then you're still missing the point. AIDS is one type of auto-immune disease. It causes T-cell depletion. It is not necessarily the only thing that can cause T-cell depletion. Your logic looks like this:

"If ever B but not A, then A never causes B"

By that "logic", lung cancer is not caused by smoking because it is possible for a non-smoker to get lung cancer.

However, the CDC apparently thinks that a general depletion, and I quote, "less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/uL" means AIDS.

No, that is a symptom of AIDS. AIDS is defined as the particular form of auto-immune disease associated with the HIV virus. This is no different from defining the common cold in terms of the virus-type rather than the symptoms.

Did his son exhibit AIDS symptoms(including lack of the aforementioned T-cells) before or after he took AIDS drugs? Or was he only identified as HIV positive? These are very important distinctions. I believe the son was only identified as having HIV, and not AIDS. However, if he starts taking AZT, then...

The son was completely healthy before being injected. Now, he has full-blown AIDS and is dying. And this is just one of countless examples; as Wicked Pilot said, you are suffering from a severe case of denial, leaning on logic fallacies to support your position.

My logic is simple. AIDS is when the CD4 T-cells reach a certain level. So what can kill those cells, and only those cells?

No, the T-cell count is a SYMPTOM of AIDS; it is not AIDS itself. It is possible for the T-cell count to come from something else too, such as chemotherapy; this does not mean that the causal link is eliminated.

We have several contenders. HIV, other viruses, drugs, some proteins, repeated infection, and any combination of the above. Of course, there could also be more than one killer.

Of course. The problem here is that you assume AIDS must cause 100% of T-cell depletions in the human race under any circumstances, so that any instance of T-cell depletion without HIV means that HIV does not cause any kind of T-cell depletion at all. Are you capable of recognizing the problem with your logic?

Or maybe, it's not even a virus at all!

Yeah, sure. It's a chemical or environmental factor ... which just happens to spread exactly like a virus, through sexual contact.

PS. I like the way you completely ignored the example of Africa, repeatedly mentioned by myself and others, while continuing to harp on your inane "AIDS is limited to homosexuals and drug users" mantra. You are starting to build a Wall of Ignorance(TM) ... you should be aware that we have little patience for such tactics.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Furthermore, infectious diseases are equal opportunity killers. No exceptions.

This is just wrong. Some infectious diseases will make a healthy person sick, while killing a an older weaker individual. Not all diseases kill. In fact quite a few dont. You sound like you are saying all infectious diseases and virus' are killers.

It doesn't. Not in any of the scientific literature. There is no empirical proof that AIDS is transmitted by having sex. If sex really was involved, then the general population would have been a lot harder hit in recent years. Comparing to other STDs, there really is no correlation with the data that AIDS is being sexually transmitted. The epidemiology data of the disease in north America and Europe does not jive with the data for any other sexually transmitted disease.

Why should AID transmission mimic other STD's? Some STD's are harder to transmit than others. Some are relatively benign. Some are not. Sexual practices have a lot to do with STD transmission. You can't say there is a rise in Venerial Warts so therefore we MUST SEE A RISE IN AIDS. Does not work like that.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 8:58 pm Post subject:
Then you're still missing the point. AIDS is one type of auto-immune disease. It causes T-cell depletion. It is not necessarily the only thing that can cause T-cell depletion. Your logic looks like this:

"If ever B but not A, then A never causes B"

By that "logic", lung cancer is not caused by smoking because it is possible for a non-smoker to get lung cancer.

Uh, you're wrong here. AIDS(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is when the T-cells are depleted to that level, not what causes it to reach that level. Even the CDC's definitions say so. It is a state of being, just like a broken leg. Tying the state to what caused that state(AIDS or broken leg) is neccessary to establish guilt of the cause.

And you're right. T-cell depletion(and thus AIDS) is caused not just by HIV(if it exists), but perhaps by other factors. Even Luc Montaigner admitted that HIC was not likely to be the sole cause of AIDS.

As for your lung cancer analogy, lung cancer is the state of being, while smoking is what created that state. And of course, the state of lung cancer is not caused solely by smoking; there are other possible pathways without smoking to reach that certain state.

