HIV=AIDS?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well as luck would have it I'm just starting my immunology module now in my biology masters, so I'll ask around about HIV for you.

[Lagmonster]

Ugh. I am in a field where I understand what he's trying to push forward. His sources in particular offer doubts and speculation at best, and really bad associations and outright falsehoods at worst. I'm not saying that they don't have a point when they suggest that there are gaps in our understanding of AIDS and HIV, but gaps in our understanding and incidents where you can culture a biological system to behave differently than other, similar systems is not indicative that your understanding of that system is wrong.

[Pink Eye]

Well as luck would have it I'm just starting my immunology module now in my biology masters, so I'll ask around about HIV for you.

Ugh. I am in a field where I understand what he's trying to push forward.

Well good, then go tell him to piss off. I am not going to listen to someone who begins his rant on a BBS forum and points to ONE silly website as a resource.

Why is it that people who make such claims and buck against the establisment always have some kind of crappy website to spout their nonsense but they never have any theories, conclusions, or evidences proposed via peer reviewed medical journals or ultilize their own tests?

Whatever, they are just spammers.

[tharkûn]

Sigh not those old criticisms. Did you not get the concept of resistant strains? Do you understand that if you take EVERY single problem your author adressed with the AZT study and it STILL shows a net benifit for taking AZT.

Now riddle me this:
AZT is bad, that is of course a give (hell virtually all medication is detrimental to take if you don't need it). You claim it (or other drugs) leads to faster AIDS onset?

Why then do we see the following:
Patient A takes AZT
Patient B takes any other nuke
Patient C takes both

C has the HIGHEST exposure to drugs and the highest exposure to nukes, yet statistically C will be the best off. Why does ingesting MORE poison in the form of a cocktail leave you better off?

Why do all these allegedly worthless drugs which are poison to healthy cells work BETTER when taken in combination? Why do we NOT see people dropping faster when the overall dose is increased, but is simulataneously varied?

[Justforfun000]

Lagmonster, You said:

Ugh. I am in a field where I understand what he's trying to push forward. His sources in particular offer doubts and speculation at best, and really bad associations and outright falsehoods at worst. I'm not saying that they don't have a point when they suggest that there are gaps in our understanding of AIDS and HIV, but gaps in our understanding and incidents where you can culture a biological system to behave differently than other, similar systems is not indicative that your understanding of that system is wrong.

I would like you to explain something to me. If the dissidents are TRULY wrong, why is it that I don't ever see any of the mainstream medical community PROVING they are wrong?

If their points are not valid, then they can be debunked. no?

I have seen and posted in this thread for that matter, a great deal of very good points challenging the mainstream view. If they are wrong than I think it's reasonable to expect people to pick them apart individually and invalidate the argument once and for all.

This is the exact reason why I myself am so unconvinced that they really believe that their HIV=AIDS theory is unassailable. If it was me, I would tick off every criticism and argument made against the accusations and plaster them in every newspaper and magazine from here to Timbuktu.

The SILENCE is what is deafening. You have to admit that it seems like they cannot defend themselves so they simply ignore the accusations.

I don't buy the idea that you have to have an alternative theory presented instead of just evaluating and judging a model based on its logicality and evidential basis. There are MANY things out there that we have no workable theories for yet, but we still don't accept the first one that comes along until we have a better one. No different than believing the Bible before evolution was "discovered". Would I have been wrong to discredit Genesis back before evolution was first put forth?

i didn't think so.

Anyhow, I would truly like to see either a dismantling of the points brought forth or a concession that they all have a point and that the truth is that the mainstream simply wants to run with the current theory until or unless it is completely and obviously incorrect.

[Lagmonster]

Lagmonster, I would like you to explain something to me. If the dissidents are TRULY wrong, why is it that I don't ever see any of the mainstream medical community PROVING they are wrong?

Fine. I'll make this brief, and then I'm going to let this thread die, because frankly the presumptions being made here don't deserve to be addressed.

