But that obfuscates precisely what they are. They are tests for proteins that have been 'isolated' as common denominators amongst those with failing immune systems.
They do not actually test for the presence of a virus, and the "viral load" estimates are purely fanciful extrapolations of this data.
With regards to your comment on why HIV patients are given immunosuppressants, you're probably referring to the treatment or introduction of SHORT TERM Prednisone therapy for patients who have low blood platelets (thrombocytopenia). Prednisone is a steroid, and is noted to increase the blood platelet count of patients with HIV. Since it is a steroid, it is only used for ACUTE, SHORT TERM periods. Prolonged exposure to any steroids can lead to immunosuppression, something that is not ideal to an already immunocompromised HIV patient.
Literally all of the drugs prescribed for HIV treatment have a profound effect on the immune system and act to inhibit it in various ways. The post-mortem on AZT and Protease and Transcriptase Inhibitors is that they all failed.
"Aim, it mutated..."
Really?
A virus that can be 'incubating' for a decade after your alleged exposure to it (surely there was a time in everyone's life in the past where they -could- have been exposed to someone who had this mystical virus), but has transmission rates of less than 1:10 in the most ideal manners of exposure (which involves intimate activity) managed to mutate to completely nullify viral treatments within less than a decade?
Really, now. Let's
Also, anabolic steroids are also used to aid in muscle and fat wasting, something common in patients with AIDS.
Yes, we give many people with genetic disorders a variety of steroids to prop up the function of their body. People born with acute renal failure are given all kinds of drugs (that may or may not really help - most people can live just fine without them if they take care of their bodies) - then hook them up to machines for a few hours three times a week to clean their blood.
If you are not referring to Prednisone, what is the name of the drug you are referring to?
Most of the ones I'm referring to go back way before your time. The face of HIV drug treatments have changed. There is and there isn't a difference between treating HIV and treating AIDs. Drugs prescribed for the symptoms of a failing immune system are not necessarily immune suppressors.
Drugs aimed at shutting HIV down all have the pressing side effect of being an immunosuppressant. Many antivirals do mildly suppress functions of the immune system as a consequence - but the immune system (evolved and/or designed to eliminate foreign threats from the body) is far less affected on the whole than the task-specific virus that has had key processes inhibited.
There's a lot of history you're missing.
HIV was too small for condoms to block. They couldn't protect you.
Now they are the only thing that can save you from catching the death-cooties. There was all kinds of concern regarding CPR and blood contact over HIV (though Hepatitis is a far more communicable blood-borne virus) - all kinds of warnings from the medical field about how we could get the death-cooties without barriers. You can still catch Hepatitis (we know a lot about that virus) - but the odds are still relatively low, and almost non-existent for HIV.
The reason for it is that the assumption was, decades ago, that we were seeing a new epidemic of some highly infectious pathogen. The estimates for its spread were horribly skewed because it was assumed that 'patient zero' was relatively recent - within the last 100 years - and that it had already spread to infect the populations we were seeing affected.
You should read "The Andromeda Strain." Don't watch the new movie - they got the story all wrong; sure, the events were related and it was a decent techno-thriller - the environazis had to inject their agenda in there and they ruined the whole point of the plot - which was that it was written as an analysis of the WildFire team's actions and as to how they were way out of line in their handling of the outbreak.
Similarly, the initial response to AIDs set the entirely wrong course for the research that we are following through to this day.
A quick comparison of AIDs affliction across cultures quickly indicates that the root cause of the problem is not likely to be an infectious agent. Homosexuals in America are hammered by the disease while homosexual behavior is common throughout the Middle East and the most AIDs-afflicted are male youths under the age of 24:
You must be registered for see links
Asia is a ****ing mess:
You must be registered for see links
"The prevalence of HIV varies widely between and within Asian countries, and vulnerable segments of the population have disproportionately high HIV infection rates. Male and female *** workers and IDUs were the first groups to be seriously affected by HIV/AIDS in most of Asia and the Pacific, and they remain key affected populations. In Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Thailand, over 20 percent of IDUs are HIV-positive, and while HIV rates have fallen in female *** workers across the region, in many provinces the rate remains above 10 percent. UNAIDS has indicated that the overlap of injection drug use and *** work is an important factor in China’s HIV epidemic."
There's also an overlap of injected drug use and a generalized destruction of the body.
"I wonder why the women who are struggling for survival against oppressive human traffickers and being motivated to work through drug use are getting chronically sick and dying."
"Must be HIV."
Feed anyone a diet of stale rice, wine, opium, and semen for a few years and see what happens. When they complain, inject them with some heroine and toss them out to service the customers.
I mean... obviously, that's what women are made for. There must be some kind of insidious, infectious disease that seeks to poison our wells of pleasure if they start to become sick and die.
It's like planting crops in soil with poor drainage and blaming aliens for their slow, rotting death that your crops experience. There are a number of factors that came together to bring about the death of your crops - but it had less to do with aliens and crop circles and more to do with negligence.
I'm glad to hear this news, OP. Hopefully further studies would lead to better results.
Further studies will begin to yield what I am saying, now.
Many of them already do:
You must be registered for see links
There are all kinds of fun little bits in there - such as this one:
“After blood grouping and cross-match, the HIV negative blood from donor to recipient mice showed bands corresponding to gp120 and gp160 were observed in nine mice. Two mice had both gp120 and gp160 bands and one unidentified peak, two showed only one band gp160 and five had weak gp160 bands the so called indeterminate bands for positive but not complete absence of bands…One would think that if there really were HIV proteins, and that the HIV antibodies were truly specific, then just having one band light up would be proof that HIV is present. But according to experts, that is not the case, you need more than one3. The intriguing thing is, even if one or two bands are not sufficient to diagnose HIV infection, there must still be a reason why they are there. In fact cross-reaction is the explanation given by all HIV experts for “noninfected” Western Blots3. But if one or two bands in the WB can be caused by non-HIV, cross reacting antibodies why cant three or four or five or all of the ten bands be caused by cross reacting non-HIV antibodies. Around the world different combinations of two or three or four bands of the possible ten bands are deemed proof of infection. In Africa you need only two, envelop proteins without gag or pol to prove HIV infection, (WHO Criteria). FDA and Red Cross rules you need three bands. We conclude therefore that the HIV antibody proteins in the Western Blot antibody test are not specific.”
Kabati CIA et al. Testing for HIV Specific Proteins in Otherwise Western Blot Negative Theiller "
This one should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt (as there are some valid practices he calls into question because, understandably, they do not make immediate sense to the common-sense individual - such as the process of 'cancerizing' cell lines for research purposes):
You must be registered for see links
There are some useful little bits, however:
"Moreover, the fragments differ from one patient to another, leading scientists to conclude that no two HIV genomes are the same even from the same person. Some have said that in samples taken from any one patient they can find more than 100 million genetically distinct variants of HIV (p. 272). This is attributed to HIV’s ability to protect itself by constantly mutating. Robert Gallo, one of the inventors of the ‘AIDS virus’, stated in 2007 that HIV’s genome is rapidly and constantly mutating into ‘so many forms that I cannot keep track of them’ (p. 184). AIDS scientists have a blueprint of HIV in mind to which they try to fit the genetic fragments. When they find bits that don’t fit in, they claim that they must have mutated. But as Roberts (p. 272) says, ‘this phenomenon can be explained by cellular breakdown within a very ill person, or by accepting retroviruses as basically messenger RNA vesicles that can carry different codes’. "
What this virus is supposed to be doing is like some kind of super-nano-retro-vira-pox-bot-rus.