No, that is a symptom of AIDS. AIDS is defined as the particular form of auto-immune disease associated with the HIV virus. This is no different from defining the common cold in terms of the virus-type rather than the symptoms.

That's the problem with a circular definition. On one hand we say that AIDS occurs when a person is HIV positive and has certain diseases associated with AIDS. But when somebody else gets AIDS(according to CDC definitions, CD4 count and all that) without HIV, he gets reclassified as something else other than AIDS. It's like they're saying that lung cancer can only be caused by smoking! If a person gets tumors in his lungs, but doesn't smoke, well then, he's not suffering from lung cancer!

And right now, the common definition is that "AIDS is the disease caused by HIV", and "HIV is the virus that causes AIDS". They have completely shut out the state that explicitly defines what exactly is AIDS without mentioning HIV. Heck, even the common cold(every disease) is identified by a set of common symptoms without bringing in the causal agent first. Only after the basic set of criteria for the disease is identified should the agent that caused those symptoms be nailed down.

The son was completely healthy before being injected. Now, he has full-blown AIDS and is dying. And this is just one of countless examples; as Wicked Pilot said, you are suffering from a severe case of denial, leaning on logic fallacies to support your position.

Did he take AIDS drugs? Answer this part, since my hypothesis relies a great deal on this as well. Don't avoid the question.

No, the T-cell count is a SYMPTOM of AIDS; it is not AIDS itself. It is possible for the T-cell count to come from something else too, such as chemotherapy; this does not mean that the causal link is eliminated./quote]

The T-cell count level is a condition. In fact, it is what defines AIDS in the first place! Just like a broken leg. Sure, we can say the broken bone is a symptom of a broken leg(duh!), but that's a bit funny, isn't it?

It is indeed AIDS itself. Without bringing in any mention of causal agents first, we must first pin down the description of the disease, and the CD4 T-cell count is a critical part of that description.

And you're definitely right. T-cell depletion can come from other sources, like chemotherapy. What does chemotherapy consist of? Drugs! So is it just possible that drugs taken without the context of having chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer be responsible for the low CD4 T-cell count? I think so, yes!

Of course. The problem here is that you assume AIDS must cause 100% of T-cell depletions in the human race under any circumstances, so that any instance of T-cell depletion without HIV means that HIV does not cause any kind of T-cell depletion at all. Are you capable of recognizing the problem with your logic?

Again, definition problem. AIDS is a state of being, not causal agent. T-cell depletion without HIV means that HIV is not the only cause. No T-cell depletion with HIV also implies that HIV is not responsible for AIDS, and firmly suggests that "HIV does not cause any kind of T-cell depletion at all."

Yeah, sure. It's a chemical or environmental factor ... which just happens to spread exactly like a virus, through sexual contact.

PS. I like the way you completely ignored the example of Africa, repeatedly mentioned by myself and others, while continuing to harp on your inane "AIDS is limited to homosexuals and drug users" mantra. You are starting to build a Wall of Ignorance(TM) ... you should be aware that we have little patience for such tactics.

Did I neglect Africa? Did you notice the part where I questioned the hype over Africa, or more specifically, the way HIV tests are carried out there? There is no AIDS epidemic in Africa. Period. The data obtained there is a joke. One HIV test only. ONE! Where SIX are required in developed countries due to accuracy problems! In Africa, where the possible causes of false positives are widespread! In South Africa, where they test for HIV on pregnant women(and pregnancy can lead to false positives)!

In Africa, where you don't even need to have a T-cell count test or a HIV test to confirm the existence of AIDS!

A person comes in with pneumonia. He reports severe weight loss. Oh, that's AIDS! Never mind people having pneumonia for the past several centuries in Africa! Never mind that they're not having enough food!

The data from Africa is collected wrongly in the first place, which is why a crucial part of the argument should be: How accurate is HIV testing in Africa? If the methods of identifying HIV are completely bunk, then the data by default cannot be accepted by any standard of scientific study!

Please, Darth Wong, if you can, refute my earlier rebuttal of the Africa AIDS data. I do not know how you managed to miss that post, but please read through it and tell me if my criticisms of the data collection in Africa is wrong. That if a test is known to be extremely inaccurate, and can give a lot of false positive results, is a single test sufficient?