If you ask an AIDS research department (go ahead, look them up, I'm sure there are plenty in Toronto) about half the claims virusmyth.com makes, chances are they will wonder what cave you've been living in. In fact, do that. I haven't worked for CFIA for a year, and that's a far cry from AIDS research, so ask the 'mainstream medical community' yourselves why it's been silent about the 'grand conspiracy of AIDS research'. The government is very open about awareness to AIDS and HIV and I know that if you bother to ask around, even locally, you'll get some good, straight answers. You'll find that there isn't a mad rush to address the points raised by dissidents because the points by themselves have no impact on damning any findings we have about HIV-AIDS.

Virusmyth's points amount to nothing. They have pointed out, successfully, where our knowledge of HIV and AIDS is incomplete. They have pointed out cases where the connection is not visible (due in part to the difficulty in isolating HIV-2, not to mention the problem of coinfection with other diseases). But show me where anyone has taken any submitted or accepted research paper and shown that it is impossible to see a connection between HIV and AIDS. Or, better yet, show me the accepted research paper that proposes an alternate theory to fit to the evidence. Cowardly pointing out of holes and inconsistencies does not constitute scientific criteria! The dissidents to modern AIDS theory will be addressed when they say something of substance.

And calling on silence as evidence is dumb enough that I shouldn't have to point out why. Besides which, there IS no silence. The CDC has issued a statement on their website AND in public. Look it up.

The greatest champion of dissention is Peter Duesberg, a great achiever and intelligent man, but who is nonetheless an idiot and a paranoiac. He believes and claims that the government is trying to frighten him into silence. He was shouted down BY the mainstream community not because he was raising incorrect issues, but because he was wandering around like a doofus shouting, "If you don't prove EVERY ONE of my points wrong, right now, then HIV theory is all wrong and I'm completely right". Those who snubbed him explained very carefully that Duesberg was not given a forum to debate the issues because he had no intention to debate, but to troll. John Maddox of Nature magazine wrote in response to Duesberg supporters, "Duesberg has forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside." They go on to show that Duesberg has intentionally misquoted other scientists to make it look like they support his views. Let's describe the Intelligent Design challenges to evolution to him. I bet he'd recognize the rhetorical style pretty damned quick and start crusading about the conspiracy of evolutionists.

Anyhow, I would truly like to see either a dismantling of the points brought forth or a concession that they all have a point and that the truth is that the mainstream simply wants to run with the current theory until or unless it is completely and obviously incorrect.

So...you're asking for people to say that your points are valid? Fine, whoop, they're valid until proven otherwise (leaving aside all that shit about Farr's law. Not all of those points have merit). Now show me how the validity of their points discredits the accepted theory.[/quote]

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ah, I see we've already had the main points addressed which is just as well because today whilst in the lab I asked one of the doctors there what she thought of Virusmyths.com and she gave a little chuckle and said to ignore most of its claims. She admits that there are holes in our understanding of the virus, but to say the thing is nonexistent or AIDS is caused by something we have yet to isolate is just ludicrous.

[Justforfun000]

Ok, I actually sent an email out to people to see if they can address your points since it's more in their field. I'm just a laymen and also not directly involved with any facet of this issue, but I thought the dissidents were compelling.

I'll just throw out my general response to your points, which I thank you for by the way. Any response is better than silence.

My nitpick about you suggesting I ask either government or Aids research depts. is that in all truth, there are two flaws with this. One, they are obviously mainstream and therefore have thrown their lot in with the majority. I have read many stories about people who were denied funding and a platform to speak whether through newspapers, magazines, etc or at scientific conferences. This is obviously going to impact anyone who challenges this theory because they are NOT going to get funded, and they will be blackballed. So supporting their theories with any kind of peer-reviewed material is pretty difficult unless they are billionares. Secondly, they don't get responded to even when they HAVE managed to put forth alternative theories. They are simply ignored and I think this is wrong. They should either be discredited, or accepted as raising valid issues that merits further attention.