If HIV actually does exist and can accomplish all of the feats to its name... there is only one conclusion that can be made: Some super-intelligent being made that virus specifically to piss in the face of virology everywhere.
It's hardly a threat to the human race as a whole. Hell - it's hardly a threat to responsible individuals. It just exists as a sort of biological gremlin meant to confound and forever remain victorious over the biomedical sciences.
The epidemeology is just whacked:
"The sexual transmission of the ‘AIDS virus’ is also contradicted by the fact that increases in infections with sexually transmitted diseases do not correlate with increased HIV infection and by the absence of HIV among female *** workers who do not use intravenous drugs.
The largest ever scientific study of the risk of HIV infection through heterosexual *** was conducted by Nancy Padian in 1997 (pp. 149-51). For several years she monitored a large number of couples, of which one partner was HIV-positive at the start of the study. But despite a quarter not using condoms consistently, not a single case of HIV transmission was found. Neither failure to use a condom, total number of sexual partners, nor lifetime number of sexually transmitted diseases was correlated with infection. By making the unwarranted assumption that the couples she had excluded from her study because both partners were already HIV-positive must have previously infected each other through ***, she estimated that an HIV-positive man would pass on HIV once in 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse and an HIV-positive woman would infect a man once in 8000 unprotected acts.
This poses a major problem: in Africa, females are infected by HIV to at least the same degree as men and this is attributed mainly to heterosexual transmission, but this would require a monumental amount of ***. Despite there being no evidence that Africans are far more promiscuous than westerners, HIV=AIDS proponents still tend to believe that black people are ***-crazed."
If HIV DOES = AIDs....
Like I said - it was developed to be one giant middle finger to virology. Because not a damned bit of what it is supposedly doing makes any logical sense. It is downright mystical.
Or...
It is the case that genetic and environmental factors play a role in long-term immune system health. Just as people can drive their bodies into diabetic states, drive kidneys to fail, livers to fail, etc... so, too, can they drive and/or induce their immune systems into failure. Genetics is also likely to play a role in this.
Given the data - which makes more sense?
Mystical doom-cooties
Or a combination of genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors taking their toll on the body?
If I discuss the beginning of AIDS, where it came from, it's first written case, Its causative agent, it's psychopathophysiology, the diseases that constitute the syndrome, the number of drugs to be given - the contraindications , mechanisms of action, the dosage, and everything, the treatment and therapies, would it suffice? Coz that would take a lot of posts, and I wouldn't be able to complete it and would be completely blowing things waaaay out proportion for the simple and positive news given by OP. And you still are yet to include in your post two very important things that are vital to the whole umbrella of the acronym "AIDS".
If I discuss the beginning of AIDS, where it came from, it's first written case, Its causative agent, it's psychopathophysiology, the diseases that constitute the syndrome, the number of drugs to be given - the contraindications , mechanisms of action, the dosage, and everything, the treatment and therapies, would it suffice?
You're not going to tell me anything new, anything I don't know or haven't already studied.
The history you need to start studying is not what is written down in text books at universities. It is what is written down and written about the researchers whose work and thoughts ended up creating the paradigms expressed in your text book.
This is an unavoidable thing in many of the real sciences. The foundation of Quantum Mechanics plays out like an epic drama with Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc all having passionate arguments about how to interpret the data they were seeing.
You could perform the same experiment all over the world, get the exact same results, and have fifteen different interpretations from five different people.
It's a reality that the soft sciences have yet to catch up with. Physicists have been introduced to the humility of how fragile models are in the wake of experiments, and how vital it is to ensure you are properly interpreting your experimental data.
In the soft sciences, where most of your data comes from correlation and observation, alone, with limited ability to perform controlled experiments - the need for discussions on interpretation of the data is extreme.
This is not, as you seem to suspect, a case of me being ignorant.
If you can read a cook book, you can prescribe someone HIV treatments. As well as treatments for just about anything. Memorize the cookbook and you can work emergency rooms.
I take the perspective of someone who actually looks at how to solve problems and cure diseases. In other words - I have the perspective of someone who comes out with new ingredients for you to use in the cook book of cures (or treatments... or just something people are willing to pay for, who cares if it is better than a placebo, or not?).
Coz that would take a lot of posts, and I wouldn't be able to complete it and would be completely blowing things waaaay out proportion for the simple and positive news given by OP.
The billions of dollars thrown at the problem annually for the past few decades has finally resulted in yet another case where the HIV testing standards fail.
You must be registered for see links
You see - it's more than likely that this child never had HIV to begin with:
You must be registered for see links
"We describe here a case of heterophile antibodies that are cross-reactive with bovine and caprine proteins occurring in a 22-month-old child, causing false-positive immunoassay results to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and a number of other infectious serology tests. A 22-month-old boy with a history of Down syndrome and endocardial cushion defect repair was admitted for fevers of up to 103°F of several days’ duration and for respiratory distress. A chest radiograph showed bilateral upper-lobe pneumonias. The patient failed to respond to antibiotic therapy and a chest computerized tomogram (CT) showed a left upper-lobe abscess. The abscess was surgically drained and cultures grew Candida,Enterobacter, and gram-positive cocci. "
This type of thing is not all that uncommon:
You must be registered for see links
Alloimmune mice were shown to produce antibodies against P24 - one of the key indicators used for HIV infection. Basically - any time your immune system takes up arms against a human (possibly even mammalian) cell group - you'll test positive for HIV.
You must be registered for see links
Here's another interesting one.
This one is just funny:
You must be registered for see links
This pretty much takes the cake, though:
You must be registered for see links
Basically: "Viral loading.... useless diagnostic.... no appreciable correlation to immune cell loss. ... Which doesn't make any god damned sense..."
And you still are yet to include in your post two very important things that are vital to the whole umbrella of the acronym "AIDS".
Nope, I'm not pretending to be nice or worse patronizing. I'm only saying that you're missing out two important components that is as I've said under the umbrella of AIDS. And in no way would I gut you and dine upon your liver, literally and metaphorically speaking, and yes, I did catch the sarcasm. It was casually stated, like asking a friend how's the weather. It was not stated as to undermine your intelligence and knowhow in life, or inflict harm on your ego. But kindly take it as it is: a casual statement.
Give me time to read the posts and prepare my answers, I shall try to make short responses.