And yes, the data from developed countries shows that no matter what we say or think, AIDS is still limited to homosexuals and drug users. The data here, at least, does not lie.

The Nice Guy

[The_Nice_Guy]

This is just wrong. Some infectious diseases will make a healthy person sick, while killing a an older weaker individual. Not all diseases kill. In fact quite a few dont. You sound like you are saying all infectious diseases and virus' are killers.

Oops, my bad. You're right. We should be thankful influenza doesn't kill!

But the point is that HIV infection should have been detected in a more specific cross section of the population, instead of still being heavily tilted towards certain risk groups.

Why should AID transmission mimic other STD's? Some STD's are harder to transmit than others. Some are relatively benign. Some are not. Sexual practices have a lot to do with STD transmission. You can't say there is a rise in Venerial Warts so therefore we MUST SEE A RISE IN AIDS. Does not work like that.

Truth. But if we accept that anal sex, which homosexuals engage in, is the easiest way to transmit HIV(and therefore AIDS), then why did they tell us that everybody's at risk? Did they tell us the chances of getting HIV infection from non-anal sex is practically nil? In light of recent studies, though, there has been some changes to the hypothesis.

In fact, the CDC website had a report that said that oral sex is the easiest way to transmit HIV, and not anal or vaginal sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/oralsexqa.htm

But my guess is that AIDS and HIV will still be confined to those risk groups, even if oral sex might be practised by both genders, on both genders

The Nice Guy.

[Lagmonster]

I've been to that virusmyth.com website, also Duesberg's site. Don't depend on them. Duesberg has been SHUNNED for his views by the medical community, and virusmyth.com is a breeding ground of doubt - not a centre of legitimate research. Pointing out the exceptions does not by itself constitute discrediting the theory.

The problem is that people are assuming that because AIDS cases do not spread expotentially within a population (as Farr's Law says viruses should), and because we have not drawn a 100% guarantee that HIV infection will lead to AIDS or that AIDS guarantees an HIV infection, that there is no link between the two. This is blatantly untrue. HIV infection is STILL the ONLY common factor found in the majority of AIDS cases. And I don't have to repeat why Farr's Law (which EVERY myth-proponent website and news story I've seen so far banks on) is non-applicable.

[Darth Wong]

Uh, you're wrong here. AIDS(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is when the T-cells are depleted to that level, not what causes it to reach that level.

No, that is a specific symptom of AIDS. It is not necessarily unique to AIDS.

Even the CDC's definitions say so.

Wrong. They describe the T-cell count as a symptom of AIDS and a diagnostic indicator. They do NOT state that 100% of T-cell depletions are AIDS. Do not resort to outright lies.

As for your lung cancer analogy, lung cancer is the state of being, while smoking is what created that state. And of course, the state of lung cancer is not caused solely by smoking; there are other possible pathways without smoking to reach that certain state.

Concession accepted. You admit that smoking can cause lung cancer without all forms of lung cancer necessarily being due to smoking. Similarly, T-cell depletion can be caused by HIV without 100% of T-cell depletions necessarily being caused by HIV.

Did he take AIDS drugs? Answer this part, since my hypothesis relies a great deal on this as well. Don't avoid the question.

I don't know. You're the one trying to refute the entire medical community; the burden of proof is on you, not us.

The T-cell count level is a condition. In fact, it is what defines AIDS in the first place!

Wrong. Is a cold defined by the sniffles? If you get the sniffles and you don't have a cold, does this mean that the cold does NOT cause the sniffles?

It is indeed AIDS itself. Without bringing in any mention of causal agents first, we must first pin down the description of the disease, and the CD4 T-cell count is a critical part of that description.

Of course it's a part of that description. The part you ignore is that the CDC definition explicitly defines numerous other potential causes of T-cell depletion which would disqualify it from being AIDS. Obviously, AIDS and T-cell depletion are not synonymous; you are smearing definitions in order to suit your conclusions.