So going to the mainstream organizations is like going to a filter queen sales company and asking them why electrolux claims there are *this* and *this* flaws in the model. Of course they are going to have all the answers, but will they be right?

They have pointed out cases where the connection is not visible (due in part to the difficulty in isolating HIV-2, not to mention the problem of coinfection with other diseases). But show me where anyone has taken any submitted or accepted research paper and shown that it is impossible to see a connection between HIV and AIDS. Or, better yet, show me the accepted research paper that proposes an alternate theory to fit to the evidence.

Like I said earlier, this is both financially difficult and apparently screened as to it's stance on the issue. But besides that, you are asking to prove a negative. You should know that cannot be done. Isn't the burden of proof on the person putting forth a theory? The best you can do is to ask if ALL Aids patients have HIV. If they do NOT, then common sense tells you that the virus is not necessary. Now of course many different things can cause many disorders and diseases. Cancer is a good example, so I'm not saying that by that point alone this would exonerate the virus, but there are two other (and probably more) valid arguments here. Many people have been living for up to and over TWENTY years with no sign of immune deficiency. Unless they take the drugs that is. Plus, a very important thrust I have seen put forward about hiv is that it is neither present in great enough amounts to do what they claim, and that it has never been shown to actually destroy T-4 cells. I think this is where the fatal flaw exists in the mainstream theory. I believe they are going by what looks like correlation more than any other kind of evidence. But with this particular disease, it is RIDICULOUS to do so in my opinion because unlike any other type of disease, there are no CONSISTENT symptoms for everyone and you can die a dozens upon dozens of different things. How in God's name can you correlate that? There are BOUND to be a large percentage going to die of SOME of those things. There is also the mind factor to take into effect. All of these people believe they are going to be sick. I firmly believe in the mind's power over the body, and I think ANYONE truly believing this, will make themselves sick eventually.

One other point I had seen earlier in the thread I wanted to throw an answer out to. someone asked why people that took these cocktail drugs always showed improvement. Two things. Long term improvement has definitely not been shown and there is a lot of evidence saying just the opposite. Secondly, these drugs are very powerful as the main nucleoside destroys DNA. So basically it kills anything and everything. most people as sick as the ones you are referring to are sick with something at the time, whether PCP or tuberculosis, etc etc. It only stands to reason that these powerful drugs will kill whatever they are sick with as well along with their own body cells. But this is temporary as they are now being consistently poisoned and so decline again eventually.

Cowardly pointing out of holes and inconsistencies does not constitute scientific criteria

But Lagmonster, what's the difference when we are doing the same to creationists? If the holes and inconsistencies are both valid and also touching on the very basis of their claims, then why would this not be valid? I truly don't understand this and would love to have it explained for my own understanding. I realize that we are talking about an actual scientific theory and not a collection of legends, but even so, wouldn't any valid points against their postulations have merit?

Besides which, there IS no silence. The CDC has issued a statement on their website AND in public. Look it up.

Please link this for me. I went to the CDC site and searched within it for any mention of Aids dissidents, naysayers, duesberg, rasnick, mullis, etc. No dice. Didn't see any statements.

As far as Duesberg is concerned, I guess you could be right. I truly don't know much about the man in depth. but he's only one man, and there are many other just as vocal and very credentialed (is that a word? ) people saying the same thing. He is only one of the people saying that the drugs are the sole cause. Many of the other dissenters don't necessarily think thats the full answer however.

So...you're asking for people to say that your points are valid? Fine, whoop, they're valid until proven otherwise (leaving aside all that shit about Farr's law. Not all of those points have merit).

