The great HIV/AIDS thread

[Theoryofrelativity]

Note this from link in previous post: accuracy of HIV testing:

"How accurate are HIV tests?
Standard HIV antibody (ELISA) tests are at least 99.5% accurate when it comes to detecting the presence of HIV antibodies. This high level of sensitivity however means that their specificity (ability to distinguish HIV antibodies from other antibodies) is slightly lowered. Once an individual is out of the window period, it is more likely that they will receive a false positive result than a false negative.

Any HIV positive result given by an ELISA test must therefore be confirmed using a second test. Secondary tests include:

Western Blot Assays – One of the oldest but most accurate confirmatory antibody tests. It is complex to administer and may produce indeterminate results if a person has a transitory infection. Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay – Like the Western blot, but uses a microscope to detect HIV antibodies.
Line Immunoassay - Commonly used in Europe. Reduces chance of sample contamination and is as accurate as the Western Blot.
A second ELISA – In resource-poor settings with relatively high prevalence, a second ELISA test may be used to confirm a diagnosis. The second test will usually be a different commercial brand and will use a different method of detection to the first.
When two tests are combined, the chance of getting an inaccurate result is well below 0.1%."

Hmmmmmm how much do you trust statistics


Note the article I posted earlier re people in Africa with malaria being incorrectly diagnosed with Aids!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

"How accurate are HIV tests?

Note that Aids diagnosis errors do not disprove the existence of a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.
But ironically you state yourself:
When two tests are combined, the chance of getting an inaccurate result is well below 0.1%."

This means HIV testing is one of the most reliable testing around! Or don't you understand the figure 'well below 0.1%'?

The recepients of blood may or may not represent a neutral cross section, but the blood donors from which the HIV infections are supposed to have originated were hopefully not neutral, but rather a cross section heavily weighted toward healthy individuals deemed fit to donate blood, with no obvious sign of poor health.

It seems to me then that what we have here is proof positive that the symptoms of AIDS do not necessarily occur because of HIV infection.

I have been looking around for estimates of the UK population infected with HIV but not yet aware of it.

Any offers?

Needless to say you missed the point that these patients didn't contract AIDS because of a lifestyle relating to drugs.

Perhaps you can actually first state what you believe in, since at this moment you merely assume to opposite of whatever I say for a reason that is very obvious to me. Blindly criticizing anything someone says doesn't constitute an opinion.

 

[Sauna]

Without a detailed working knowledge of the biology it is all but impossible to make sense of.

The presence of antibodies would intuitively suggest that the immune system is working, not out of order, so is this a test of health or of disease?

What happens with HIV were the body to fail to react to the infection?

Would that not be the greater danger, a lack of antibody?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Without a detailed working knowledge of the biology it is all but impossible to make sense of.

Indeed, it appears you are lacking such knowledge.

The presence of antibodies would intuitively suggest that the immune system is working, not out of order, so is this a test of health or of disease?

Your intuition shouldn't really be trusted. The immune system is not just making antibodies. Of course I cannot suggest to read wikipedia because some of the members are so beyond wikipedia that they only can get their information from websites with a specific agenda.

Hence I recommend a text book on the immunesystem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.TOC&depth=2

What happens with HIV were the body to fail to react to the infection?

Would that not be the greater danger, a lack of antibody?

Death or death? What is indeed the greater danger?
You seem to think the existence of an antibody in the blood prevents disease. Maybe you should read up on how HIV works. Specifically which cells it targets.

no it is NOt settled as these links demonstrate

The debate is settled in the scientific world. I know you have trouble distinguishing between the scientific world and the WWW, but I assure you most scientists have not.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Here is a good site with detailed information on HIV/AIDS

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/default.htm

I would like some people to regards the following paragraph from an article from this site.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/macs_and_wihs.htm

Disputing the overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS is not only unscientific, but also inexcusably derails the only known approaches that can stop the terrible pandemic of AIDS. While the best approaches to improving health in settings with limited funded and substantial epidemics can be debated, the results of the studies conducted in the last sixteen years are indisputable: HIV causes AIDS.

The site provides a nice set of links and data to back up this claim.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I'm sure only you can understand your own question as usual.

however,

modern risks of HIV contamination (for haemophilia patients in the USA).

It is important to emphasize that, overall, strict blood donor screening procedures in conjunction with development of new assay systems for donated blood have reduced the risk of HIV transmission to 1:500,000 units transfused. The risk for HCV is now 1:103,000 units transfused, while that of HBV is 1:63,000 units.

What the old risks were? High.

You can see this from the fact that children are at a lesser risk because of the better screening as stated above.

Although acquisition of blood-borne infectious agents is not a complication of hemophilia per se, it constitutes a significant complication in hemophilia patients who received blood products in the past. Today, approximately 20 percent of adult hemophilia patients in the United States are HIV-infected; about 56 percent and 89 percent, respectively, are infected with HBV and HCV. The percentages are substantially lower for children. HIV remains the most common cause of death among hemophilia patients; of the 400 who die each year, roughly 75 percent die as a result of HIV infection.