Did I neglect Africa? Did you notice the part where I questioned the hype over Africa, or more specifically, the way HIV tests are carried out there? There is no AIDS epidemic in Africa. Period. The data obtained there is a joke. One HIV test only. ONE! Where SIX are required in developed countries due to accuracy problems! In Africa, where the possible causes of false positives are widespread! In South Africa, where they test for HIV on pregnant women(and pregnancy can lead to false positives)!

Ah, yes. More than 10 million false positives, right? Even if the test is only half-accurate, that's 5 million cases, which is a full-blown epidemic. Your bullshit is showing.

In Africa, where you don't even need to have a T-cell count test or a HIV test to confirm the existence of AIDS!

A person comes in with pneumonia. He reports severe weight loss. Oh, that's AIDS! Never mind people having pneumonia for the past several centuries in Africa! Never mind that they're not having enough food!

Actually, they have HIV testing in Africa. But hey, you're obviously on a fact-distortion roll; why stop?

The data from Africa is collected wrongly in the first place, which is why a crucial part of the argument should be: How accurate is HIV testing in Africa? If the methods of identifying HIV are completely bunk, then the data by default cannot be accepted by any standard of scientific study!

Tests and measurements are of varying degrees of accuracy; even a test with poor accuracy still has meaning. You simply must adjust your conclusions to suit its accuracy. The only time a test is completely "bunk" is if it is completely non-correlated to the phenomenon under study, and that is not the case here.

And yes, the data from developed countries shows that no matter what we say or think, AIDS is still limited to homosexuals and drug users. The data here, at least, does not lie.

And it also shows that it can be transmitted to heterosexuals and hemophiliacs, thus nullifying your implicit claim that the disease inherently prefers homosexuals and drug users.

Ultimately, your argument boils down to three points:

1) AIDS is defined as 100% of T-cell depletions, so any T-cell depletion which is not caused by HIV proves that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. This is a serious logical fallacy of composition, not to mention a strawman distortion of the definition of AIDS.

2) AIDS does not behave like an STD. This is an outright lie; it has every conceivable behaviour of an STD.

3) Evidence which is inconvenient should be dismissed via various excuses, eg- all of Africa, rising infection rates outside of the core risk groups in developed countries, etc.

You seem to think you're making very good points, and that's the saddest part.

[tharkûn]

Look you say that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Then why do nevirapine, delavirdine, and efavirenz all eleviate T-Cell depression? These drugs specifically target reverse transcriptase (the enzyme the HIV uses to convert its RNA into DNA) ... they are NOT Nucleoside(tide) analogues, they do NOT boost immune response. Numerous crystal structures (and I think NMR structures) show them effectively binding to standard HIV reverse transcriptase.

How in HELL does a reverse transcriptase binding agent have ANY effect on AIDS symptoms if there is no link between HIV and AIDS? Retrovirii are the only thing in your body which use reversetranscriptase, or do you expect us to beleive that THREE (more counting those currently in clinical trials) different reversetranscriptase inhibitors have secondary effects? Please note the tertiary structure of reverse transcriptase is notably different than ANY protein indigenious to the human body.

Things that have shown effect in clinical trials, some not yet approved by the FDA:
gp41 binders
hydroxyurea
integrase inhibitors
antisense viral inhibitors
protease inhibitors

Now what do ALL of these have in common? They target the viral lifecycle of HIV. Killing it at entry, cellular fusion, reverse transcription, viral DNA integration, preventing translation of viral mRNA, preventing splicing of RNA, and curiously enough slowing the replication T-cells themselves (preferential inhibition of infected cells).

Yes nukes are poison, however any moron who actually looks at crystal/NMR studies realizes that there is an excessive preferential binding of nukes to reverse transcriptase, the azido hole is blatantly obvious.

This brings me to another point ... how do you explain drug resistance? For instance if you treat with nukes symptoms decrease initially, and then resurge later. The current theory has a nice experimentally backed explanation. HIV lacks exonuclease proofreading mechanisms, so its genome mutates much more frequently than humans (or even other virii). Nuke resistant HIV strains occur normally when a single point mutation occurs that changes the tertiary structure of reverse transcriptase. For instance AZT has a an azido group sticking off makes binding to K103N mutants less thermodynamically and kinetically favorable.