Ok. Well that's a start. You are saying they are valid but still irrelevant. Maybe I would have to be a scientist to understand. The points seem to be exposing serious holes in their core assumptions and if valid would seem to demonstrate that their theories are wrong. At least that's how it looks to me. I truly don't understand and I'm not trying to be difficult, I just find this whole issue unbelievably complicated and contentious.

Farr's law? I think that was someone else's post. I don't recall that.

Now show me how the validity of their points discredits the accepted theory

If they are valid points against the heart of the theory, then how does that not discredit it? If they are conclusively shown to be either wrong or not supported by evidence, than does this not disprove the theory?

LOL. I think I'll end with a quote for both the mainstream scientists AND the dissidents. "Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated."

[Edi]

But Lagmonster, what's the difference when we are doing the same to creationists? If the holes and inconsistencies are both valid and also touching on the very basis of their claims, then why would this not be valid? I truly don't understand this and would love to have it explained for my own understanding. I realize that we are talking about an actual scientific theory and not a collection of legends, but even so, wouldn't any valid points against their postulations have merit?

*counts to ten*
*seethes*

All right, once more from the beginning. I'm not Lagmonster and I don't have his expertise in the field of viruses, but I don't need that to shoot down your ridiculous point. The difference, you idiot, is that in this debate you are the creationist! There is an established theory with a lot of evidence for it (spread mechanism for the HIV, correlation between HIV and AIDS and numerous other things you have consistently seen fit to ignore), even though our knowledge is not entirely comprehensive and there are gaps. So you come along and say that because of <insert gap in knowledge>, all of it is nothing but rubbish, but you don't even offer an alternative theory, or if you do, it fits the observed events and facts worse than the one you disparage. You are exactly like a creationist who says that because we do not know exactly what happened in between the birth of the universe and one unit of Planck time, everything we know should be discarded and we should espouse Young Earth Creationism instead, you are no different than those fuckwits.

this is both financially difficult and apparently screened as to it's stance on the issue.

No, it isn't. Once the dissident crowd actually hatches a theory, it gets evaluated, and
If #1: it fits the facts better than the old one, then their work is good.
If #2: it fits as well, but has more variables, Occam's Razor cuts it out of the running.
If #3: it doesn't fit as well, it gets thrown out.

So far all they've managed is #3. Their "research" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it is therefore rejected, and all they do is bitch and moan about how they're not given equal treatment, just like cretinists. Sorry, but superior performance is given superior merit, deal with it.

you are asking to prove a negative.

He's not, he's asking you to produce a viable alternate theory and evidence for it, something you have not managed to do, you idiot. The challenge is: Produce a model of AIDS that fits all observed facts better than the current one and that supports your position, or produce a theory that supports your stance and fits the facts as well and with the same number of variables and you'll be taken seriously. #1 and #2 from the above list. That's not demand for a proof of negative. Your obvious inability to see that after all the explanations already given marks you as either a person with severe reading comprehension skills or a complete fuckwit.

The best you can do is to ask if ALL Aids patients have HIV. If they do NOT, then common sense tells you that the virus is not necessary.

Nice redefinition of AIDS, and one that you have been called on before. AIDS is not the only immuno-deficiency syndrome out there, and the others are not necessarily caused by the HIV virus, but AIDS is. You're trying to obfuscate the issue, after having had this same thing I'm saying repeatedly pointed out to you. You seem to be either a person with severe reading comprehension skills or a complete fuckwit.

Many people have been living for up to and over TWENTY years with no sign of immune deficiency.

Yes, and so what? There aren't all that many who have had it that long without coming down with AIDS, and it was already pointed out several years ago that it can take many, many years for the HIV to develop into full-blown AIDS. In societies with a living standard as high as we have, we have a steady supply of food and no shortage of the nutrients and stuff that makes the human body work, and it takes a long time for the virus to do enough damage to cause a fullblown AIDS, but it will happen, sooner or later. In countries where there is shortage of food and the people are subjected to greater rigors, the cycle is shorter because of the added strain on the system and the resultant faster failure.

