EPTAIDS Denialism? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
| ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On February 13 2011 12:51 Consolidate wrote: Half of me wants this thread to remain open in hopes of educating the uninformed. The other half wants this thread closed to avoid giving credence to the anti-intellectual phenomenon that is HIV/AIDS Denialism. Additionally, you better have a solid fucking counter argument to 200+ years of research into germ theory and 30 years research into AIDS itself before anyone is going to take you seriously. + Show Spoiler + Unless, of course, denying an HIV/AIDS link furthers your agenda somehow. | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable. For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others. ![[image loading]](http://molbio.med.miami.edu/HIV-Aids/Pictures/wbtests.gif) The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins. How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS? Questions to think about. Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins." http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/files/NIHRebuttal.pdf Edit: The group of individuals who question HIV not causing AIDS are fundamental Christians or radicals in any manner. Here is a list of 2,745 individuals who question the theory and their credentials. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:17 Capulet wrote: Can it just be a coincidence that all AIDS patients happen to have HIV? See the link in my post above. Your statement of fact is not a fact in any manner, but very much open to debate. | ||
|
Akill_
United Kingdom80 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling. Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable. For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others. The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins. How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS? Questions to think about. Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins." http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/files/NIHRebuttal.pdf acuwill i applaud your ability to apply reason and defend yourself from the hordes of sheeple. i wish more people would think about why there is an argument in the first place rather than drawing conclusions based on who shouts louder or who said first. | ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling. Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable. For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others. The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins. How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS? Questions to think about. Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins." http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/files/NIHRebuttal.pdf How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself... "How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?" Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism What the heck has this got to do with the holocaust? Besides no-one 'denies' the holocaust happened they just question how many people did actually die in those camps. Likewise with climate change 'deniers' , noone actually denies that climate change occurs - like when the earth thawed from the last ice age 10,000 years ago or when it went through the medieval warm period or little ice ages 200 years ago.These are all proven examples of 'climate change' or global warming as it used to be known as. Stop putting all these under the 'denier' bracket. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:31 Akill_ wrote: acuwill i applaud your ability to apply reason and defend yourself from the hordes of sheeple. i wish more people would think about why there is an argument in the first place rather than drawing conclusions based on who shouts louder or who said first. You do realize that your criticism of HIV is true of pretty much all Western Blot procedures and is duly taken into account when regarding the results? When I was tested for Lyme disease, the standards were not the same across all institutions and the result was not with 100% certainty In any case, the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2648922 Can you stop with your nonsense already? | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:32 nihoh wrote: How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself... "How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?" Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific. That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On February 13 2011 14:07 AcuWill wrote: That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment. What exactly are you implying? AID's doesn't exist? HIV doesn't exist? There is a conspiracy to infect arbitrary HIV false-positive people with whatever causes AIDS? | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On February 13 2011 14:07 AcuWill wrote: That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment. Some of those tests are more likely to give either false positivesor false negatives, and the standard for such would be different in different countries. However just because the test has a different standard doesn't mean it will give different results if they are testing highly correlated things. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
-Suppose there's something that can make HIV emerge from latency -Since effective anti-virals exist, this would in effect make it possible for HIV to be eradicated from the body -If that happened, according to the HIV-AIDS theory, the AIDS symptoms would disappear. The twist is, said compound exists (prostatin) I believe its undergoing Phase I trails. So I guess we'll find out soon who's right yes? The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. BS, its because you're ignoring/avoiding the actual journal articles presented as counters to your arguments. | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:50 Consolidate wrote: You do realize that your criticism of HIV is true of pretty much all Western Blot procedures and is duly taken into account when regarding the results? When I was tested for Lyme disease, the standards were not the same across all institutions and the result was not with 100% certainty In any case, the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2648922 Can you stop with your nonsense already? I cannot comment on a paper I cannot read. The abstract does not count. PCR results have been shown to not adequately correlate with CD4+ decline. Here's a real paper, that I have actually read, not summary of a paper you never did. http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/files/RodriguezJAMA2006.pdf Edit: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: I cannot comment on a paper I cannot read. The abstract does not count. PCR results have been shown to not adequately correlate with CD4+ decline. Here's a real paper, that I have actually read, not summary of a paper you never did. http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/files/RodriguezJAMA2006.pdf Direct HIV RNA levels may not correlate