Nope, I'm not pretending to be nice or worse patronizing. I'm only saying that you're missing out two important components that is as I've said under the umbrella of AIDS. And in no way would I gut you and dine upon your liver, literally and metaphorically speaking, and yes, I did catch the sarcasm. It was casually stated, like asking a friend how's the weather. It was not stated as to undermine your intelligence and knowhow in life, or inflict harm on your ego. But kindly take it as it is: a casual statement.
Give me time to read the posts and prepare my answers, I shall try to make short responses.
You take too seriously the wrong things while simultaneously neglecting the important.
Discussions involving a difference of opinion or the implications of various interpretations of data are downright thrilling. Every 'death' is another perspective to emulate for the future - another angle to consider. So long as you have the ability to recognize when you've 'died' and the capacity to analyze the methods, you win in the end.
Better, with every death comes a retroactive referendum on other ideas and discussions.
A 'victory' in these types of discussions is hardly useful to me.
You'll find I've developed quite the eccentrically morbid sense of humor, particularly regarding my own deposition. I'm quite sure it isn't normal and that any psychologist would find me an intriguing combination of both hilarious and horrifying.
But, there again, we all like to believe we're special. I simply deviate from the modus in my selection of factors I want to believe distinguish me from others. But now I am talking about me, and that is the quickest way to clear a room short of open defecation.
I could have sworn I read something about a mother being able to give the baby or her a shot while the baby is still being developed within the mother and it would cure them of their parents STD.
To everyone who’s reading this post, pardon me for this wallie.
But in the spirit of boredom and while waiting for the manga to come out last Wednesday, I decided to post in this thread. I would just like to counter the premises presented by a non-believer in the existence of HIV and AIDS. Please be patient as I present my reply.
You're horribly confused.
You're not going to tell me anything new, anything I don't know or haven't already studied.
The history you need to start studying is not what is written down in text books at universities. It is what is written down and written about the researchers whose work and thoughts ended up creating the paradigms expressed in your text book.
This is an unavoidable thing in many of the real sciences. The foundation of Quantum Mechanics plays out like an epic drama with Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc all having passionate arguments about how to interpret the data they were seeing.
You could perform the same experiment all over the world, get the exact same results, and have fifteen different interpretations from five different people.
It's a reality that the soft sciences have yet to catch up with. Physicists have been introduced to the humility of how fragile models are in the wake of experiments, and how vital it is to ensure you are properly interpreting your experimental data.
In the soft sciences, where most of your data comes from correlation and observation, alone, with limited ability to perform controlled experiments - the need for discussions on interpretation of the data is extreme.
I actually don’t have a problem with other sciences. I have high regard of them, regardless of what specific branch of science they are involved with. So let’s move on.
@@@@@
Discussions involving a difference of opinion or the implications of various interpretations of data are downright thrilling. Every 'death' is another perspective to emulate for the future - another angle to consider. So long as you have the ability to recognize when you've 'died' and the capacity to analyze the methods, you win in the end.
Better, with every death comes a retroactive referendum on other ideas and discussions.
A 'victory' in these types of discussions is hardly useful to me.
You'll find I've developed quite the eccentrically morbid sense of humor, particularly regarding my own deposition. I'm quite sure it isn't normal and that any psychologist would find me an intriguing combination of both hilarious and horrifying.
But, there again, we all like to believe we're special. I simply deviate from the modus in my selection of factors I want to believe distinguish me from others. But now I am talking about me, and that is the quickest way to clear a room short of open defecation.
There are a lot of interesting people in this base, trolls and legit ones alike. I’d rather not name names, so let’s move on.
They never had HIV to begin with.
You cannot be infected with a virus that does not exist.
"Aim... People are dying and you're suggesting it is because of something that doesn't exist?"
Fifty years ago, your immune system began failing.
What happened?
Small Pox took you, and you "died of small pox."
"Okay, but what does that have to do with any-"
We eradicated Small Pox - and not a decade later, people all over the place began dying of compromised immune systems.
Doctors rushed to find an explanation, biased in their assumption that an infectious agent was involved in the growing epidemic.
But there was a problem. No one could find a virus. No one could find a common route of infection. Naturally - the assumption began that it had to be sexually transmitted, since those activities are harder for epidemiologists to track and the cases were more prevalent among the 'sexually liberal' of the time.
But there was a problem. Not one virus has ever been found in the history of HIV research.
"Then how the hell did they-"
It was originally assumed that the virus was just too small to be effectively isolated using electron microscopes of the day. This is why those of us in our 20s and 30s are a bit confused by the change in tune regarding the effectiveness of condoms in blocking HIV. We were told the virus was small enough to pass through the mesh of latex fibers. Indeed – this would have been true if an electron microscope could not isolate the virus.
Why the change?
Because we found 'the HIV virus' through another means. By analyzing the blood of people who have compromised immune systems and attempting to isolate various proteins, lipids, etc from blood that has been effectively run through a very thorough blender, common proteins were found and used to develop an array of tests.
Oh, and condoms block HIV infection, somehow. Despite the fact that there is not one electron microscope image of HIV, anywhere.
Using electron microscopes to photograph infected tissues/cells and understand the viral reproduction cycle is a crucial part of viral research. Trying to create a treatment without it is ... well ... stupid.
They actually have EM images.This is the 2014 one.
You must be registered for see links
In that picture, it’s a part of the gut of a humanized bone marrow/liver/thymus (BLT) mice, mainly because “Mouse models with humanized immune systems are emerging as a “tractable, cost-effective means by which to study HIV-1 infection in mucosal lymphoid tissue”.
This was included in the Introduction of the authors of the study. The years in red font are the corresponding years of their references as marked by the authors.
You must be registered for see images
Source:
You must be registered for see links
@@@@@
An STD with an infection rate of 1:700? An HIV infected female would have to have *** with a new partner each night of the year to have a 50% chance of passing HIV on to just ONE male. That one extra male would have to land a new girl every night for a year to have a 1.5:1 chance of passing HIV on to another female in that year.
And HIV became an epidemic in the human population? What kind of massive orgies are we having in the streets all across the planet?
The risk factors are in the image below. I highlighted those that have the smaller ratios, lesser than 1:500. Estimated risk factor per exposure
You must be registered for see images
Source:
You must be registered for see links
^ Doesn’t have to be orgies. There are other means of transmission. Maternal-fetal transmission, drug use, and Blood transfusion have greater risks. *** is still there though.
@@@@@
You have HIV.
What is the treatment? Immune suppressors.
A virus is killing your immune system, and you are assigned immune suppressors.
"Aim! They wouldn't intentionally kill people!"
No, they wouldn't.
What were they searching for? Proteins in failing immune systems. That is how they determine HIV infection.
If you issue someone immune suppressors, what is it going to do to your immune system? That's right - reduce the presence of your immune system. If they have determined that portions of your immune system indicate the presence of a virus... then reducing your immune system will reduce the indicators of a virus.
