|
On February 14 2011 23:56 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:49 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more. LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly  Nice of you to ignore second part of his post. The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
Exept, they did not actually respond to any of the argument, the arguments are STILL left unanswered. All they did was the same thing you do, ignore the argument and state your opinion again.
But want more? Sure, i got a whole website full of people way way smarter than me i can quote, i can understand what they are saying and would be generally interested in seeing evedice for the opposite:
http://www.aidstruth.org/NIAIDEvidenceThatHIVCausesAIDS
Lets start with a simple argument, to make it easier for you to disprove it. If you can do that we will go on to the bigger ones!
"Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host."
Meaning, if a healthy person/monkey gets injected with HIV they will develop AIDS. It is a simple argument really, you test and see what happens. Basic science!
Source, with cases of humans and chimpanse:
+ Show Spoiler +Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
In addition, through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors. The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999). For example, in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17).
Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS. Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2, a less virulent variant of HIV which causes AIDS in people, also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons. More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189).
For me the best evidence would be the animal testing. If you have 10 monkies, you inject 5 of them with HIV and they develop AIDS and the rest dont that is pretty much proven beyond any resonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS.
I really really urge you to try the same and see if you can inject a mammal with a HIV-strain that effects it in a similar way as humans are effected and prove that they do *not* develop AIDS despite having untreated HIV.
|
On February 15 2011 00:12 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 00:04 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade  AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? I am just asking for the citation that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is that really so challenging? That is the burden of proof that I am asking about. Then I can respond to it. That is what I need to make a counter argument. Here is an account of Kary Mullis looking for the same thing in his own words. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.htmlI would like to have a discussion, truly, but it is not possible with the, "Disprove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rhetoric. If you notice in that account, Kary Mullis does not agree with Duesberg in everything, actually, they disagree on a lot, as I don't either, which is why often times there are conflicting opinions on things that I have posted. However, the fundament that the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS cannot be found is agreed upon. Why is that question so avoided and why does standing up for the fact that nobody can answer it label one as a zealot or instantaneously no longer able to be qualified? Why does the question lead to the absence of good discussion? Did you read the articles I linked for you? What exactly disqualifies their findings?
Nah he doesn't do that. He just goes in circles repeating the same claims, and cherry-picking his responses, in much the way we cycle in here from time to time with relevant sources for him to read.
|
On February 15 2011 00:07 Subversive wrote:Ok, you didn't refer to his sources, so I'm reposting his post: Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 10:24 YoungNeil wrote:On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote:
Funny, as there has never been evidence to prove the existence of HIV published. You would be the first. Do pictures count? + Show Spoiler +It's actually a very well-documented virus, your claim that it doesn't even exist is laughable. We know what kind of cells in the body it infects (primarily macrophages and CD4+ T Cells), we know its structure (pretty much your typical retrovirus, with its own unique markers, of course), and we know its taxonomic variations ( see here). It's been examined more closely than almost any other pathogen in history. On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote:
All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize and be the first to publish such a thing Yeah, that happened.The link between HIV and AIDS is extremely well-supported. It fulfills all of Koch's postulates, as established by numerous studies. It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV. I could give all kinds of sources to look at, if you're willing to seriously consider just how far you've been misled. AIDS denialism (arguably an ad-hominem term, I suppose, but certainly no worse than the language used in the first article) has been pseudoscience since the nineties. And unlike many popular conspiracy theories, it kills people, every day. Spreading this kind of nonsense is very dangerous, and you need to make sure that you're extremely confident in your beliefs before you try to convince others to risk their lives on it. Note everyone, the drawing and photograph were for your benefit AcuWill, as you had claimed that there isn't proof that HIV exists. He didn't mention Africa, now you're off on a tangent again. Lastly, although I didn't think you'd respond to the sources he provided, I figured I'd give it a shot for you to prove me wrong. However I think everyone should now see it's clearly useless discussing this with your further, as you ignore parts of arguments that contradict your position and then try to resteer the conversation onto topics of your own choosing - like you've just done with Africa. Further, you deliberately try and obfuscate matters as now, with how you've mentioned the seemingly inexplicable relevance of the picture and drawing that show HIV exists - without acknowledge this was in response to your own claim.
I did not notice the links on my first read.
They are simply links to tens of HIV/AIDS research articles. Not one shows that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
They talk about CD4+ lymphocytes, transmission, assays, but not the probable cause of AIDS. There are tons of citations for the above, but I would like to quote a section that does discuss the "numerous studies" indicating HIV as the probable cause of AIDS.
Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.
Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
Odd how this is nestled neatly in the middle of so many sections with tens of citations, but this one is completely devoid of any? Is that not what I have been saying the whole time?
On this link: http://www.aidstruth.org/science/studies
There are 4 links regarding "The Discovery of HIV and its relationship to AIDS". Note that does not say that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
The first is simply stating that they have found a retrovirus in a host of people with AIDS defining diseases. That is not causation, rather an observation, much like, murders and ice-cream sales go up in the summer.
The second is an awful paper by Gallo that if you actually read, which I did state in an earlier post, shows nothing more than a less than casual evidence of HTLV-III (precursor name to HIV) in AIDS risk patients. If you actually read the paper, there is no way this casual evidence of HTLV-III even indicates a correlation to AIDS patients, let alone causation. Further, you can see his original publication document and Gallo's own fraud with regard to this paper in his own handwriting at the link I posted earlier. http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background
The third link is a citation-less discussion about how Gallo and Montagnier went about discovering HIV. Once again, no HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
The fourth link is a paper on the importance of epidemiology and HIV, that doesn't even provide an abstract when clicked, it is broken. One again no discussion of HIV causative factor of AIDS.
The final link provided once again offers nothing about HIV being the causative factor of AIDS. http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-00&doc=kb-02-01-04
There is one paper that discusses the immunopathogenesis of HIV, but it too does not show that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. Instead it starts with the following caveat, "Although the precise mechanisms of immune dysfunction remain incompletely understood, virtually every arm of the immune response may be affected by HIV infection," it goes on to try to cite how every arm of the immune response may be effected. No HIV is the causative factor of AIDS, just lots of beating around the bush, discussion secondary markers, immune response, etc. This is not the same thing as HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
So, where in any of those postings is the evidence that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS? Did I miss something, because if so, please point it out. I will happily reply to an argument of that nature.
|
On February 15 2011 00:22 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:56 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 23:49 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more. LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post. The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it? Exept, they did not actually respond to any of the argument, the arguments are STILL left unanswered. All they did was the same thing you do, ignore the argument and state your opinion again. But want more? Sure, i got a whole website full of people way way smarter than me i can quote, i can understand what they are saying and would be generally interested in seeing evedice for the opposite: http://www.aidstruth.org/NIAIDEvidenceThatHIVCausesAIDSLets start with a simple argument, to make it easier for you to disprove it. If you can do that we will go on to the bigger ones! "Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host." Meaning, if a healthy person/monkey gets injected with HIV they will develop AIDS. It is a simple argument really, you test and see what happens. Basic science! Source, with cases of humans and chimpanse: + Show Spoiler +Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
In addition, through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors. The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999). For example, in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17).
Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS. Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2, a less virulent variant of HIV which causes AIDS in people, also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons. More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189). For me the best evidence would be the animal testing. If you have 10 monkies, you inject 5 of them with HIV and they develop AIDS and the rest dont that is pretty much proven beyond any resonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS. I really really urge you to try the same and see if you can inject a mammal with a HIV-strain that effects it in a similar way as humans are effected and prove that they do *not* develop AIDS despite having untreated HIV.
You do realize that not one of the citations and discussions actually talk about HIV being the causative factor of AIDS? They talk around it, but not about it.
Once again I quote:
Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.
Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).
No citation. When they actually get to talking about it, there are no citations. They nestle this inbetween lots of peripheral discussion with citations, but this section get none.
So, where is the evidence in the link you provided?
|
You have to be a real hack to use Tommy Morrison in your article condemning the integrity of the test and the business behind the tests. Morris is a dude who is down on his luck and broke, without any other skills besides punching people, and he was butthurt for years by the stigma that AIDS is only for gays.
The fact that this writer would essentially use the argument of 'pharm companies stand to gain a lot on this lie' and use Tommy as evidence of that.... holy shit.
It's honestly more depressing that the length of this thread indicates there's actually morons here who'd do anything other that laugh at this.
|
On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance: Current concepts in AIDS ...
There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference.
Let me make an example:
Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain.
Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin.
Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain.
There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
|
Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum:
AIDS Denialism and Public Health Policy
Enjoy!
|
On February 15 2011 00:44 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote:On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance: Current concepts in AIDS ... There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference. Let me make an example: Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain. There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
Did you read the article and not just the abstract!?
|
On February 15 2011 00:47 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 00:44 AcuWill wrote:On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote:On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance: Current concepts in AIDS ... There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference. Let me make an example: Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain. There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link. Did you read the article and not just the abstract!?