with CD4 cell loss. However, it is entirely possible for HIV RNA levels to remain variable while still instigating the death of CD4 cells. More HIV =/= fewer helper t-cells. This is without regard to your apparent claim that HIV doesn't exist at all.... | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On February 13 2011 14:14 Krikkitone wrote: Some of those tests are more likely to give either false positivesor false negatives, and the standard for such would be different in different countries. However just because the test has a different standard doesn't mean it will give different results if they are testing highly correlated things. One test, same results, interpreted under different clinical guidelines in different countries. There is no discussion of standards, only of data interpretation. This is like having the equation 2+2 given to different countries and getting different answers. It is very interesting how numerous posters have needed to create their own "data" or "mental arguments" so that they don't actually have to acknowledge the point I am making. Cognitive dissonance anyone? And this is truly my last reply. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On February 13 2011 14:31 AcuWill wrote: One test, same results, interpreted under different clinical guidelines in different countries. There is no discussion of standards, only of data interpretation. This is like having the equation 2+2 given to different countries and getting different answers. It is very interesting how numerous posters have needed to create their own "data" or "mental arguments" so that they don't actually have to acknowledge the point I am making. Cognitive dissonance anyone? And this is truly my last reply. Please point to the fabricated data. | ||
|
Capulet
Canada686 Posts
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling. Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable. For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others. The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins. How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS? Questions to think about. Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins." http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/files/NIHRebuttal.pdf Can I ask for the original source of this picture? It is taken out of context, but at first glance your interpretation of it is completely wrong. It simply tells us what which HIV proteins were able to be isolated at which specific country. Eg: AFR was able to consistently isolate and 2 of the Env proteins. If anything, it tells us that they were able to consistently isolate HIV proteins, and it is to be expected that you won't be able to find the same proteins in every country because, like almost all viruses, HIV has many strains. In fact, it is a very variable virus that mutates readily, So if you use the exact same Ab in your western blott and you test different strains of HIV, you're obviously not going see the presence of the exact same strain. But like I said, without context your interpretation, as well as mine, mean nothing. And I read through the article, despite it not being from a reputable source. One particular section of interest is the "HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS". The author uses circular logic to defend his point - follow my train of thought: Criticizing the 3 techniques mentioned in the article that are were used to detect HIV will only show (assuming the foundation for the criticism is strong) that the techniques used to detect the virus were not adequate - nothing more. If one wants to prove that HIV is not present, then one must use a technique to demonstrate this. The author explains that the best technique to prove the virus is present is by viral purification through culturing it. However, this technique is not used in hospitals because it is not refined enough yet (or it may not even be possible with this technique). Thus, if you use this technique, you will obviously not find any viruses. Yet the author goes on to source an article where the investigator was unable to culture viruses from people who had "viral loads". He then uses this as an argument to demonstrate the inability to isolate the virus from HIV sufferers. | ||
|
LesPhoques
Canada782 Posts
| ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
On February 13 2011 14:07 AcuWill wrote: That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment. Sadly it's exactly what you said. One person cannot exist in two different countries and get AIDS and not get AIDS. Are you trying to say that in using Western Blot tests in different countries may result in different conclusions for the same sample? Doesn't mean much for one thing - this happens with any test. No test has 100% specificity. In fact you can send the same test result to the same lab and have it tested twice and get two different results. That in itself is nothing. Whether a person is validated as having HIV positive status and whether they are not (due to Western Blotting) is a totally seperate issue to whether they have HIV and will get AIDS in reality. The reality is, if you have HIV, and it is not detected and noted and do not get re-tested after a negative result, you will most likely have AIDS within the timeframe of a few decades. The reality is, if you have HIV and you do get it detected, and do not do anything about it, you will most likely have AIDS within the timeframe of a few decades. [QUOTE: in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS] Western Blotting accurate or not, countless papers have shown HIV is correlated and in most probability, the cause for AIDS. And Western Blotting is pretty a pretty standard analytical technique, so if you want to go at the AIDS is not caused by HIV argument, start somewhere else, because this line of attack is simply weak. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Edit: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start. When the best ammo you have is a blog and some wiki articles, its not hard to see why people are quickly dismissive of your position, whether it in fact is truly right or wrong. It is a general trend of the internet that in blogs you can generally get away with saying stupid shit. Not saying that's the case here, just saying that it happens enough to diminish any evidentiary value they have. Your current argument seems to be: "the HIV test has an error rate, therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS". I can sort of see where you're going but there's a couple of logical links you have to make to create a solid case. It is very interesting how numerous posters have needed to create their own "data" or "mental arguments" so that they don't actually have to acknowledge the point I am making. While its a flattering thought I don't think you'll find said poster's names on the papers they cite... EDIT: It seems that your reference conflate the loose standards surrounding AIDS diagnoses in Africa with the HIV-AIDS causality itself. While I think the former point is somewhat valid, that doesn't make the latter any more strong. | ||
| ||