Unless they take the drugs that is.

Which drugs were those? You've been called on this obfucation also, stop repeating yourself.

Plus, a very important thrust I have seen put forward about hiv is that it is neither present in great enough amounts to do what they claim, and that it has never been shown to actually destroy T-4 cells. I think this is where the fatal flaw exists in the mainstream theory. I believe they are going by what looks like correlation more than any other kind of evidence.

Correlation can serve as evidence when there are no other factors that would explain a phenomenon. People infected with HIV consistently develop AIDS while those who are not infected do not, and there are no other factors inplay that could explain this universal correlation. That some people for some reason (e.g. exposure to radiation) develop some other immuno-deficiency syndrome does not alter that fact.
You're again just trying to muddy the waters by saying correlation is inadmissible as evidence, but you ignore that the HIV correlation comes with a cause-effect relationship attached. An example where correlation would not be evidence is me saying that consuming ice-cream causes drowning, because increased consumption of ice-cream correlates with increase in deaths by drowning. The correlation is there, but the cause-effect relationship is not. The real reason for the drowning deaths is people going swimming more often in summer because of the heat, and inevitably more people will drown then than in the winter. That people also eat more icecream in the summer has no bearing on that cause-effect wise. With HIV, you develop AIDS, without you don't, so there's a definite cause-effect chain there.

But with this particular disease, it is RIDICULOUS to do so in my opinion because unlike any other type of disease, there are no CONSISTENT symptoms for everyone and you can die a dozens upon dozens of different things.

And the above statement proves irrefutably that you are a complete and utter moron and fuckwit. AIDS, or Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome is just that, a failure of the immune system due to the bloody HIV virus! The virus overloads your immune system and prevents it from defending your body the way it is supposed to, which makes you vulnerable even to common ailments that are no threat to a healthy person. When your immune system stops working properly, you can die of the common cold, chicken pox, measles or any number of other common or exotic diseases, or from a fucking fungal infection, but the only reason it happens is that the HIV virus fucked up your immune system in the first place, ergo it is ultimately the cause of death! You're a complete idiot and a fucking moron that we have to tell you this for the umpteenth time!

There is also the mind factor to take into effect. All of these people believe they are going to be sick. I firmly believe in the mind's power over the body, and I think ANYONE truly believing this, will make themselves sick eventually.

If you really believe in all this mind over body crap, you won't mind it if I stab you several times with a large-bladed knife, will you? Because you can just convince your wounds to heal with the power of your mind, can't you? Oh, sorry, you can't, too fucking bad, concession accepted. Mental state can affect body somewhat, but cannot in and of itself cure anything. Having a positive attitude can help in recovering, but it won't do alone. Being depressed can lower resistance to disease and hasten bad effects, but it does not cause them in and of itself.

One other point I had seen earlier in the thread I wanted to throw an answer out to. someone asked why people that took these cocktail drugs always showed improvement. Two things. Long term improvement has definitely not been shown and there is a lot of evidence saying just the opposite. Secondly, these drugs are very powerful as the main nucleoside destroys DNA. So basically it kills anything and everything. most people as sick as the ones you are referring to are sick with something at the time, whether PCP or tuberculosis, etc etc. It only stands to reason that these powerful drugs will kill whatever they are sick with as well along with their own body cells. But this is temporary as they are now being consistently poisoned and so decline again eventually.

Long term improvement has not been shown, because you're using those words as a synonym for the word 'cure', which as of yet does not exist. That the disease has been held at bay is proof that the drugs work. Enough with the strawmen.

As far as Duesberg is concerned, I guess you could be right. I truly don't know much about the man in depth. but he's only one man, and there are many other just as vocal and very credentialed (is that a word? ) people saying the same thing. He is only one of the people saying that the drugs are the sole cause. Many of the other dissenters don't necessarily think thats the full answer however.