The speed at which he is replying has made it quite clear that he isn't actually reading anything at all :p
Why someone would act all high and mighty and demand rigorous explanations of a scientific topic while at the same time refusing to (or more reasonably, being unable to) actually read scientific literature is beyond me but I must admit it is kind of funny.
However I have the utmost respect for your (and others in this thread) perseverence considering how important the topic is.
If you guys managed to stop even one person from believing that "AIDS denialism" is a valid position then you could literaly have saved a life ~~
|
On February 15 2011 00:44 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote:On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance: Current concepts in AIDS ... There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference. Let me make an example: Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain. There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
This is what I was talking about with your irrational desire for "proof." Again to use the evolution analogy:
Claim-We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees
Evidence-morphology, DNA similarities and divergences, ERVs, fused chromosome 2, embryology, etc.
Lacking-DNA samples from every individual in the succession from a current human back to that common ancestor and then back forward in time to a modern Chimp.
Is that reasonable? Of course not. It's like taking an HIV test; you may never have the 100% proof you want, but you can get pretty damn close.
|
Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree?
Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree?
Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree?
If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
|
On February 15 2011 00:44 MiraMax wrote:Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum: AIDS Denialism and Public Health PolicyEnjoy!
All of the individuals that received those exposures were put on chemotherapeutic agents and then developed immune suppression, which is actually exactly Duesberg's arguments. Your evidence validates his theory.
He actually discusses and refutes exactly what you have posted in his article: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html .
Further, the nature of what you have posted does not indicate that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. The evidence you have indicates that individuals after HIV exposure and taking long term chemotherapy develop immune suppression. The claims that individuals get AIDS after HIV exposure are cited by reports, not research studies indicating HIV is the causative factor of AIDS [Citation: (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)].
And then you cite that animals that are chemically given "human immune systems" get immunosupression. Really? You mean the animals that are immunosupressed animals get immunosupressed?
Without seeing the actual studies regarding the chimps and baboons it would be difficult to comment. But the typical way of introducing the foreign matter is by repeatedly injecting reasonably large quantities of it directly into their central nervous systems. No wonder they present with some of the AIDS defining diseases, like diarrhea, weight loss, and immunosupression. Note the several steps away from HIV is the causative factor of AIDS to, in primates when injected (somewhere, likely their central nervous system) with repeated doses of foreign matter they present with some AIDS defining diseases. Hardly proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
Aids defining diseases.
• Candidiasis
• Cervical cancer (invasive)
• Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Cryptosporidiosis
• Cytomegalovirus disease
• Encephalopathy (HIV-related)
• Herpes simplex (severe infection)
• Histoplasmosis
• Isosporiasis
• Kaposi’s sarcoma
• Lymphoma (certain types)
• Mycobacterium avium complex
• Pneumocystis carinii/jiroveci pneumonia
• Pneumonia (recurrent)
• Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
• Salmonella septicemia (recurrent)
• Toxoplasmosis of the brain
• Tuberculosis
• Wasting syndrome
|
On February 15 2011 00:47 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 00:44 AcuWill wrote:On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote:On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance: Current concepts in AIDS ... There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference. Let me make an example: Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain. There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link. Did you read the article and not just the abstract!?
You did not provide me with the article, but the abstract has nothing to do with HIV being the causative factor of AIDS, so I doubt the article does. Did you read the article? If so, why did you bother posting this?
And with regard to the articles and the speed of my replies in my previous posts, there were 4 actual articles, 3 of which I had read before.
|
I've always understood that HIV worked like this:
1. HIV enters human body.
2. HIV proceeds to latch onto T cells.
3. T cells die, spreading HIV throughout the human body.
4. Process repeats until T cells are destroyed.
5. Immune system is effectively destroyed.
Sounds like AIDS to me.