Lastly I'm waiting for this one to be explained:
take a patient, give them a straight up dosage of AZT (500 mg daily), measure how long it takes for symptoms to increase.

take another patient and give them AZT (500 mg daily) and even a small amount of didanosine. This patient statistically takes longer to develop symptoms.

So tell me how in HELL does that work? I give you more drugs and it illicits less symptoms.

[DoubtfulDorothy]

I challenge you to inject yourself with HIV infected blood.

Actually, thousands have been injected with HIV infected blood with very nearly zero developing AIDS or becoming HIV-positive. Every year in the United States over 1,000 medical workers contract Hepatitis B from accidental needle pricks. In the 25 years of the AIDS "epidemic" there is no doubt that many, many medical workers have been accidently pricked with needles containing HIV-infected blood. In those 25 years there have been less than two dozen alleged cases of medical workers contracting HIV in this manner.

The ghoulish experiment you ask for has been done, albeit not deliberately, many, many times. The results clearly indicate that, unlike, for instance, Hepatitis B, AIDS is NOT an infectious condition.

[NecronLord]

I challenge you to inject yourself with HIV infected blood.

Actually, thousands have been injected with HIV infected blood with very nearly zero developing AIDS or becoming HIV-positive. Every year in the United States over 1,000 medical workers contract Hepatitis B from accidental needle pricks. In the 25 years of the AIDS "epidemic" there is no doubt that many, many medical workers have been accidently pricked with needles containing HIV-infected blood. In those 25 years there have been less than two dozen alleged cases of medical workers contracting HIV in this manner.

The ghoulish experiment you ask for has been done, albeit not deliberately, many, many times. The results clearly indicate that, unlike, for instance, Hepatitis B, AIDS is NOT an infectious condition.

You also i issue that challenge to...

p.s.

two dozen alleged != thousands

[J]

Actually, thousands have been injected with HIV infected blood with very nearly zero developing AIDS or becoming HIV-positive. Every year in the United States over 1,000 medical workers contract Hepatitis B from accidental needle pricks. In the 25 years of the AIDS "epidemic" there is no doubt that many, many medical workers have been accidently pricked with needles containing HIV-infected blood. In those 25 years there have been less than two dozen alleged cases of medical workers contracting HIV in this manner.

The ghoulish experiment you ask for has been done, albeit not deliberately, many, many times. The results clearly indicate that, unlike, for instance, Hepatitis B, AIDS is NOT an infectious condition.

You're either stupid, ignorant, lying, or all 3. HIV is quite fragile as far as viruses go, and it's also not as infectious as Hepatitis. That alone is enough to drop the number of infections down. Ever heard of the various containment levels that labs have? HIV is right at the bottom meaning it's relatively safe, with stuff like Ebola at the top. Hep is somewhere in between. Get it through your head, not all viruses are equally infectious. I could give you a whiff of the common cold virus and chances are you won't get sick from it, do the same with Ebola and there's a >80% chance you'll be a mass of liquified organs. By the way, are you pulling numbers out of your ass or do you actually have any sources for them?

[Colonel Olrik]

I challenge you to inject yourself with HIV infected blood.

Actually, thousands have been injected with HIV infected blood with very nearly zero developing AIDS or becoming HIV-positive. Every year in the United States over 1,000 medical workers contract Hepatitis B from accidental needle pricks. In the 25 years of the AIDS "epidemic" there is no doubt that many, many medical workers have been accidently pricked with needles containing HIV-infected blood. In those 25 years there have been less than two dozen alleged cases of medical workers contracting HIV in this manner.

So, Hepatitis B is much more contagious than AIDS, and more common. OLD NEWS. That's known for decades. It generally takes more than a simple prick with needles to get infected. And how would you explain the cases where it did happen, anyway?

The ghoulish experiment you ask for has been done, albeit not deliberately, many, many times.

Injecting blood is very different from an accident with needles. And it doesn't happen often.

The results clearly indicate that, unlike, for instance, Hepatitis B, AIDS is NOT an infectious condition.

Boohoo. Then explain how it transmits itself like one.