Still HIV is responsible for 75% of the patients deaths.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I'm sure only you can understand your own question as usual.

however,

modern risks of HIV contamination (for haemophilia patients in the USA).


What the old risks were? High.

You can see this from the fact that children are at a lesser risk because of the better screening as stated above.


Still HIV is responsible for 75% of the patients deaths.

is it? Or is the medication responsible?

I read something recently in science mag, it's really annoying me as I can't recall exact details. Was something to do with that test re count that determines HIV virus present. Said something like people with low HIV? die within 10yrs if treated just as people with High HIv do, kind of suggesting that it was medication that gave them this 10yr window not how advanced the HIV/Aids was before treatment. Does this ring any bells?

 

[MetaKron]

The scientific debate on the AIDS controversy ended pretty much in 1995. Because the scientific community was satisfied there was none after all parties had had their say in top ranking journals.

Are you argueing that 'science', one of the top journals is not good enough for you?

Wikipedia is not good enough for you?

But a random website is?

The "debate", such as it was, took place in Science's letters to the editor section. Since I actually tracked down that debate around the year 2000 and photocopied it, I still have some familiarity with it. It was not peer-reviewed, and the "gatekeeper" was, as you might expect, the editor of the "letters to the editor" page. This little affair seems to have been given a lot more effect than it really should have, score one for the "orthodox" side, which was pretty predictable no matter what evidence was shown. By that time Peter Duesberg's book had been out for quite a while, and as far as I know Science never went over that point by point. I don't feel that the dissident side really had its say in any "top" journal.

What worries me here is the kind of cards that you play, Spuriousmonkey, and I still don't completely agree with the way that you are dealing them. You've dismissed one of TOR's posts as not containing an argument, when it quoted Rebecca Culshaw's stated reasons for leaving the HIV industry. Even without an "argument" it is part of the history of this thing and it points to a source of information. Participants here are not going to accept a strict format of any kind that we aren't already used to, especially if they don't see how it is being administered fairly. I really think that you should ask people what they think constitutes fair administration and moderation of the discussion. Loose but not too loose is the way that I would say it.

What I wanted to do in the first place was to pin down a scientific type of definition of what we were talking about in the first place. The first thing that you said that I had a problem with was that AIDS was HIV disease by definition. We can get to talking past each other really easy that way, but I have to argue that this is not a good way to define it. What should be a type of AIDS should not be used as part of the definition of AIDS. It messes with the hierarchy that should be imposed on such definitions. For example, we don't define a fever as being that condition of higher body temperature that is caused by having a cold because we know that the flu, mumps, and many other diseases cause a fever. An "AIDS" is a way to say that the patient is immune-suppressed, and the "AIDS caused by HIV" or "AIDS caused by radiation" should be smaller categories under the broader category of "AIDS." Calling it a syndrome makes it bigger than it should be, too, because even if AIDS is a symptom of HIV infection, it is a symptom, like chronic fatigue syndrome or Reyes syndrome.

 

[leopold]

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

no one is suggesting it is a hoax!

read the links I have provided, it centers around the test for HIV and

the 'count' they do

low count = HIV BUT that is NOT world wide accepted!! and it has been found to be LOW in people subsequently tested (different method) for HIV who have tested negative.

Also sometimes people who test positive can later test negative!

Raed the links I provided, this is a greyer area than we realise

 

[MetaKron]

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

Just a quick note: You can't rule out a possibility by resorting to the "reasonable man" hypothesis. Governments, organizations, and individuals often do odd things even when those things are against their best interests, or against what seem to be their best interests.

 

[MetaKron]

I had a problem with the AIDS paradigm very early. They were predicting a 100 percent mortality rate when they had very little information to go on.

 

[MetaKron]

A couple of things that I want to throw in here: Robert Laarhoven worked very hard to make the Virusmyth site factual and he kept it updated for over six years. Unlike a certain other site owner I could mention, he does not get any aid from anyone to pay for the site. It is not "propaganda", it is still one of the largest repositories of information on the dissident side of the AIDS controversy.

Another is that it takes time to properly present a scientific case, and this is complex enough that it takes time to go over any one point presented.

 

[MetaKron]

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

also, AIDS is a set of symptoms.

It's a long story. Before, someone didn't want to give me enough time to explain a lot of this, and it takes a lot of time to even start to tell the story. That's why I refer people to the site so they can get some idea what the story is. A lot of it is there.

 

[2inquisitive]

TOR,

read the links I have provided, it centers around the test for HIV and

the 'count' they do

What does 'centers around' mean? It looks to me that you simply did a google search and pasted links without reading them yourself. Do you think all of them are contesting the HIV/AIDS connection? They don't. I have wasted enough of my time reading your links that do not support your arguement. State exactly what you disagree with, and why you disagree. Then give specific quotes to back up your arguement and links to the quotes. Your shotgun approach only reveals your lack of principle and intelligence in supporting your arguement.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Does Medication cause AIDS?
ToR asks this question.

is it? Or is the medication responsible?