Which is precisely why AIDs, in the western world, has followed the more liberal' groups - the ones who experiment with drugs (often times combining them), eat poorly, and expose themselves to a wide range of pathogens in the process. It's enough to weaken and overwhelm any immune system, particularly if one already has a hereditary condition where the immune system will progressively fail.
You keep saying they are giving “immunosuppressors” as medications, and yet I asked you could you name them, you haven’t given me ONE. Probably because you know of none, and awaiting for me to name a few.
You must be registered for see links
is a flipbook of ALL the approved FDA drugs included in the HAART (Highly Reactive Antiretroviral Therapy) for HIV patients. Kindly see if there is any side effect indicating immunosuppression. Are there any immunosuppressors with these medications? None.
And nope. There are certain factors that are to be considered before putting the patient on HAART therapy.
Your argument is based on the premise that you are giving immunosuppressors to AIDS victims to deteriorate the condition? This is what is said about the thrombocytopenia that happens with HAART medications:
You must be registered for see images
Your thrombocytopenia has responded to HAART treatment, it improved the thrombocyte count. Not worsening it.
Source: Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (Editors : Braunwald, Kasper, Fauci, Hauser, Jameson, Longo, MD)
Your accusation has been rendered moot and invalid.
@@@@@
"Aim... I've done a little bit of reading, and the skeptics were wrong. People who refused treatment died."
So do the people who receive treatment.
The question is what is causing the progressive failure of immune systems. Generations ago - Small Pox would claim you before acute AIDs symptoms set in. Long before.
I don't believe there is a single common infectious agent. It's obviously a host of hereditary disorders (the common denominator of human-derived proteins that are claimed indicators of HIV infection are evidence of that - yes - the proteins that are supposedly HIV are very close matches to key proteins in our immune system) that compromise the immune system. Some AIDs/HIV cases could be induced by environment/lifestyle and the communication we do see is possibly due to a transfer and build-up of antibodies (which explains why some people have been HIV positive for nearly two decades and never shown signs of a compromised immune system).
And since you’ve posted the trailer for House of Numbers, I’m positive you’ve also heard of Christine Maggiore
You must be registered for see links
. She was a denialist who died of HIV. A few other denialists have died too
You must be registered for see links
.
Tommy Morrison, a denialist, also died due to HIV
You must be registered for see links
.
With regards to your comment about single common infectious agent, the cause is HIV. These are the precipitating and predisposing factors to exacerbate HIV:
You must be registered for see images
Do you mean Autoimmune Degenerative disorders? Could you kindly name some of them that you think could predispose a patient to AIDS?
@@@@@
But that obfuscates precisely what they are. They are tests for proteins that have been 'isolated' as common denominators amongst those with failing immune systems.
They do not actually test for the presence of a virus, and the "viral load" estimates are purely fanciful extrapolations of this data.
ELISA and Western blot detect the antibody in the body. But HIV PCR ( HIV – Polymerase chain Reaction) detects the DNA and RNA of the virus that resides and circulates in your blood. First Elisa, then Western Blot, then HIV PCR. And these tests aren’t only done once, they have to be repeated because of the window period of HIV.
Also, are we forgetting that there is physical examination as well as supplemental diagnostic tests to arrive at such conclusion? The doctor doesn’t only rely on those two, hence why there is a head-to-foot physical examination and a holistic approach in the treatment.
This one’s for the infant, since in the OP the patient is one.
You must be registered for see images
@@@@@
No kidding?
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Literally all of the drugs prescribed for HIV treatment have a profound effect on the immune system and act to inhibit it in various ways. The post-mortem on AZT and Protease and Transcriptase Inhibitors is that they all failed.
Link one summary: Maraviroc works. When patients are about to undergo bone grafts or organ donations, corticosteroids are given so that your own body, seing that the “bone” or “organ” is alien, will not reject it. In that article, Maraviroc, a HIV drug, is being considered to be used as medication for transplant patients.
Link two summary: Immunosuppressants mycophenolic acid and cyclosporine, and the chemotherapeutic, cytarabine inhibit HIV virus replication.
Again, I’ll post the image about thrombocytopenia and HAART. Kindly see the highlighted and underlined sentences.
You must be registered for see images
@@@@@
Really?
A virus that can be 'incubating' for a decade after your alleged exposure to it (surely there was a time in everyone's life in the past where they -could- have been exposed to someone who had this mystical virus), but has transmission rates of less than 1:10 in the most ideal manners of exposure (which involves intimate activity) managed to mutate to completely nullify viral treatments within less than a decade?
HIV is one weird virus. Same with Herpes 1 and 2, same with Tuberculosis. They attack, stay dormant for years, and when you’re immune system is weak, they go for the kill. That is what separates HIV from smallpox, apart from the fact that smallpox already has a vaccine.
They go latent, sleep in your body for a while, and when you least expect them, they come back. That is basically Latency and Reactivation.
You must be registered for see images
And this is the graph showing the number of years HIV rests.
You must be registered for see images
Imagine, for all those times, all those years not knowing they’re already inside of the body, opportunistic infections like Herpes 1 & 2, PCP, STIs, PTB, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, all those will invade your body and when the time comes that you have CD4+ T cells <200/microL + 1 Opportunistic infection, then comes AIDS.
@@@@@
Yes, we give many people with genetic disorders a variety of steroids to prop up the function of their body. People born with acute renal failure are given all kinds of drugs (that may or may not really help - most people can live just fine without them if they take care of their bodies) - then hook them up to machines for a few hours three times a week to clean their blood.
If you are not referring to Prednisone, what is the name of the drug you are referring to?
Most of the ones I'm referring to go back way before your time. The face of HIV drug treatments have changed. There is and there isn't a difference between treating HIV and treating AIDs. Drugs prescribed for the symptoms of a failing immune system are not necessarily immune suppressors.
Drugs aimed at shutting HIV down all have the pressing side effect of being an immunosuppressant. Many antivirals do mildly suppress functions of the immune system as a consequence - but the immune system (evolved and/or designed to eliminate foreign threats from the body) is far less affected on the whole than the task-specific virus that has had key processes inhibited.
It was a case of hospital negligence. Not following SOP of blood transfusion.
You must be registered for see links
. Incidentally, it’s also a place that has a high percentage of occurrence of HIV.
You must be registered for see links
.
@@@@@
A quick comparison of AIDs affliction across cultures quickly indicates that the root cause of the problem is not likely to be an infectious agent. Homosexuals in America are hammered by the disease while homosexual behavior is common throughout the Middle East and the most AIDs-afflicted are male youths under the age of 24:
You must be registered for see links
Asia is a ****ing mess:
You must be registered for see links
"The prevalence of HIV varies widely between and within Asian countries, and vulnerable segments of the population have disproportionately high HIV infection rates. Male and female *** workers and IDUs were the first groups to be seriously affected by HIV/AIDS in most of Asia and the Pacific, and they remain key affected populations. In Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Thailand, over 20 percent of IDUs are HIV-positive, and while HIV rates have fallen in female *** workers across the region, in many provinces the rate remains above 10 percent. UNAIDS has indicated that the overlap of injection drug use and *** work is an important factor in China’s HIV epidemic."