[DoubtfulDorothy]

You're either stupid, ignorant, lying, or all 3. HIV is quite fragile as far as viruses go, and it's also not as infectious as Hepatitis. That alone is enough to drop the number of infections down. Ever heard of the various containment levels that labs have? HIV is right at the bottom meaning it's relatively safe, with stuff like Ebola at the top. Hep is somewhere in between. Get it through your head, not all viruses are equally infectious. I could give you a whiff of the common cold virus and chances are you won't get sick from it, do the same with Ebola and there's a >80% chance you'll be a mass of liquified organs. By the way, are you pulling numbers out of your ass or do you actually have any sources for them?

You forgot to call me a "crank", a "Holocaust denier", and a "flat-Earther". I see you're new to this debate. You'll catch on.

From the CDC: "As of June 2000, CDC had received voluntary reports of 56 U.S. HCP [health-care personnel] with documented HIV seroconversion temporally associated with an occupational HIV exposure. An additional 138 episodes in HCP are considered possible occupational HIV transmissions. These workers had a history of occupational exposure to blood, other infectious body fluids, or laboratory solutions containing HIV, and no other risk for HIV infection was identified, but HIV seroconversion after a specific exposure was not documented."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5011a1.htm

56 "reports" in twenty years. Quite an epidemic!

HIV is not only "fragile", it is also damned elusive, hence the inability to isolate it. Oh, and let's not forget protean. Let's see, a "strain" in North America and Europe that only cares for homosexual males, another "strain" in Africa that hungers after heterosexual blacks, and, well, I've lost count of the number of "strains" currently running riot in China. To date no "strain" has been found that is fond of middle-class heterosexual white folks. The infection rate for them, after 20+ years of this incurable epidemic, remains very close to zero percent.

[SeebianWurm]

Crank, Holocaust Denier, Flat-Earther

[Andrew J.]

To date no "strain" has been found that is fond of middle-class heterosexual white folks. The infection rate for them, after 20+ years of this incurable epidemic, remains very close to zero percent.

[sarcasm]Well, gee, I guess the most logical explanation for that is that the virus doesn't really exist![/sarcasm]

Dear Glod, you're stupid.

[Colonel Olrik]

You forgot to call me a "crank", a "Holocaust denier", and a "flat-Earther". I see you're new to this debate. You'll catch on.

It wouldn't suprise me a little bit if you're all that and more.

HIV is not only "fragile", it is also damned elusive, hence the inability to isolate it.

Yes, it is. Thanks for agreeing that your comparison of it with Hepatitis B was a simple strawman.

Oh, and let's not forget protean. Let's see, a "strain" in North America and Europe that only cares for homosexual males, another "strain" in Africa that hungers after heterosexual blacks, and, well, I've lost count of the number of "strains" currently running riot in China. To date no "strain" has been found that is fond of middle-class heterosexual white folks. The infection rate for them, after 20+ years of this incurable epidemic, remains very close to zero percent.

You're lying again, obviously. You're denying the existence of all the white, heterosexual men who have got the desease, either from sex, blood transfusals or sharing needles.

Of course, due to having better education and means, the chances of a non drug consumer man in Europe getting aids are many times lower than in Africa/Asia. Your inhability to see this is astounding.

[aerius]

HIV is not only "fragile", it is also damned elusive, hence the inability to isolate it. Oh, and let's not forget protean. Let's see, a "strain" in North America and Europe that only cares for homosexual males, another "strain" in Africa that hungers after heterosexual blacks, and, well, I've lost count of the number of "strains" currently running riot in China. To date no "strain" has been found that is fond of middle-class heterosexual white folks. The infection rate for them, after 20+ years of this incurable epidemic, remains very close to zero percent.

I see that you're also fucking retarded. It's called lifestyle choices and risk factors you dumb shit. You also forgot about the drug addicts who use needles too. Middle-class hetero white guys are far more likely to practice safe sex procedures and are more aware of the HIV/AIDS problem, which is why they don't infected nearly as much. Same reason people who use birth control have far fewer unwanted pregnancies than those who don't.