I read something recently in science mag, it's really annoying me as I can't recall exact details. Was something to do with that test re count that determines HIV virus present. Said something like people with low HIV? die within 10yrs if treated just as people with High HIv do, kind of suggesting that it was medication that gave them this 10yr window not how advanced the HIV/Aids was before treatment. Does this ring any bells?

Feel free to read the link I gave you earlier.

MYTH: AZT and other antiretroviral drugs, not HIV, cause AIDS.

FACT: The vast majority of people with AIDS never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications (UNAIDS, 2000).

As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals.

In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo. Among HIV-infected patients who had not yet developed AIDS, placebo-controlled trials found that AZT given as single-drug therapy delayed, for a year or two, the onset of AIDS-related illnesses. Significantly, long-term follow-up of these trials did not show a prolonged benefit of AZT, but also never indicated that the drug increased disease progression or mortality. The lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these placebo-controlled trials effectively counters the argument that AZT causes AIDS (NIAID, 1995).

Subsequent clinical trials found that patients receiving two-drug combinations had up to 50 percent increases in time to progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to people receiving single-drug therapy. In more recent years, three-drug combination therapies have produced another 50 percent to 80 percent improvements in progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to two-drug regimens in clinical trials. Use of potent anti-HIV combination therapies has contributed to dramatic reductions in the incidence of AIDS and AIDS-related deaths in populations where these drugs are widely available, an effect which clearly would not be seen if antiretroviral drugs caused AIDS (Figure 1; CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; Palella et al. NEJM 1998;338:853; Mocroft et al. Lancet 1998;352:1725; Mocroft et al. Lancet 2000;356:291; Vittinghoff et al. J Infect Dis 1999;179:717; Detels et al. JAMA 1998;280:1497; de Martino et al. JAMA 2000;284:190; CASCADE Collaboration. Lancet 2000;355:1158; Hogg et al. CMAJ 1999;160:659; Schwarcz et al. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:178; Kaplan et al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:S5; McNaghten et al. AIDS 1999;13:1687).

As you can see this conclusion is backed up by many sources. Not just idle speculation.

 

[valich]

as a complete and utter dumbass on the subject i venture the following:
when i give blood i am always asked if i have been diagnosed as HIV positive.
if so i cannot give blood.
it seems rather odd to me that due to the pressing need for blood donations that they would further exclude people based on a hoax.

A hoax?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Reliability of AIDS test:

no one is suggesting it is a hoax!

read the links I have provided, it centers around the test for HIV and

the 'count' they do

low count = HIV BUT that is NOT world wide accepted!! and it has been found to be LOW in people subsequently tested (different method) for HIV who have tested negative.

Also sometimes people who test positive can later test negative!

Raed the links I provided, this is a greyer area than we realise

Read your own posts please.

The first test is 99,5% accurate according to yourself. An obligatory second test reduces the inaccuracy to well under 0.1%.. According to your own post.

It's one of the most reliable diagnoses around.

Moreover, these extremely rare cases of mis-diagnosis do not disprove the causality between HIV and AIDS. And if it does I would very much like to hear how. And I think so would the rest of the world.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Reliability of AIDS test:



Read your own posts please.

The first test is 99,5% accurate according to yourself. An obligatory second test reduces the inaccuracy to well under 0.1%.. According to your own post.

It's one of the most reliable diagnoses around.

Moreover, these extremely rare cases of mis-diagnosis do not disprove the causality between HIV and AIDS. And if it does I would very much like to hear how. And I think so would the rest of the world.

Spurious,

1) I posted the original links NOT because I have an opinion on this matter but to demonstrate that Metakron who was unfairly ridiculed HAD a legitimate question, one that IS being discussed NOW (presently, not 11 years ago) by leading scientists who work in this field.

IE: NOT pseudoscience, not cesspool material, but a genuine question worthy of discussion. Your adverse opinion does not make this unworthy of discussion only that you can in fact contribute to it. There are no discussions if everyone agrees (not here anyway).

2) One of those links, a recent article disputed recent claims that HIV is not the sole cause of Aids; I did this deliberately to demonstrate no bias

BUT upon reading it I noted that one of the reasons given to PROVE that HIV is the sole cause relates to the CD4 count test that is undertaken. This test which defines Aids as its definition exists today (different definition to that of 12yrs ago) states that the definition has NOT gained worldwide acceptance.

Presently the definition of Aids is this:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

This suggests that worldwide this test for HIV is NOT accepted as reliable.

Dispute this?


Also I read that article recently (recent article) which raised query re this CD4 count test and the effect of treatment, so I am now interested in this topic. BUT still jury is out; I have no opinion only questions. Is that wrong? I am not a sheep; I do not blindly accept anything. You saying 'it isn't so' is not enough. Neither is providing ancient links to ancient information.

 

[Idle Mind]

ToR, spurious moved the threads not because the ideas presented were to be considered pseudoscience, but that the proponents of such ideas refused to post support and logical arguments accompanying their ideas.

Also, it appears as though you are misreading your own quote. It appears to say that the number (200 x 10^6/L) is what is not fully accepted worldwide, not the actual counting of the the cells.