There's also an overlap of injected drug use and a generalized destruction of the body.
"I wonder why the women who are struggling for survival against oppressive human traffickers and being motivated to work through drug use are getting chronically sick and dying."
"Must be HIV."
Feed anyone a diet of stale rice, wine, opium, and semen for a few years and see what happens. When they complain, inject them with some heroine and toss them out to service the customers.
I mean... obviously, that's what women are made for. There must be some kind of insidious, infectious disease that seeks to poison our wells of pleasure if they start to become sick and die.
It's like planting crops in soil with poor drainage and blaming aliens for their slow, rotting death that your crops experience. There are a number of factors that came together to bring about the death of your crops - but it had less to do with aliens and crop circles and more to do with negligence.
Mbiki was against retroviral (anti-HIV) medications, and 171,000 HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007
You must be registered for see links
Nelson Mandela announced the death of son due to the complications of AIDS.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
.
And please, let’s not talk about aliens and crop circles.
@@@@@
Further studies will begin to yield what I am saying, now.
Many of them already do:
You must be registered for see links
There are all kinds of fun little bits in there - such as this one:
“After blood grouping and cross-match, the HIV negative blood from donor to recipient mice showed bands corresponding to gp120 and gp160 were observed in nine mice. Two mice had both gp120 and gp160 bands and one unidentified peak, two showed only one band gp160 and five had weak gp160 bands the so called indeterminate bands for positive but not complete absence of bands…One would think that if there really were HIV proteins, and that the HIV antibodies were truly specific, then just having one band light up would be proof that HIV is present. But according to experts, that is not the case, you need more than one3. The intriguing thing is, even if one or two bands are not sufficient to diagnose HIV infection, there must still be a reason why they are there. In fact cross-reaction is the explanation given by all HIV experts for “noninfected” Western Blots3. But if one or two bands in the WB can be caused by non-HIV, cross reacting antibodies why cant three or four or five or all of the ten bands be caused by cross reacting non-HIV antibodies. Around the world different combinations of two or three or four bands of the possible ten bands are deemed proof of infection. In Africa you need only two, envelop proteins without gag or pol to prove HIV infection, (WHO Criteria). FDA and Red Cross rules you need three bands. We conclude therefore that the HIV antibody proteins in the Western Blot antibody test are not specific.”
Kabati CIA et al. Testing for HIV Specific Proteins in Otherwise Western Blot Negative Theiller "
This one should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt (as there are some valid practices he calls into question because, understandably, they do not make immediate sense to the common-sense individual - such as the process of 'cancerizing' cell lines for research purposes):
You must be registered for see links
There are some useful little bits, however:
"Moreover, the fragments differ from one patient to another, leading scientists to conclude that no two HIV genomes are the same even from the same person. Some have said that in samples taken from any one patient they can find more than 100 million genetically distinct variants of HIV (p. 272). This is attributed to HIV’s ability to protect itself by constantly mutating. Robert Gallo, one of the inventors of the ‘AIDS virus’, stated in 2007 that HIV’s genome is rapidly and constantly mutating into ‘so many forms that I cannot keep track of them’ (p. 184). AIDS scientists have a blueprint of HIV in mind to which they try to fit the genetic fragments. When they find bits that don’t fit in, they claim that they must have mutated. But as Roberts (p. 272) says, ‘this phenomenon can be explained by cellular breakdown within a very ill person, or by accepting retroviruses as basically messenger RNA vesicles that can carry different codes’. "
What this virus is supposed to be doing is like some kind of super-nano-retro-vira-pox-bot-rus.
If HIV actually does exist and can accomplish all of the feats to its name... there is only one conclusion that can be made: Some super-intelligent being made that virus specifically to piss in the face of virology everywhere.
It's hardly a threat to the human race as a whole. Hell - it's hardly a threat to responsible individuals. It just exists as a sort of biological gremlin meant to confound and forever remain victorious over the biomedical sciences.
The epidemeology is just whacked:
"The sexual transmission of the ‘AIDS virus’ is also contradicted by the fact that increases in infections with sexually transmitted diseases do not correlate with increased HIV infection and by the absence of HIV among female *** workers who do not use intravenous drugs.
The largest ever scientific study of the risk of HIV infection through heterosexual *** was conducted by Nancy Padian in 1997 (pp. 149-51). For several years she monitored a large number of couples, of which one partner was HIV-positive at the start of the study. But despite a quarter not using condoms consistently, not a single case of HIV transmission was found. Neither failure to use a condom, total number of sexual partners, nor lifetime number of sexually transmitted diseases was correlated with infection. By making the unwarranted assumption that the couples she had excluded from her study because both partners were already HIV-positive must have previously infected each other through ***, she estimated that an HIV-positive man would pass on HIV once in 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse and an HIV-positive woman would infect a man once in 8000 unprotected acts.
This poses a major problem: in Africa, females are infected by HIV to at least the same degree as men and this is attributed mainly to heterosexual transmission, but this would require a monumental amount of ***. Despite there being no evidence that Africans are far more promiscuous than westerners, HIV=AIDS proponents still tend to believe that black people are ***-crazed."
People behind House of Numbers and other AIDS denialists often quote scientists ranging form Dr. Galo to Dr. Padian. Dr. Padian has already released a statement because her interview and her paper about AIDS was always taken out of context.
Heterosexual transmission of HIV – Nancy Padian, PhD
HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2). These estimates are mostly derived from studies in the developed world. However, a man or a woman can become HIV-positive after just one sexual contact. In developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, several factors (co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc.) can increase the likelihood of heterosexual transmission to 20% or even higher (4). Evidence that specifically documents the heterosexual transmission of HIV comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not); over time, HIV transmission occurs (5). Other studies have traced the transmission of HIV through networks of sexual partners (6-9). Additional evidence comes from intervention studies that, for example, promote condom use or encourage reductions in the numbers of sexual partners: the documented success of these interventions is because they prevent the sexual transmission of HIV (1,10,11).
In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public.
A common practice is to quote out of context a sentence from the Abstract of the 1997 paper: "Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low". Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioural interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe *** (1,12). That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success – nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade.
If safe *** practices are followed, and if there are no complicating factors such as those mentioned above, the risk of HIV transmission can be as low as our studies suggestÖIF. But many people misunderstand probability: they think that if the chance of misfortune is one in six, that they can take five chances without the likelihood of injury. This "Russian Roulette" misapprehension is dangerous to themselves and to others. Furthermore, complicating factors are often not evident or obvious in a relationship, so their perceived absence should not be counted on as an excuse not to practice safe ***.