[DoubtfulDorothy]

You're lying again, obviously. You're denying the existence of all the white, heterosexual men who have got the desease, either from sex, blood transfusals or sharing needles.

Lying? Again? Oh, dear! What was the first lie? I thought you wanted a citation. I see you ignored it. Facts are so fractious. It's much more fun to just call names.

I'm not denying the existence of anyone. I'm simply noting percentages. That is what counts. In black Africa, the HIV infection rate is 30, 40, 60 percent, depending upon which guesstimate you want to accept. In white America, the infection rate is below one-half of one percent. Go ahead, explain the discrepancy. You'll be the first to do so.

Of course, due to having better education and means, the chances of a non drug consumer man in Europe getting aids are many times lower than in Africa/Asia. Your inhability to see this is astounding.

HIV is sexually transmitted. It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with getting it on. Herpes and gonnerhea are doing just fine among white folks. They are obviously getting it on, but they are not getting HIV. Your inability to see that this makes no sense is, well, predictable.

[Colonel Olrik]

Lying? Again? Oh, dear! What was the first lie? I thought you wanted a citation. I see you ignored it. Facts are so fractious. It's much more fun to just call names.

FIRST LIE: Saying that AIDS is not infectious by blood because people don't get it by pricking needles, in comparison with Hepatitis B, a much more infectious virus. Are you blind, besides retarded, for having missed that part of my post?

HIV is sexually transmitted. It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with getting it on. Herpes and gonnerhea are doing just fine among white folks. They are obviously getting it on, but they are not getting HIV. Your inability to see that this makes no sense is, well, predictable.

It has everything to do with education, you moron. The chances of getting Aids when using condoms decrease significantly. Africans do not use them nearly as much as Europeans do. Besides that, the climate of war and misery favours prostitution/rapes in an exponential way. That also increases the contamination rate.

And get it through your thick skull: Aids is also transmited by blood transfusals/ needle sharing. Here in Portugal we had a major incident with diabetics, in the early 80's. About a hundred of them received infected plasma. Most of them have now died of AIDS. EXPLAIN IT, moron.

[Exonerate]

You're lying again, obviously. You're denying the existence of all the white, heterosexual men who have got the desease, either from sex, blood transfusals or sharing needles.

Lying? Again? Oh, dear! What was the first lie? I thought you wanted a citation. I see you ignored it. Facts are so fractious. It's much more fun to just call names.

I'm not denying the existence of anyone. I'm simply noting percentages. That is what counts. In black Africa, the HIV infection rate is 30, 40, 60 percent, depending upon which guesstimate you want to accept. In white America, the infection rate is below one-half of one percent. Go ahead, explain the discrepancy. You'll be the first to do so.

Population distributation.

Of course, due to having better education and means, the chances of a non drug consumer man in Europe getting aids are many times lower than in Africa/Asia. Your inhability to see this is astounding.

HIV is sexually transmitted. It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with getting it on. Herpes and gonnerhea are doing just fine among white folks. They are obviously getting it on, but they are not getting HIV. Your inability to see that this makes no sense is, well, predictable.

Wrong. If you know about the risks, then you are less likely to fuck around. Do you have any idea how HIV is spread? This is fifth grade shit, and it seems you are still unable to grasp these complex ideas. Why don't you go attend a fifth grade sex ed class? You might learn something useful.

[Aelith]

DoubtfulDorothy wrote:
Quote:
You're lying again, obviously. You're denying the existence of all the white, heterosexual men who have got the desease, either from sex, blood transfusals or sharing needles.

Lying? Again? Oh, dear! What was the first lie? I thought you wanted a citation. I see you ignored it. Facts are so fractious. It's much more fun to just call names.

I'm not denying the existence of anyone. I'm simply noting percentages. That is what counts. In black Africa, the HIV infection rate is 30, 40, 60 percent, depending upon which guesstimate you want to accept. In white America, the infection rate is below one-half of one percent. Go ahead, explain the discrepancy. You'll be the first to do so.

Population distributation.

What an amazing explanation! Could you please elucidate this concept of "population distributation" and how it helps to explain the massive discrepancy of HIV infection rate estimates for Africa vs Europe and America?