|
On February 15 2011 01:02 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 00:44 MiraMax wrote:Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum: AIDS Denialism and Public Health PolicyEnjoy! All of the individuals that received those exposures were put on chemotherapeutic agents and then developed immune suppression, which is actually exactly Duesberg's arguments. Your evidence validates his theory. He actually discusses and refutes exactly what you have posted in his article: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html . Further, the nature of what you have posted does not indicate that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. The evidence you have indicates that individuals after HIV exposure and taking long term chemotherapy develop immune suppression. The claims that individuals get AIDS after HIV exposure are cited by reports, not research studies indicating HIV is the causative factor of AIDS [Citation: (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)]. And then you cite that animals that are chemically given "human immune systems" get immunosupression. Really? You mean the animals that are immunosupressed animals get immunosupressed? Without seeing the actual studies regarding the chimps and baboons it would be difficult to comment. But the typical way of introducing the foreign matter is by repeatedly injecting reasonably large quantities of it directly into their central nervous systems. No wonder they present with some of the AIDS defining diseases, like diarrhea, weight loss, and immunosupression. Note the several steps away from HIV is the causative factor of AIDS to, in primates when injected (somewhere, likely their central nervous system) with repeated doses of foreign matter they present with some AIDS defining diseases. Hardly proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. Aids defining diseases.• Candidiasis • Cervical cancer (invasive) • Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Cryptosporidiosis • Cytomegalovirus disease • Encephalopathy (HIV-related) • Herpes simplex (severe infection) • Histoplasmosis • Isosporiasis • Kaposi’s sarcoma • Lymphoma (certain types) • Mycobacterium avium complex • Pneumocystis carinii/jiroveci pneumonia • Pneumonia (recurrent) • Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy • Salmonella septicemia (recurrent) • Toxoplasmosis of the brain • Tuberculosis • Wasting syndrome
I directly linked a source for you which contains ample details of the similarities between SIV, HIV and how they lead to AIDS and the paper by Chigwedere and Essex lists further clinical studies, mechanistic analyses and demographic surveys, lots of which carried out in the last five years and you answer by posting a paper by Duesberg from 2003? Do you realize that Chigwedere and Essex explicitly cite and discuss the paper of Duesberg from 2003? Can you tell me how he could possibly reply to a critique put forward to him in 2010 in a paper he wrote 7 years earlier?
Do you actually have access to pubmed articles (no, not just the abstracts, the real articles)? Are you really a phd student?
|
On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote:Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree? Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree? Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree? If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
As simple as this argument may be, it is the strongest I've seen on this thread.
|
Why is this still being argued? I'm starting to think that this is just a huge troll thread. I'm not even sure there's anything more I can add to the previous 12 pages without repeating someone. There's just so much overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS. As a graduate student looking to get a PhD in immunology and microbiology, I can tell you rather definitively that we've invested millions of dollars in HIV/AIDS research (thank you for paying my salary, NIH!) and I've read more papers than I care to cite on HIV from every possible scientific field (immunology, epidemiology, microbiology...). As everyone has already pointed out countless sources, I really don't know what else to add. At the most basic level, I don't understand how you can't see that:
1. Untreated AIDS patients are in terrible shape and die within a few years
2. Scientists make drugs and treatments for HIV
3. AIDS patients who undergo HIV treatment have a return to their normal quality of life and can live 20+ years. Pregnant women with AIDS are given HIV treatment and have a near 0% of giving their babies AIDS.
So you have ARVs that are specifically designed to inhibit HIV mechanisms and through some miracle, it helps with AIDS. Coincidence?
AcuWill, regardless who who's burden it is to provide the proof, aren't you at least glad that we've developed treatments based on our understanding of the disease that is effective across all patient types (homosexuals, drug users, heterosexuals, children)? If it's not the cause of AIDS, well then God is fucking with us and healing AIDS patients who happen to be receiving HIV treatments at the same time.
|
On February 15 2011 01:17 Capulet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote:Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree? Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree? Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree? If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system. As simple as this argument may be, it is the strongest I've seen on this thread.
Betting he doesn't attempt to answer it though.
|
On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote:Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree? Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree? Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree? If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
I do not agree with your third statement, and have questions about your second.
See table 4, number 4 for the citations that discuss why I disagree. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
Also a quote from your last source, "Despite more than 20 years of study, the mechanism by which HIV so effectively depletes CD4 T cells in untreated, infected subjects remains a mystery." That is hardly proof that HIV infects CD4+ lymphocytes and causes them to die. In fact, your source indicates that how it occurs is a mystery, ie. there is no evidence.
Then in the next sentence: "It is precisely this progressive elimination of CD4 T cells that leads to AIDS." So it is precisely this mystery pathway with no evidence that leads to the progressive elimination of CD4+ lymphocytes? With what evidence? The previous sentence stated there was no evidence and it was unknown. So how can one make a such a statement. Well lets refer to the proof, the evidence the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
No such evidence exists.
Once again, this discussion does not provide evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
You have resorted to arguing other points, leading further and further from the crux of the argument, that there is no proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are in fact supporting my argument by doing so.
|
On February 15 2011 01:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 01:17 Capulet wrote:On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote:Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree? Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree? Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree? If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system. As simple as this argument may be, it is the strongest I've seen on this thread. Betting he doesn't attempt to answer it though. There is a lag time between the initial post and the follow up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aOCNS.jpg)