Finally, it is a complete fallacy to allege or insinuate that this work has been "suppressed" or "ignored" by the AIDS community or unsupported by UCSF or any other institution with which I have worked. To the contrary, these findings have been seen as central and seminal to the problem of heterosexual transmission rates and the development of interventions to lower the rate of transmission and infection worldwide,many of which are being conducted by my research group. The success of my working group has been fueled, not hindered, by our research on the heterosexual transmission of HIV, attested to by our long record of peer-reviewed publications.
Source:
You're not going to tell me anything new, anything I don't know or haven't already studied.
The history you need to start studying is not what is written down in text books at universities. It is what is written down and written about the researchers whose work and thoughts ended up creating the paradigms expressed in your text book.
This is an unavoidable thing in many of the real sciences. The foundation of Quantum Mechanics plays out like an epic drama with Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc all having passionate arguments about how to interpret the data they were seeing.
You could perform the same experiment all over the world, get the exact same results, and have fifteen different interpretations from five different people.
It's a reality that the soft sciences have yet to catch up with. Physicists have been introduced to the humility of how fragile models are in the wake of experiments, and how vital it is to ensure you are properly interpreting your experimental data.
In the soft sciences, where most of your data comes from correlation and observation, alone, with limited ability to perform controlled experiments - the need for discussions on interpretation of the data is extreme.
This is not, as you seem to suspect, a case of me being ignorant.
If you can read a cook book, you can prescribe someone HIV treatments. As well as treatments for just about anything. Memorize the cookbook and you can work emergency rooms.
I take the perspective of someone who actually looks at how to solve problems and cure diseases. In other words - I have the perspective of someone who comes out with new ingredients for you to use in the cook book of cures (or treatments... or just something people are willing to pay for, who cares if it is better than a placebo, or not?).
Coz that would take a lot of posts, and I wouldn't be able to complete it and would be completely blowing things waaaay out proportion for the simple and positive news given by OP.
Great news.
The billions of dollars thrown at the problem annually for the past few decades has finally resulted in yet another case where the HIV testing standards fail.
You must be registered for see links
You see - it's more than likely that this child never had HIV to begin with:
You must be registered for see links
"We describe here a case of heterophile antibodies that are cross-reactive with bovine and caprine proteins occurring in a 22-month-old child, causing false-positive immunoassay results to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and a number of other infectious serology tests. A 22-month-old boy with a history of Down syndrome and endocardial cushion defect repair was admitted for fevers of up to 103°F of several days’ duration and for respiratory distress. A chest radiograph showed bilateral upper-lobe pneumonias. The patient failed to respond to antibiotic therapy and a chest computerized tomogram (CT) showed a left upper-lobe abscess. The abscess was surgically drained and cultures grew Candida,Enterobacter, and gram-positive cocci. "
This type of thing is not all that uncommon:
You must be registered for see links
Alloimmune mice were shown to produce antibodies against P24 - one of the key indicators used for HIV infection. Basically - any time your immune system takes up arms against a human (possibly even mammalian) cell group - you'll test positive for HIV.
You must be registered for see links
Here's another interesting one.
This one is just funny:
You must be registered for see links
This pretty much takes the cake, though:
You must be registered for see links
Basically: "Viral loading.... useless diagnostic.... no appreciable correlation to immune cell loss. ... Which doesn't make any god damned sense..."
False positives.
For example, I went and drank coffee as well as jogged, and didn’t rest for 30 minutes before taking my BP. I had a BP of 150/90 mm Hg.
Next time I drank Gatorade and ate chocolate, did not rest for 30 minutes and I checked my BP. It was 140/80 mm Hg.
Last time I took a rest, but I did not put my hands on top of the table and decided to check my BP with my hands lying limp and not raised to the table. My BP was 150/80 mm Hg.
Could you say I’m hypertensive? No. Because all three of those gave me False Positive results.
The links you have shown me, they put in their conclusions that some factors can create scenarios leading to false positive results in HIV testing. That in these cases were those factors are present, you can have an HIV+ result.
The link about the dog, the conclusion pretty much summarizes what the report yielded.
You must be registered for see images
All these links, they all have a thing in common: evaluate all possible factors that may contribute to False-Positive HIV results.
@@@@
That being said, I’ll leave you with a scenario. Suppose in the near future you accidentally contracted HIV and diagnosed by a highly esteemed and capable physician. Your doctor recommends you with HAART therapy. Would you accept it?
If yes, then there’s much to talk to your physician.
If your answer is no, then I respect your decision. Kindly also respect mine, that I do not wish to elaborate more of the subject, and let’s agree to disagree.
@@@@@
For the reader, thank you for reading this. For your patience and willingness to learn something. I know it’s quite boring to read all that, but hopefully you learned something from it.
And Hopefully this is my last wallie. Crossing my fingers that this won’t get deleted T_T
I actually don’t have a problem with other sciences. I have high regard of them, regardless of what specific branch of science they are involved with. So let’s move on.
This does not bode well for your reading comprehension skills. Since you are incapable of reading what I've said, we'll both find this discussion most frustrating.
They actually have EM images.This is the 2014 one.
You must be registered for see links
In that picture, it’s a part of the gut of a humanized bone marrow/liver/thymus (BLT) mice, mainly because “Mouse models with humanized immune systems are emerging as a “tractable, cost-effective means by which to study HIV-1 infection in mucosal lymphoid tissue”.
This was included in the Introduction of the authors of the study. The years in red font are the corresponding years of their references as marked by the authors.
I will have to review that work in more detail. While there does appear to be some form of retroviral budding, I would have to more properly review the methods of the study, as retrovirus activity within healthy cells is not uncommon.
The 2012 census for aids:
You must be registered for see images
Source:
You must be registered for see links
– Powerpoint Presentation “Global Epidemiology”
The risk factors are in the image below. I highlighted those that have the smaller ratios, lesser than 1:500. Estimated risk factor per exposure
You must be registered for see images
Source:
You must be registered for see links
^ Doesn’t have to be orgies. There are other means of transmission. Maternal-fetal transmission, drug use, and Blood transfusion have greater risks. *** is still there though.
The -best- infection vectors offer <1% infection success per exposure to a VERY limited blood-borne agent.
You must be registered for see links
0.3% chance of infection via needle-stick of HIV.
Let's start with a "Patient Zero" scenario:
Outside of blood transfusion - you're looking at substantially less than 1% infection rates for any given case of exposure. In the U.S. - average frequency of *** among young adults is around 112 times per year.
Asymptomatic individuals have incredibly low transmission rates - around 0.1% or worse. After 5 years, it's a relatively 50-60% shot at infecting one additional person.
After ten, there is a 60% shot at about 3 infected people and something like 35-40% shot at there being 4 infected people.
For HIV to exist within the human species as it does today - you are looking at having to expand the number of "patient zeros" by several orders of magnitude, or you have to go back to prehistory.
HIV theory and Math are in disagreement about the physics of infections.
You keep saying they are giving “immunosuppressors” as medications, and yet I asked you could you name them, you haven’t given me ONE. Probably because you know of none, and awaiting for me to name a few.