And how many people agree with him instead of with the mainstream, again? If the numbers are anywhere near the same as is true for the cretinist/science issue, you don't have a leg to stand on. Show a better theory, then we'll talk. There is (must be) some dissension within the mainstream itself over how exactly some of the stuff regarding HIV/AIDS works without throwing the theory out, and that dissension is most likely related to the gaps in the knowledge base, but you are simply throwing out the knowledge base altogether and then calling those who do so dissenters, and lumping all who might even marginally support that ridiculous position or aspects thereof with them. Please define what you mean by dissenter, that would make answering your point easier, now it's just more obfuscation.

Maybe I would have to be a scientist to understand. The points seem to be exposing serious holes in their core assumptions and if valid would seem to demonstrate that their theories are wrong. At least that's how it looks to me. I truly don't understand and I'm not trying to be difficult, I just find this whole issue unbelievably complicated and contentious.

I'm not a scientist, but I understand exactly what he means. He's being bloody sarcastic, is what it is. The points you try to make are attacking a strawman model, or are based on serious and in cases total ignorance of facts, observations and current research, therefore they are completely irrelevant. All you manage is to point out that in certain areas, we have gaps in the knowledge, something that anybody in the mainstream is also perfectly capable of doing and have in fact done.

Farr's law? I think that was someone else's post. I don't recall that.

Read page 1 and 2, it's somewhere in there.

If they are valid points against the heart of the theory, then how does that not discredit it? If they are conclusively shown to be either wrong or not supported by evidence, than does this not disprove the theory?

They are not valid against the heart of the theory, you numbskull! They only point out what the mainstream already knows, namely the areas where knowledge is lacking! They do not come withing parsecs of touching the heart of the theory, just like cretinists don't come within parsecs of touching the evolution or Big Bang theories. You are, for the purposes of this debate, no better than a cretinist, just like I pointed out at the start, and you have it down to a t, Invincible Wall of Ignorance included.

Edi

[Lagmonster]

Okay, this is the last post I'm making on this topic, and after I point out what's wrong with you dissidents, I'm asking that the thread be locked, and I'll detail the reasons WHY.

The last damn word on this is as follows: If you want answers to the questions raised by dissidents, get them from legitimate researchers, or ask legitimate researchers WHY the questions remain unanswered. Furthermore, if you EVER find a reasonable alternative theory that doesn't rely on stupid assumptions, crooked statistics, or biological anomalies, or you find ANYTHING which damns the EXISTING evidence that shows a connection between HIV infection and AIDS, deliver it not to kook websites, but to LEGITIMATE RESEARCHERS IMMEDIATELY, because you will be lauded as a hero of modern medicine.

If your only barrier to doing any of this is that you cannot trust mainstream researchers because you think they are all incompetent or part of the grand conspiracy as dictated by the fringe, you are SO a pathetic fuckwad, and I will DEVELOP RELIGION just so I can pray you are never truly involved in this issue.

This thread should be terminated, because until any of the conditions of genuine scientific criteria are met, dissidents contribute NOTHING OF VALUE by spreading doubt, and above everything else, it is DANGEROUS. Creationists yapping that the world is 6000 years old doesn't mean shit to anyone, but even the CDC states that running around telling laypeople that they can't get AIDS from sharing needles or fucking like a prom queen is VERY DANGEROUS to the prevention of the spread of what is a very deadly disease. I believe that it behooves us to follow the lead of the mainstream medical community and major scientific peer journals and shut this down.

Anyone who has a problem with this can, of course, see to it that the thread remains open or create a new one, but I will be very fucking harsh on anyone who tries a stunt like this thread again.

[Edi]

Yay, Lagmonster! I thoroughly second that notion, lock the thread as quickly as possible, it serves no purpose anymore. These fuckwits need to be smacked down far worse than the worst creationist, and that's saying something.

Rest assured, you won't be the only one who will be harsh as hell on them. I'm still wondering how I managed to be as polite as I was previously...

Edi