The great HIV/AIDS thread

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by spuriousmonkey, Dec 27, 2006.

  1. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    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!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    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%'?

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sauna Banned Banned

    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?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Indeed, it appears you are lacking such knowledge.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

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

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

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

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


    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.
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2006
  10. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    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?
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    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.
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    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.
  13. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    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
  14. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    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.
  15. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    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.
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    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.
  17. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    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.
  18. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    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.
  19. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Does Medication cause AIDS?
    ToR asks this question.
    Feel free to read the link I gave you earlier.

    As you can see this conclusion is backed up by many sources. Not just idle speculation.
  20. valich Registered Senior Member

    A hoax?
  21. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    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.
  22. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned


    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:

    "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.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2006
  23. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    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.

Share This Page