You must be registered for see links
is a flipbook of ALL the approved FDA drugs included in the HAART (Highly Reactive Antiretroviral Therapy) for HIV patients. Kindly see if there is any side effect indicating immunosuppression. Are there any immunosuppressors with these medications? None.
And I did give you two. Though, like I said, they were both before your time. I was learning about how those treatments had failed in grade school.
This is what I mean by you need to read what I have said. You'll find much of what you -could- say has already been taken into account.
And nope. There are certain factors that are to be considered before putting the patient on HAART therapy.
Your argument is based on the premise that you are giving immunosuppressors to AIDS victims to deteriorate the condition? This is what is said about the thrombocytopenia that happens with HAART medications:
You must be registered for see images
Your thrombocytopenia has responded to HAART treatment, it improved the thrombocyte count. Not worsening it.
Source: Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (Editors : Braunwald, Kasper, Fauci, Hauser, Jameson, Longo, MD)
Your accusation has been rendered moot and invalid.
You will find a number of interesting citations in that report.
T-cell counts lower than 400/uL are not uncommon in individuals seeking treatment for just about any condition. All viruses express an inherent immunosuppressive trend.
The problem is that your study attempts to make the unsubstantiated conclusion that treatment with antiretrovirals improves prognosis by improving T-cell counts. A factor which has been determined to be unrelated to prognosis in many other cases, including infections with other immune-suppressive qualities.
You'll also find, in that report, a discussion of drugs used for HIV treatment that are immunosuppressive. Though, again, before your time.
I hope you’ve heard of Magic Johnson
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
.
And since you’ve posted the trailer for House of Numbers, I’m positive you’ve also heard of Christine Maggiore
You must be registered for see links
. She was a denialist who died of HIV. A few other denialists have died too
Reading is an essential skill for life, young grasshopper.
Re-read my posts, and realize just how far you stuck your foot in your mouth.
I'll take a card from your deck and quote myself:
It is the case that genetic and environmental factors play a role in long-term immune system health. Just as people can drive their bodies into diabetic states, drive kidneys to fail, livers to fail, etc... so, too, can they drive and/or induce their immune systems into failure. Genetics is also likely to play a role in this.
Given the data - which makes more sense?
Mystical doom-cooties
Or a combination of genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors taking their toll on the body?
You have acute renal failure. I insist that it is caused by some variety of cooties. Shame on you for having *** with porcupines, now you can't pee. But, I've got this crazy treatment for you."
"Uh... 'Kay, you're the doctor."
[Denier]
"So... you have proof it's caused by something he caught from irresponsible porcupine *** or sharing porcupine needles?"
"Yep."
"... Sure it isn't something else?"
"My treatment is keeping these people alive."
"Uh... they all died."
"So did the deniers."
There are people who were diagnosed HIV positive -decades- ago... who are still HIV positive... who are still perfectly healthy and not in need of treatment.
Those in need of treatment, obviously, have something wrong with them.
It is quite likely that they will die, no matter what we do for them, or they do for themselves - the same with any degenerative disorder. If you develop Parkinson's Syndrome - guess what...
With regards to your comment about single common infectious agent, the cause is HIV. These are the precipitating and predisposing factors to exacerbate HIV:
... Am I being a ****? Is English not your primary language?
Autoimmune disorders are relatively well known and documented.
What isn't well documented are cases of degenerative disorders of the immune system - similar to the genetic disorders that cause cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, renal failure (have a girl in our clinic who was pretty much born without functioning kidneys - it's both tragic that she was born into such a state and a miracle that we have developed the understanding and ability to keep her alive).
Those would have gone almost completely unnoticed.
The non-specificity of HIV testing is rearing its ugly head in the realization that thousands are surviving for decades without antiretroviral treatment.
"But even the articles said they had chronic illnesses and have defects and stuff"
The same chronic illnesses and defects associated with chronic malnutrition.
So did they have HIV?
The tests say they do/did.
So... either the tests are highly flawed, HIV is not the cause of AIDs, or both.
ELISA and Western blot detect the antibody in the body. But HIV PCR ( HIV – Polymerase chain Reaction) detects the DNA and RNA of the virus that resides and circulates in your blood. First Elisa, then Western Blot, then HIV PCR. And these tests aren’t only done once, they have to be repeated because of the window period of HIV.
They test for numerous antibodies. Standards of testing vary by country. In some, matching only two antibodies counts. In others, it's three. Still others - four.
I'd have to look up the total count, again - but two numbers are in my head of 7 and 12. So... which ones actually constitute HIV?
The more bands, the more likely.
The problem with the DNA testing for the virus is that it isn't really testing the DNA of the virus. It's taking a lot of DNA fragments and putting them through a process where they combine together and amplify for a test. (in simple-person speak). Which is precisely why HIV has been shown to have such insane rates of mutation. That is simply the errors of the process being expressed.
Which is why the people who created the process say it is being abused and misused within Virology.
Also, are we forgetting that there is physical examination as well as supplemental diagnostic tests to arrive at such conclusion? The doctor doesn’t only rely on those two, hence why there is a head-to-foot physical examination and a holistic approach in the treatment.
What physical examination can be done to determine what virus a person is infected with - aside from a proven specific test for antibodies, genetic analysis, or electron microscope images?
I mean... I can tell that your kidney is failing. I might be able to, through a process of elimination, rule out a few obvious possible causes.... but is it because of Hepatitis? Genetic disorder? Chronic lifestyle conditions? Physical damage?
The witch-doctor does a full physical analysis, as well, and most of them do what they can to take good care of their patients in a holistic approach, as well. And in his mind - he's treating people exactly to how he was taught the world worked.
This one’s for the infant, since in the OP the patient is one.
That's a list of catch-alls with "Reactive HIV culture" appended.
Link one summary: Maraviroc works. When patients are about to undergo bone grafts or organ donations, corticosteroids are given so that your own body, seing that the “bone” or “organ” is alien, will not reject it. In that article, Maraviroc, a HIV drug, is being considered to be used as medication for transplant patients.
Link two summary: Immunosuppressants mycophenolic acid and cyclosporine, and the chemotherapeutic, cytarabine inhibit HIV virus replication.
Africa is in complete agreement, here. Sub-Saharan tribes are well known for their prompt and effective use of HAART.
HIV is one weird virus. Same with Herpes 1 and 2, same with Tuberculosis. They attack, stay dormant for years, and when you’re immune system is weak, they go for the kill. That is what separates HIV from smallpox, apart from the fact that smallpox already has a vaccine.
They go latent, sleep in your body for a while, and when you least expect them, they come back. That is basically Latency and Reactivation.
Except Herpes can be well defined and tested for. As with TB. Even so, the viruses are always active, it is just that they do not always produce physical symptoms.
We can still test for the presence of Variola in the fluids where it resides to later produce Shingles in older people. The same goes for Herpes and TB.
The problem is that HIV has such low transmission rates, is allowed to have decades of incubation time to practically infect people from 'beyond the grave.' It is afforded completely unreasonable capabilities on the virtue of: "Something has to be causing AIDs, and there's a few antibodies we can find and stack some DNA together to make something... that... uh..."
If you were to present the infection statistics, demographic data, and the methods of testing to an epidemiologist who didn't know you were presenting him/her with HIV statistics - he/she'd tell you that you were chasing phantoms and phantasms. A virus with such poor communicability simply cannot become an epidemic, and certainly not a new epidemic. Real infectious organisms do not discriminate so strongly among demographics - they primarily discriminate along infection vectors - demographics more exposed to certain infection vectors are where it thrives. This is not the case with HIV (homosexuals in one country are much more likely to be HIV positive than homosexuals in another country. The Army is four times as likely to test positive for HIV as the other branches of service (in the US) - all demographics not even remotely related to infection statistics in Asia or Europe).
It's chasing ghosts.
Imagine, for all those times, all those years not knowing they’re already inside of the body, opportunistic infections like Herpes 1 & 2, PCP, STIs, PTB, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, all those will invade your body and when the time comes that you have CD4+ T cells <200/microL + 1 Opportunistic infection, then comes AIDS.
This is stuff we were studying in sixth grade. Ironically, we were studying how HAART didn't work as they thought it would. They blamed it on mutation of the virus.
The thing is, years later, other groups would re-evaluate the placebo effect, and find that the placebo effect in modern days is far stronger than it was back in the 50s (likely due to a stronger belief/faith in modern medicine). The effect of psychological factors on immune health has long been documented - and you'll find that the results of early HAART treatment was in line with the placebo effect.
Doctors prescribed a new treatment, and the resulting placebo effect was a 'critical hit' on the immune system.
For a few years.
It was a case of hospital negligence. Not following SOP of blood transfusion.
You must be registered for see links
. Incidentally, it’s also a place that has a high percentage of occurrence of HIV.
You must be registered for see links
.
The original article is generating a 404 at present - so I can't review it to determine whether or not we are referring to the same case. I'll take your word on that one, as accident is more probable than miracle.
But the same applies to the instance of the OP - the data suggest it is far more likely that the baby was never actually infected with HIV to begin with.
Africa is where just about every starving person who died gets labeled as an AIDs victim.
With the known transmission rates of HIV - the Africain AIDs epidemic can -not- be caused by communication of HIV. The math doesn't even begin to work.
Mbiki was against retroviral (anti-HIV) medications, and 171,000 HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007
The more you learn, the more obvious it becomes that people in every profession are stupid as hell. Some just learned to use bigger words.
People behind House of Numbers and other AIDS denialists often quote scientists ranging form Dr. Galo to Dr. Padian. Dr. Padian has already released a statement because her interview and her paper about AIDS was always taken out of context.
I deal with data. I only bother to remember the names of people I consider family. Honestly, half the research papers I read deal with information, trends, and explanations that have implications the author never appears to grasp.
Basically, Ms. Padian, while having done great ground-work, doesn't even understand the context of HIV skepticism.
You can place all of the bold around her statements you want to - her cited work does not address whether or not HIV is communicated through sexual intercourse. What her work did was allow us to estimate the rates of infection under various circumstances.
What she doesn't understand is that her rates of infection/transmission/communication pretty much lead to the impossibility of the HIV/AIDs epidemic.
False positives.
For example, I went and drank coffee as well as jogged, and didn’t rest for 30 minutes before taking my BP. I had a BP of 150/90 mm Hg.
Next time I drank Gatorade and ate chocolate, did not rest for 30 minutes and I checked my BP. It was 140/80 mm Hg.
Last time I took a rest, but I did not put my hands on top of the table and decided to check my BP with my hands lying limp and not raised to the table. My BP was 150/80 mm Hg.
Could you say I’m hypertensive? No. Because all three of those gave me False Positive results.
The links you have shown me, they put in their conclusions that some factors can create scenarios leading to false positive results in HIV testing. That in these cases were those factors are present, you can have an HIV+ result.
The link about the dog, the conclusion pretty much summarizes what the report yielded.
You must be registered for see images
All these links, they all have a thing in common: evaluate all possible factors that may contribute to False-Positive HIV results.
The problem is the sheer number of false positive results.
Particularly those triggered by those pesky latent viruses and by general immune distress.
Which is precisely the slew of non-specific results one would expect when we attempt to both[/i] isolate and test for a virus indirectly. Since, using that method, you are essentially correlating immune response against immune response.
Which is why it's a mess.
That being said, I’ll leave you with a scenario. Suppose in the near future you accidentally contracted HIV and diagnosed by a highly esteemed and capable physician. Your doctor recommends you with HAART therapy. Would you accept it?
No. I would request that I be allowed to take daily (or perhaps weekly) blood samples at a specified time. I would also request to have as complete of a genetic sequencing done on me as possible at the time. I would request that marrow and other tissue samples be taken yearly (and post mortem).
I would direct a minimum of two different labs in three sets - one set told to look for HIV infection, another to look for degenerative tissue/immune/genetic disorders, and another given no pretext.
Perhaps I will die. Perhaps I will not die.
That is irrelevant to the importance of analysis and discovery.
If yes, then there’s much to talk to your physician.
Not really. It's pretty straight forward. Look up prescription based on body mass, age, a couple related factors. Swallow pills. Take care of self. Have faith in the system so as not to generate a negative placebo effect and counteract the whole thing.
The part most people don't do is take care of themselves. Numerous studies will show physical and/or lifestyle therapy to be just as (if not more) effective as surgeries. Why do people opt for surgeries? Because they want to treat their body like it's a car. Take it in to the mechanic to get fixed, use it and abuse it a week later.
I suspect chemotherapies have a similar problem that has seeped into them over the years.
If your answer is no, then I respect your decision. Kindly also respect mine, that I do not wish to elaborate more of the subject, and let’s agree to disagree.
It is a resolution without a resolution. "Let's just agree not to talk about this anymore. I don't care to understand you or your viewpoint, but I can't very well hit you in the face like I want to, either."
For the reader, thank you for reading this. For your patience and willingness to learn something. I know it’s quite boring to read all that, but hopefully you learned something from it.
What citations you did use were partial citations that would be more difficult for anyone not familiar with the material to digest. You offered little explanation as to what it was that you were actually citing, or how it was relevant.
I, on the other hand, am guilty of making very broad citations that expect another person to read through entire articles I've posted, as I do not wish to reinvent the wheel every time I turn around.
And Hopefully this is my last wallie. Crossing my fingers that this won’t get deleted T_T
Your aversion to discussion will only further entrench your weaknesses.
While there is something to be said for being concise - there is also something to be said against being shallow. Shallow discussion and shallow reading will give you a shallow perspective with a shallow understanding.
Why in the hell would your post get deleted, though?
I could understand if some mod/admin decided not to like my tone and give me a slap on the pee-pee, but I'd consider it a grievous misuse of authority for a mod/admin to take action against your post (I ... can't even begin to see why they would).
